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 > > NOT IDENTIFYING WITH THE GAY CHARACTER (HANKS) BUT WITH THE STRAIGHT > > 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 >