I would also add the fact that Mary Steenburgen has the deeply unpopular role of the opposing counsel and also knocks it out of the park. The dedication to craft to say "I'm going to play a role that the audience will hate" and do it with such panache is admirable I think.
Mary Steenbergen (defense counsel) in this role was "disgustingly" good. From the smug smile to the condescending questions, she was completely on point.
I always respected her character. She personally hated the case but at the same time had a duty to her client to give them the best legal representation possible.
Whaaaattt a class!!! the deliverance of dialogues are so immersive... that you feel drowned in them and these days in movies actors just come and mumble and rumble in front of a camera and the shot ends there...
This movie....like all great movies....enjoys such a longevity because of the perfect blend of the cast....although Hanks & Washington have the main roles (And you can see the chemistry between them) it is the supporting cast that cements the picture together.......in particular Jason Robards plays his part to perfection.....a subtle blend of aversion, mixed with moments of compassion......this man fears Andrew... (Or more correctly A.I.D.S.) ...and at the same time feels compassion for him......superb acting!
Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. The witness could have answered she had worked there for a long time, was passed over several times for promotion, became so qualified that had they not promoted her, she would have left for another firm, so they really did not have a choice but to promote her.
Maybe that was not the case. And really, she was a weak witness. If a complaint about garish earrings was the worst offense, these guys are not exactly klansmen.
@@lexi219 ultimately she was promoted at a time that the higher ups felt she was ready to take on the role so you can't blame them for being cautious with their resources. One may argue that the comments made about the earrings were not a matter of discrimination but a matter of taste and there is no use in litigating that because its so subjective. In the end, her testimony served against Andy and that makes her a weak witness.
Council should have asked when the promotion took place. Trials take a long time come about and it is likely the promotion was made after the discrimination complaint was filed. In that event, the promotion is specious and does not show any proof of lack of discrimination at all, in fact shows the deception of the firm.
That black lady probably had to work ten times harder than everyone else to get promoted. I mean, the smirking condescension from the firm's counsel just proves this.
This was a good film. It was released at a time when there was a lot of fear about AIDS patients. There was a lot stigma surrounding sexual orientation and what people "deserved." A person who got AIDS through blood transfusion was less stigmatized than a person who got it through sex or sharing needles. People live much longer with HIV today due to effective drugs. Drugs were not as widely available back then, or if they were, only a few could afford the cost.
Well there good and bad aids. Good aids is from something innocent like blood transfusions or sitting on the wrong toilet seat. Bad aids is from drugs and gay sex
I remember when I was growing up and hearing about the dread of AIDS, I was so scared to touch even garbage out of fear of catching it. God forbid I met someone with it. I recently learned that the stigma was created by how public health officials in the US went about the virus.... Dr Fauci again
What made the courtroom scenes so good is that they made all the actors sit. There was a probably a collected *ugh* by the actors who wanted to do their best Perry Mason routine. But it prevented the old "AH-HA So you admit under oath..." as the attorney waves his hand toward the heavens. By making them sit it forced them to use their voice and their eyes. The two biggest weapons in the actor's arsenals. I used to have an exercise for my actors where I'd tell them they are a condemned prisoner in the electric chair strapped down (including their head) and they have to deliver their lines to the corrupt warden. I told them to attack him with your eyes and voice. Then when we shot the scene (totally unrelated to an execution) it forced them to not use so much body movement to convey the emotion but to rely on eyes and voice. It was very effective.
They look like the 7 dwarfs of big tobacco when they stood up in front of congress and lied and each one said said “I do not think cigarettes nicotine is addictive.”
Miss Burton is such a nice lady. I would have been honored to work with her and have her as my "Team Leader". She was compassionate and Andy was very supportive of her wanting to be a Lawyer. Also the African American Guy working with Mary Steenburgen's Character is Obba Babatunde who was in the "Original" Production of Dreamgirls. In later years he had a recurring Role on The Bold & The Beautiful as Maya's Father who was Trans. Sadly enough Two of The Co-Creators died of AIDS. Michael Bennett who created the Play and Michael Peters who was the Assistant Choreographer. Rooney Mara (Carol) used to Date Mary's Son Charlie.
