Final paper needed for American Cinema class Topic of paper - The Social and Cultural Impacts of 1993 Film, Philadelphia

INTRODUCTION The LGBTQ background shown in Philadelphia, the first big studio AIDS picture, emphasizes the veracity of the sociocultural significance of this groundbreaking movie. Many members of the LGBTQ community continue to fight for their freedom and acceptance as they are. Because of who they love or how they represent themselves, this community must resist societal and political dogmas like same-sex marriage in order to shift cultural convention. This paper emphasises that this film has significant societal consequences due to its humane approach to AIDS as well as its exposure of the systemic discrimination the LGBTQ community encounters. SUMMARY When it was released in late 1993, the movie, about an attorney who prosecutes his employer after being ousted for having AIDS, had a big impact. Among the first Hollywood movies to take a comprehensive look at homosexuality was Philadelphia (1993). This film was produced not long after the American AIDS crisis. This was created just a few years before the introduction of much more powerful HIV medications in the late 1990s, which allowed many individuals with the disease to lead normal lives, at least in industrialized nations. More than that was achieved with the movie. The way we talk about HIV and AIDS in this country has transformed. Beckett, played by Tom Hanks, is a promising young advocate operating at a prestigious law office. He has AIDS and is gay. He adds that when the corporation finds those two truths, it replaces him. Beckett wants to bring a lawsuit but is experiencing difficulties hiring an attorney to represent him. He subsequently meets Joe Miller, a young attorney played by Denzel Washington. When Miller encounters Beckett being unfairly targeted due to his features, he dismisses the opportunity to collaborate with him out of concern for Beckett and his ailment. By recognising that there isn't any distinction between him and Beckett, Miller is capable of conquering his homophobia in the picture as they eventually understand one another. This movie covers how prejudice influences people in America as well as a homosexual being's journey with AIDS. The captivating depiction of Beckett's judicial and psychological journey is what unfolds. Eventually, he wins the battle, and he passes away. The HIV virus can badly affect an individual's immunity (Ring, 2018). One of the initial movies to take steps to address the notion of AIDS and its repercussions was this one. But the factor that makes this movie so compelling is that it investigates the evolution of discrimination. Miller, an African American guy who dwells in Philadelphia and likely encountered a lot of prejudice in his lifetime, charges Andrew Beckett, depicted by Tom Hanks, with enduring the same kind of bias. Both racial and sexual discrimination are paralleled by employing an African American actor in the portrayal of homophobic attorney Joe Miller. Likewise, this movie makes a conscious effort to eliminate the conventional misconception of homosexual men. Neither of the typical homophobic preconceptions about gay men is reflected in Andrew Beckett's character. He doesn't sound different, he doesn't make different choices, and he doesn't demonstrate any feminine traits that are sometimes displayed in images of gay males. Because this movie emphasises that everyone needs to be treated regardless of sexual orientation, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, the fact that Andrew Beckett is simply an ordinary citizen is a vital component. Philadelphia was designed to provoke strong responses from other uninformed people and provide a significantly sophisticated stance on the personal, political, and scientific components of the illness (Slovacek, 2018). There isn't much potential for metaphorical or figurative undertones in the film's basic premise. Here, Demme is capable of communicating a remarkable degree of compassion for the problem he is addressing: an LGBT individual with AIDS. The movie is quite powerful since it recounts the account of a person who is struggling to stand for his constitutional freedoms with no pity or sarcasm from the makers. RELEVANCE There was a considerable measure of aversion to creating a film on the outbreak, specifically one that concentrated on those who were severely impacted: the LGBT community, irrespective of the fact that Hollywood had lost innumerable people to AIDS, most notably Rock Hudson in 1985. The movie, which garnered $200 million at the box office and got numerous Oscars, sparked discussions, acknowledgment, and further filmmaking initiatives that may have not surfaced from the darkness. While homophobia remains a concern, the stereotype associated with the disease has decreased in the United States, thanks in part to AIDS outreach and awareness.As a nation, we talk about AIDS much less now that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is a treatable illness attributable to medical breakthroughs (Millea, 2019). This picture is particularly noteworthy since it presents a historic court argument in fine form. The HIV and AIDS crisis in the 1980s have been both devastating and puzzling. These diseases were incompletely defined by physicians, and there were no recognised remedies for them. Moreover, there were many inaccuracies and clichés about HIV/AIDS in the