It seems obvious to me that the representation of AIDS and homosexuality in Philadelphia was merely the backdrop upon wich the dominant fictions of American culture were rearticulated and reaffirmed (i.e. heterosexual ity, the nuclear family, the American dream of life, liberty, etc, etc.) Hanks's new role in Forrest Gump, due this week, is being described as "an embodiment of all that is good about post World War II America." excuse me? (Memories of Hanks's Oscar acceptance speech??). The connecti on I want to draw with Philadelphia is: given the ultimate message of Philedelphia (that justice in America can prevail), why has his new film served to continue these lies? Was social mechanisms are in place that could allow an actor to play a gay man who dies of AIDS and then an embodiment of all that is good in Post WWii America? Or are both films really saying the same thing? Could this new role have been possible if it weren't for his previous role in Philadelphia? This man must be stopped!!