SCREEN-L Archives

July 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
James Prather <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 10 Jul 1994 14:37:34 -0400
text/plain (44 lines)
Thanks for bring some light to this topic!
On Sun, 10 Jul 1994, P.G. Springer wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 1994, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
> > The comment below is fascinating.  The author both asserts that "in the
> > process [the film] aligned our relationship and identification with
> > gay people" etc. AND that the viewer identifies with Denzel Washington's
> > phobia and the Hanks' character's loving family.  BUT THIS IS PRECISELY
> > ONES.  Of course this strategy is familiar from mainstream attempts to
> > represent various minorities, and it is not an entirely objectionable
> > strategy, but (and I think this is what the films critics want to point
> > out) this is a limited and conservative strategy.  It is the film's
> > limitations which are being underlined and its strategy which is
> > under discussion.  The fact that our identification is not in the main
> > with the dying Hanks character only underlines the limitations of the
> > film.
> > --Edward R. O'Neill, UCLA
> I really don't get it.  Larry Kramer lamblasted the film because the
> characters didn't kiss enough or make love on-screen or something; others
> hated Philadelphia because Hanks' family were loving and completely
> accepting of him; others (on this list) thought the traditional family
> "won out" in the end -- which means was allowed to exist, I guess;
> and Ed thinks it's limited to identify with characters who
> are heterosexual, know and love someone who is gay, or may have
> misgivings and fears about homosexuality but overcome them.  Rather,
> are we supposed to identify with the homosexuality in ourselves, see the
> inherent evils of the father-mother-children household, and deny all
> traces of the heterosexual impulse?   Would that be the "effective
> strategy" to turn off the homophobia in society?
> A most strange and counterproductive tactic, I'd say.   No, I think
> The Hanks Method is much preferable, although not the magic bullet that so
> many seem to expect.  (Or maybe they would just prefer to see bullets,
> period.)  Philadelphia has more potential to effect change than a dozen
> of the independent movies that preceded it -- from Parting Glances to
> Poison.
> PGregorySpringerschwaermerdadathepdoesnotstandforpope