Analysis: Film Philadelphia

Ethics Film “Philadelphia”

Luis Martínez Iáñez 4º Renoir Page 1

Table of Contents 1. List 5 ethical issues present in the film and explain why they are pertinent to ethics.

Page 3

2. If you would have been in “Tom Hanks� place, would you have done things differently?

If so, what? If not, why not?

Page 5

3. Would this film still be appropriate in 2014? Why?

Page 6

4. What is your appreciation (critique) of the film?

Page 7

Page 2

1. List 5 ethical issues present in the film and explain why they are pertinent to ethics 1) Subjectivism: Subjectivism is the name of the idea which means that ethics concepts are just the opinions you have of them and which ones of the things are obvious for you.

Subjectivism says to each one of us how are concepts, what do we thing about them and if we are agree with them or not. Subjectivism just means that everybody have different opinions about facts, and some of them are not going to be better or worse than others, every own personal opinion is going to be the best one for each one of us individually. Subjectivism is just pertinent to ethics because as it is said: “Ethics is a matter of opinion”.

An example of subjectivism can be people’s favourite food: maybe some people will say that best food in the world is meat, but other people will disagree with them and say the best food is fish. At the end it doesn’t matter which is the best food, because every one of us have different tastes and opinions. All this opinions make ethics.

This ethical issue appears at the film in many times, one example: at the film some people thought that homosexuality relations weren’t correct and feel disgusting about them. But there were a group of people who where agree with it (including the main character of the film). Homosexuality doesn’t have to be ethically wrong or right for everybody, it just depends in your personal opinion.

2) Freedom: Freedom is another ethical issue which just says that everybody in the world is free to make choices and decisions. When we are referring to freedom we are talking about everyone is free, so people can’t be discriminated, enslaved or abused. All people have the same rights and opinions and we can’t harm them by many ways. Freedom is also referring to ethics as an ethical issue that says we also are for making our own decisions. Freedom is pertinent to ethics because if you ought to follow the right path in life you should be able to do it.

An example of freedom can be people’s race: in the world there are some people a little different from us (for example black people), but not for that they aren’t going to have the same privileges and rights as us. All people are humans at the end, so we all have the same rights and that makes us able to follow our right path in life. Freedom also allows people to be ethical.

Freedom appears at the film many times. Some examples: black people are free in the film and no different from others. But the main example of freedom present in the film is when people claim about the freedom of being homosexual. Homosexuals’ don’t have to be discriminated for other people because is free for everyone to choose their sexual orientation.

Page 3

3) Discrimination: Discrimination is another ethical issue which has a really close connection with freedom. It just consists that in some cases a person can considered as an inferior person and their rights are not admitted by other people. Discrimination is pertinent to ethics because it can deprive you from many things, making it a important concept for ethics: if people rights are not admitted for whatever reasons, these people who are discriminated can’t follow the right path in life.

An example of discrimination can be people’s different race, disabilities or other problems: since long time ago in the history people have been discriminated and remove from the society for the reason of having an illness, for example: when people have leprosy long time ago they have to carried a small bell which said to other people they have that illness and they must get away from them.

Discrimination is present in the film in different ways. One of them is of people who have AIDS: people tried to get as fur as possible from them because they didn’t want to contract AIDS, making people with AIDS feel discriminated. The other discrimination very important in the film is homosexuality. At the film homosexuality was very discriminated for those people who didn’t agree with it.

4) Homosexuality: Homosexuality is another ethical issue which just consists in the freedom and rights of people to have a different sexual orientation (relations between people of the same sex). Homosexuality is pertinent to ethics like the ethics of sex because sex is central to relationships of all kinds, and whenever people have relationships between them, ethical (and moral) issues are going to pop up.

Homosexuality is one of the main arguments in the film; it is present between Andrew Beckett and his boyfriend.

5) Determinism: Determinism is an ethical issue which says that everything that happens is inevitable and you aren’t free to do things differently or to express other opinions, it is opposite to ethical issues such as freedom or subjectivism. This theory is pertinent to ethics because it has to do with freedom and we need to know this concept to understand ethics.

An example of determinism can be a dictatorship: in it a dictator says something and anybody can do the opposite or express his own opinion to him. What he says is what you should do and there are not exceptions.

In the film, determinism is expressed in the way that, at that time, some people said homosexuality was wrong and you can’t do anything for it. That’s the reason why the people protest for determinism: people wanted to let other people be free about their choices and not being determinate from others.

Page 4

2. If you would have been in “Tom Hanks” place, would you have done things differently?

If I would be in Tom Hanks place (the main character of Philadelphia), I think I would have done things like him. The main point of the film is that a man called Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) was fired from a very important company only because they discover he has AIDS. Very angry he called other lawyer (Joseph Miller) and then they complaint the company which fired Andrew. Until this point of the film I am in complete agreement with the facts: the main characters (Tom Hanks) complaint the company because it was a clear case of discrimination and it was unfair for him that they fired him because their bosses didn’t want to contract AIDS (although is only contract by blood transfusions and sexual relation ships).