limelight (Gordon, 2013). The humanitarian problem of discrimination based on HIV/AIDS was dragged up in court houses in the 1980s, just like civil and human rights matters were handled there in the 1960s (Gordon, 2013). These legal disputes contributed to the increasing understanding of the prejudice challenge further than that was managed in the movie. SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE MOVIE The way we communicate regarding HIV and AIDS in this country has transformed. Philadelphia, the city, contributed substantially to the popularity of the movie, both as a backdrop and a point of inspiration. Just as individuals in Philadelphia and across the country strive to create a brand-new narrative about the illness, the movie appears to still have an influence on numerous individuals, nearly 20 years later. The movie Philadelphia wasn't just filmed there; Philadelphians themselves participated in its making. In the movie, there were about 50 people who had HIV, some of whom exhibited noticeable symptoms. Producers focused their efforts on recruiting AIDS-affected individuals owing to the difficulties they typically experienced in gaining employment (Ring, 2018). Those concerned with the movie and HIV-related research usually think that things have progressed in the twenty years since the film's launch. Considering this, many people believe that the movie and its ideas are still significant in very many surprising ways. The movie revolutionized thoughts about HIV/AIDS from shame to understanding. The media and popular entertainment have a significant effect on how the general populace perceives how contagious diseases function. Some components of this perspective are frequently acknowledged as empirical facts. Similar problems have previously been pointed out to us in connection to the media's ubiquitous and erroneous analytic use of much current wrongheaded nervousness relating to how the Ebola virus is spread as well as the prevalent and untrue analytic use of photos of patients with an illness that is mistakenly believed to be plague. This misconception still exists, and this movie tries to uncover this. Several movies that address how the world reacts to epidemic disease occurrences also provide insights from various perspectives on how individuals react. While anxiety and terror might be coupled with what is thought to be a rupture in societal values, destabilising outbursts can also contribute to social cohesion by preserving rights and practises that are in jeopardy. Films can, at moments, do a terrific job depicting how ailment responses are also sculpted by stratified connections by switching between the broad level of human civilisation or community to the fine level of individual lead characters and good human relations with different socioeconomic and demographic clusters (Han & Curtis, 2020). CONCLUSION The implications of prejudice based on race, gender, sexuality, or illness were something which people didn't want to tackle. It still doesn't, and most of the bigotry portrayed in the movie is still openly widely practiced. It's an excellent method for assessing where we came from and where we are presently. Whilst we have made significant progress, there remains much to be accomplished. "Philadelphia" aimed to smash preconceptions, apathy, and prejudice that made it even more impossible for AIDS patients and queer people to survive. The segments in "Philadelphia" are all thoughtfully constructed to transmit as many concepts as they can in a limited amount of time. It's an important historical account. With that breath-taking introduction of the city and the climax featuring videos of Andy as a typical child, Keeping in view the 1993 portrayals of queer people in popular culture, those were strong declarations. References Gordon, E. (2013, December 20). Two decades ago, Tom Hanks and 'Philadelphia' prompted changing attitudes toward HIV-AIDS. WHYY. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://whyy.org/segments/20th-anniversary-of-philadelphia/ Han, Q., & Curtis, D. R. (2020). Social Responses to Epidemics Depicted by Cinema. NCBI. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6986850/ Howard, J. (2015, February 5). Films That Changed The World: Philadelphia (1993)Films That Changed The World: Philadelphia (1993). Cinema of Change. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.cinemaofchange.com/films-that-changed-the-world-philadelphia-1993/ Maslin, J. (1993, December 22). Review/Film: Philadelphia; Tom Hanks as an AIDS Victim Who Fights the Establishment (Published 1993). The New York Times. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/22/movies/review-film-philadelphia-tom-hanks-aids-victim-who-fights-establishment.html Millea, H. (2019, 01). Looking Back at 'Philadelphia,' 25 Years Later | Arts & Culture. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/looking-back-philadelphia-25-years-later-180971011/ Ring, T. (2018, December 6). Why 'Philadelphia' Remains Relevant. The Advocate. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://www.advocate.com/film/2018/12/06/why-philadelphia-remains-relevant Slovacek, R. (2018, November 2). Stars Of 'Philadelphia' Explore Impact Of The 1993 Oscar-Winning Film On AIDS • Instinct Magazine. Instinct Magazine. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from https://instinctmagazine.com/stars-of-philadelpia-explore-impact-of-the-1993-oscar-winning-film-on-aids/