@@anujpramanik1819 Go On! Wow. I still remember hearing "In The Air Tonight" as a Teenager. I still feel it is next to "Stairway To Heaven" by Led Zeppelin and "November Rain" by Guns & Roses one of the best Rock Ballads of all time.
Ironically Obba Babatunde also played Berry Gordy in The Temptations Miniseries and as far as I know Berry Gordy, Smokey Robinson & Diana Ross never saw the play.
She should have responded no. She cold avoid contracting aids since she didn't know that blood was infected and she needed the transfusion to save her life. Im surprised this obvious has gone unseen in this supposedly "brilliant" legal film. A patient receiving infected blood can never avoid it. Answering now would have destroyed the defendant question.
She also played Miep Gies in The Attic: The Hiding Of Anne Frank. Her Ex Husband Malcolm also narrarated an unauthorized documentary about The Beatles. It was done by Andrew Solt, Stephanie Bennett, and Malcolm Leo who are wizards doing Documentaries about Girl Groups, The Beach Boys, and a 1978 Documentary called The Heroes Of Rock & Roll.
is it? so a firm promoting one black woman can't be discriminatory against a homosexual male with AIDS in the early 90s? and Denzel's character wouldn't have likely torn her sentiment apart?
@@caffemocca8855 i would invoke Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman and start declaring everyone out of order. but that's me. i'm thinking Denzel's character would take a different approach.
@@tommym321 I think her patronization was as a rebuke to the grandoise rhetoric used by the witness, grounding the witnesses testimony as nothing more than an emotional splash.
Hearsay is An out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There are exceptions. The statement that this person said about the earrings is an out of court statement to prove the truth that the firm discriminates. The defense counsel knew this was hearsay and allowed her to say it anyway because it was a trap. Denzel also could’ve objected on hearsay but he thought that the comment helped his case
Denzel Hayes Washington, Jr. (Mount Vernon, Nueva York; 28 de diciembre de 1954) es un actor, productor y director de cine estadounidense, ganador de tres Globo de Oro, un Premio del Sindicato de Actores, un premio Tony y dos premios Óscar; estos por las cintas Glory como mejor actor de reparto en 1989, y por Día de entrenamiento como mejor actor principal en 2001. En 2020, el New York Times lo calificó como el gran actor del siglo xxi. Conocido por sus actuaciones en la pantalla y el escenario, ha sido descrito como un actor quien reconfiguró "el concepto de cómo ser una estrella de cine", relacionando con personajes definidos por su gracia, dignidad, humanidad y fuerza interior. 69 AÑOS. (70) 📝📝📝📝📝📝📝📝📝📝✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠📰📰📰📰📰📰📰📰📰📰🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️🗞️📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺📺
Yo. Mary S. Character is a boss for real. She looked good back in the day. She played this single mom in My Life As A House and she was a riot there too buddy's. Yep. Later.
Movies. I know this was really supposed to be a discussion of how people felt about AIDS and not a realistic depiction of a court proceeding. But geez! Such an obviously irrelevant question went unchallenged. The defense is trying to prove that poor job performance was the reason for the firing. What does the plaintiff's behavior in relation to catching AIDS have to do with THAT? There's no way a question like that is allowed in a real court of law unless the judge is corrupt and the plaintiff's attorney is completely incompetent.
@@carlamartinez2457 By 1994 people had advanced a little more than that. 1988 perhaps was a different story. But that aside, in 1994 a court of law was still a court of law.
I agree, Mr. Albright. They were bringing up her promotion, and her "unfettered ascendency" to attempt to deflect the accusations of bigotry against Mr. Wheeler and all those men who were Hanks' former boss and former colleagues.
Sometimes ya gotta be strategic about objecting. Weigh the damage the testimony will cause vs the appearance of keeping information from the jury by objecting. Maybe they didn’t want to look like they were trying to shut their own employee up. Or maybe they are just numbskulls who didn’t think to object.
