I Need to Explain Myself

I should probably explain myself.


I've read over my last post several times. There is at least one thing that should be completely evident to you: I wrote that post while intoxicated. It's my first intoxicated post on this website and if you're lucky, it won't be the last. Yes, it's been a while since I've been here, but I've been extremely busy. Look I don't want to fool you into thinking that I've been busy in the traditional sense. I've been busy in the drunk graduate student sense. Don't fault me for it. I've got friends that are leaving, I'm leaving, people are graduating, I'm not graduating, though I should be, it's fucking hot outside, and for some reason I thought it would be good to include D'Angelo on the mixtape I'm listening to right now. A lonely single heterosexual man should not listen to D'Angelo. It only depresses you.

Let's get to the point, the reason I'm writing. There was a statement in my last post that I didn't back up, but I nonetheless stand up to. I stated that Forrest Gump is a better AIDS movie than Philadelphia. I still think this is true and this is why. Philadelphia is a great movie with a great performance by Tom Hanks. Yes, I think he deserved a nomination for that movie. But here's the thing. What is the most important relationship in that movie? Denzel (Tom's Lawyer) and Tom? or is it Tom and Antonio Banderas (his partner)?

Look, the point is that Philadelphia does something that actually ends up hurting HIV/AIDS patients, and that is that it medicalizes them and politicizes them. And though legislation and medicine play an important role in curing HIV/AIDS, they do not, nor should they, play a role in the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. With the advent of extremely successful drug therapies, HIV/AIDS is really no longer a medical issue, it's a social issue. And Philadelphia doesn't exactly focus on that issue. AIDS becomes an issue that is argued by a legal system based on semantics and antiquated ideas of equality. So while Philadelphia certainly fulfills a certain role, it is not the quintessential HIV/AIDS movie.

So now we come to Forrest Gump. What on Earth would possess me to say that it's a better AIDS movie than Philadelphia? Well, let me revise my initial statement a little bit. I don't think that Forrest Gump is the best AIDS/HIV movie. It isn't even really mediocre. But it does something really really well. It highlights the relationship between Jenny and Forrest. And when Jenny dies of AIDS, it isnt' important that she dies of AIDS, but it is important that love is lost. Forrest loses his love and Jenny dies just after she is able to express her love for Forrest. HIV/AIDS is not only a disease, it is about relationships, relationships made and lost. And Philadelphia forgets that. Tom becomes a court case, and within that court case, he becomes a medicalized subject. His true relationship with his partner played by Banderas is pushed to the side in favor of a legal relationship between him and his lawyer. In the end, Philadelphia is just too medicalized and legalized for me to swallow. I don't sympathize for the love lost between two lovers. I rejoice in the success of a suit even though the protagonist dies. And that is sad.

Word.