Just this past weekend I had an opportunity to see the movie Philadelphia. While overall the movie painted a realistic picture of AIDS -- a picture I think this nation needs desperately to see -- I did not agree with the forwarded message that called the movie "flawless." Actually, there were two things in particular that I found rather, well, annoying. The first was the fact that in specific scenes the movie was BLATANTLY "preachy." In one scene Denzel Washington's character even asks his doctor if he'll give his baby daughter the disease, just because he shook the hand of a man with AIDS. Obviously, (and predictably) we hear the AIDS can only be transmitted through bodily secretions, blood, etc. I understand that several people in this nation may not know this, and I suppose it's a good way of educating, nonetheless, it drew me away from the plot of the movie and I felt as if I was listening to a public service message. The second thing dealt with the portrayal of the gay community. The movie tried to promote a new kind of understanding and tolerance of homosexuals. Hypocritically, however, the movie avoids any direct dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Sure, they talk about it in the courtroom, but we only SEE hints of it throughout the movie. I think the most we see is Tom Hanks's character dancing with his boyfriend. Probably one of the reasons visual acts of affection between two gay men were not shown is due to the effect it would have on the movie's acceptance by society. This sounds pretty hypocritical to me. If you're trying to get the message that Sorry. If you're trying to get the message across that more tolerance is needed concerning homosexuality in this world, why succumb to the same societal norms that have influenced film and media for years? Michelle Murawski Albion College