There were some exceptional actors willing to play gay roles in this film at a time when they very well could have cost them their careers. There were also some exceptional actors who were willing to play the victims so that the story could be told to a wider audience.
2:10 may be hearsay, but it falls under an exception (statement of a party opponent, as the secretary was acting as an agent of Mr. Wheeler). That's why the attorney didn't object.
In all honesty tho, the woman telling what the secretary said that the old man said is actually hearsay of hearsay & I'm kinda surprised it was left in the movie, or at least not objected to.
What happened to that woman could’ve happened to my mother when she was carrying my sister. The doctors told her if she didn’t eat enough she would be needing a blood transfusion during her delivery. My mother did what the doctors instructed and she didn’t need the transfusion. What that attorney was asking her was that she got AIDS by something she was unable to avoid. Actually she could’ve avoided it, she could’ve not had the baby, or avoided having a baby, or not have the blood transfusion (Jehovah witnesses do that) she had three choices to avoid getting AIDS but during that time the government wouldn’t fund the blood banks to test all the bloods and to start testing people before they could donate blood. So rather then test the blood they just continue to distribute.
Racism is a misunderstanding you dork. The issue is discrimination and by my own personal definition it is when you do not consider someone else's personal view to the point of offending the other party.
I love the implication about discrimination and promotions. Yeah, she got a promotion, does that excuse comments about "ethnic" earrings? "Hey I just got a pay raise at work, that allows them free reign to call me the N-word for one week!"
Why, yes it does. Equating criticism of "garish" earrings to being called the N-word is silly, more so than her silly claim she'd been discriminated against.
@@samjohnson3540 this is the thing with systemic racism. She didn't wear a mini skirt and a crop top. She had earrings that were described as "urban" it's an insidious thing man
Suggesting Tom hanks getting AIDS because he had sex is different from the woman in this scene is weird, since she contracted AIDS because she gave birth- and she gave birth because she had sex. Ergo, both contracted AIDS ultimately as a result of having intercourse.
You fail to consider that the blood transfusion was what gave her AIDS, she wasn't destined to get sick from every transfusion, any other blood would have been been fine.
It was, actually in the beginning of the movie when Andrew was feeling so sick, he questioned the doctor if what he is feeling kind of AZT side effects. AZT was not completely helping Aids patients but only to spare them one or 2 more years to live.
Although I will NEVER compare myself to an AIDS victim unless I get it, the recent turn of events of this virus and those who choose not to get jabbed has shown me that people will never change, and if they think you are "Sick" they will forget years and years of "Hello" and "How are you?" and look at you as though you are the reason you are scared and afraid and ban you from their lives.
@@BTFU93 Says you. I pointed out how I don't think the virus and AIDS are the same. Its the human conditioning I think is comparable. Be it AIDS or this virus or hell, even the witch burnings in Salem, people still proven to be easily turned on their fellow man and ignore basic human rights and demand laws be changed or lives destroyed if they think you have something in you that can kill them. I am comparing people, not the diseases.
more "American" ... Well, by those authenticity demands, I suggest all legal secretaries and other law firm staff acquire indigenous feather jewelry when joining the business.
Well it sounds as if even if they "respected" someone they saw no harm in verbal degradation of them if a little thing like not being able to control an employee's choice of accessories annoyed the bosses certainly not being able to control their other lifestyle choices might irritate them too the woman with AIDS acquired the disease in childbirth women have died in childbirth before too it's a burden no man will ever know yet she gets disgusted looks too some workplaces don't even like female employees to get pregnant either means they need time off and maternity pay lots of toxic work environments and passive aggressive abuse in offices.
This is the one movie where I can't stand the character (woman prosecutor) by that actress. Can't remember her name right now but she was in Step Brothers also
@@asianangler if its 70's movie then im not born yet, if its 80's then im too young to know about it... and im not american to know about it if its in the 90's
The opposition lawyers and law partners are textbook Republicans in appearance and behaviour. Brilliantly cast. Especially Obba Babatunde, who seemingly excels at playing the part of Ben Carsonesque black sell-outs. He also did a brilliant job in How High.
