PHILADELPHIA (B) is notorious for being the first major film from Hollywood to at least feature a story about HIV. It's also notorious for being a polarizing film, a perfect introductory vehicle aimed at bringing middle America to empathy and understanding for its supporters and a watered down, sanitized, and fraudulent Hollywood-ized version of homosexuality to its critics. I think both sides have a point and the truth about the film lay somewhere in the middle. It is true that this film has been written and filmed with the intention of bringing the AIDS issue to the general populace. To this end, Tom Hanks (riding a huge wave in popularity) took the lead role of Andrew Beckett who is wrongfully fired from his law firm after the homophobic senior partners learn that he is suffering from HIV and is a homosexual. Without anywhere to turn and after initially rejecting him, Denzel Washington's lawyer Joe Miller takes on Andy's case. It's a smart way to get a potential audience to listen, rather than make a film directly about HIV - which was highly controversial - the film is about Becket being unlawfully fired and discriminated against, an injustice we can all rally around. While we can be unified around that issue, the film can introduce Beckett as a human being suffering with a horrible disease who is surrounded by loved ones. On the courtroom sequences and seeing the evolution of Washington's Joe Miller come to see Becket more as a human being I think the movie is a real success. It's very well acted and Jonathan Demme is an impeccable director. It's in the "domestic" side of the story that I think the film's critics have a point - Andrew Beckett isn't a person, he's a screenwriting saint surrounded by the perfect understanding family whose slow death feels more timed to the plot's mechanics than a genuine human story. There's very little background to his life, we barely know him, and what we do feels fine-tuned to be as blandly appealing as possible. This isn't a fatal issue to me and it would be hard to not be human and be moved by the final moments of this film. In as much as this film inspires tolerance and a basic understanding I think it has done at least a good job of it. Unfortunately, do to key choices the film makes to remain accessible and mainstream, the extent of that understanding is limited.