Later on they went to trial and their bosses didn’t recognize their fault and said they fired Andrew Beckett because he was a bad lawyer (when he was the best lawyer in the company). At this point of the film, Andrew’s lawyer (Joseph Miller) starts to talk about the main reason because they fired Andrew Beckett: because he was homosexual. At this point of the film I’m still with Andrew Beckett’s situation: now he wasn’t been fired by AIDS, the reason why he was fired was for being homosexual. This was still unfair for him because his sexual orientation didn’t have nothing to do with his professional work at the company, but at that time lots of people try to avoid homosexuals and they didn’t want to see them (these people include the bosses).

At the end of the film, Andrew Beckett’s lawyer won the trial and the company has to paid money for breaking the law by discriminating a person. But the end isn’t happy for everyone: Andrew Beckett has another attack of his AIDS and he decided to die at the hospital. Although it sounds a bit crazy I think I would have done the same thing because he was just living in very poor conditions and with machines to help him breathe, which is not life. So instead of suffer every day until death I think that spmetimes it is better to die and end with suffering.

To conclude I have to say that Tom Hanks did the right thing and made a fairer world by protesting about certain types of discrimination.

Page 5

3. Would this film still be appropriate in 2014? Why?

I think that this film will still be appropriate in 2014, because despite of having many years (the film was made in 1993) the important things of this film are not the special effects, the beautiful places or other points, the most important concepts of the film are the argument and the meaning of the film, which generally says that we are all free to choose and there is no point to discriminate others for being a little different from us in other aspects (illness or sexual orientation).

I have to say that now days people who have AIDS or are homosexual are been lot more respected that in the time the film was made. This film introduced a big chance 20 years ago, because in that time homosexuals and people with AIDS or other disabilities were more discriminated, but now days people are more familiar and are accustomed with people such as homosexuals, actually there are many countries were homosexual marry is allowed (countries such as Spain or U.S.A). With the people who have AIDS nowadays we don’t discriminate them as they do some years ago, in the past they get away from them because they didn’t know a lot from it and they though that it could be transmitted by contact or for being close to them. At the present, we know a lot more about it and many people know that it can only be transmitted by blood transfusions or sexual relationships.

In my opinion I am in agreement with the content of the film to be appropriate for us, because the film shows us some very important concepts about the freedom we should have for everything. I think is a very nice film which makes us stop and start to think about the meaning of these parts of the film which have an important significance.

To conclude I have to confirm I am in complete agreement with this film being appropriate for 2014 or for any time ago or future.

Page 6

4. What is your appreciation (critique) of the film?

The film we have watched: “Philadelphia”, has been for me a very good film which I have enjoyed a lot. Like I have said in the third exercise, I have found this film very good booth in the film argument and history and in the meaning of it.

Talking about my appreciation (critique of the film), I have to say that it was very good and I understand why this film won some of the prizes for the best film of the year in1993. In this film I have found lots of things I have agree with them and I like, but there are also some parts of it that didn’t seem to me as good as the others: On the one hand, there are lots of positives in the film (maybe for me). As I have said, I really enjoyed the argument and the different ethical meanings which contain the film. Other things I have enjoyed are the actors, among them are: Denzel Washington (Andrew’s lawyer at the trial), Antonio Banderas (Andrew’s boyfriend), Jason Robards (the judge of the case) and Tom Hanks (Andrew Beckett, the homosexual with AIDS that was fired from his company).

Tom Hanks did a very good job at that film, so good that he had the prize for the best actor. I recognize the good acting that Tom Hanks did seeming that he had AIDS, his best acting for me is when he falls to the floor hitting the table because an attack of AIDS, it was very realistic. Other of the positives I have to say is the great music of the film, I think that the film also won a prize for its music, it was a beautiful music which consistent with the scenes. The last positive (for me) of the film is the end. At the end Andrew decides to die and then appear a scene in which Andrew’s family remember him by watching videos of his childhood. Although it is a very sad ending for Andrew’s life, for me it seemed a very nice and sentimental ending because Andrew get what he wants and they remember him for it.

On the other hand, there were for me some things I don’t really like or I disagree with. The first one is the English they talked, despite of being subtitles when we were watching the film there were some expressions and words that I didn’t understand. I think I would have found very difficult to understand the film without the subtitles. The other thing I didn’t like is that, at the middle part of the film, it seemed to me that the action of the film (the argument) was getting to fast, in some of this points I get a bit lost.

In conclusion, I have found the film very interesting and with a very important meaning of freedom.

Page 7