@@jayvee4907 Last I checked it isn't the Dems who tried to fradulently claim they were electors in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin. Sorry, but reality aint on your side.
@@jayvee4907 You said Dems were gullible, I refuted it by by pointing out that Republicans are demonstrably more prone to gullibility (believing so much in the Big Lie that they were willing to commit fraud). You predictably retreated in the face of implacable fact. I accept your surrender. LOL.
with yes or no answer, you may get conviction, but you never get the truth you only get the part that what ever side want the jury to hear! and I wish when they can not get conviction there will be two different one 1-- NOT GUILTY(means we couldn't prove you are guilty) 2-INNOCENT (means you absolutely didn't do it!!)
Well, she brought up her promotion at the firm, in an attempt to deflect the accusations/charges of bigotry against Wheeler and those men, by pointing out that they promoted her, an African-American woman, and thus must not be bigoted. That's the defense's job, to try to produce at least one reasonable doubt. While the prosecution's job (in this case, Joe Miller) is prove beyond any reasonable doubt. I agree, mrkremko1. Just because they weren't prejudiced against a person for being black doesn't mean they couldn't still be prejudiced against a person for having AIDS.
It seems nearly every movie and TV show these days has a scene (or multiple ones) like this in it--"African American--where the faux discriminated smugly bemoan their victim status despite the evidence to the contrary.
I've been promoted at my job but there are still bigots at my job who I have overheard saying extremely racist things. Just because someone throws you a bone doesn't mean they can't still be racist.
@@mascara1777 No doubt. But these type of scenes always pop up whenever I watch network TV (infrequently) in particular. They depict it way over the top (to make it obvious, I suppose) or make where the viewer can draw an inference, but it's typically not very convincing.
It is a movie about a man who has AIDs being unjustly fired from his job and now takin legal action. The question of discrimination was clearly used to show if the company had a history of it, regardless what kind
Remember back then when it was rare to see these insertion of race into movies? Now they are everywhere in movies and TV. I agree, it's such a tedious subject.
Mary Steenburgen's character makes a good point here, and one that should be remembered by every single person who thinks rioting on the streets and burning/looting buildings is acceptable in the face of the BLM movement. If systemic racism was so dominant in the USA, then how can anyone explain the fact that we have had a black President and a black Vice-President? A system that was truly systemically racist would never allow a black person to come close to having that much power or prestige. A systemically racist country would have put a stop to Obama's political rise and Harris' political rise before they got even close to becoming the leaders of the nation.
this is dumb. you realize that before Obama there was a 220-year unbroken streak of white men winning the presidency, right? the score is 45-1, white guys versus everyone else. that doesn't sound possibly influenced by race to you? also, you know she loses the case at the end right? you can assume the jury didn't find her deflection very convincing. you weren't supposed to either.
@@slablargemeat8954 Dumb? If you think what I said is dumb, then let me give you a lesson on statistics and probability. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the percent of Blacks as part of the population has ranged from 10.5% to 12.6%. That means in any given election year (and there have been 11 Presidents during that time), the odds a Black person has of winning the Presidency has only been 10.5%-12.5%. Considering Obam represents 9.1% of all Presidents during this time, then I don't see an issue. Your numbers are severely skewed and have been cherry-picked to suit your argument. They are not relevant to current living standards. I don't care about what happened in 1800 or 1850. That is a flaw in many BLM supporters arguments and many people who argue about systemic racism in 2020-2022. They say nonsense like "yeah but Black people have been subjected to slavery". Yes, maybe 165 years ago. How does that reflect current times? It is such a straw-man argument to make. As for Steenburgen's character losing the case in the movie? You can't seriously be using that as some kind of argument here about real life. The script wouldn't have worked if Tom Hanks character lost the case. What would have been the dramatic effect and payoff if that happened? If we want to go by jury decisions when it comes to racism and etc., why not focus on a real-life decision such as the O.J. Simpson trial, where Black man got acquitted for crimes that I think everyone would agree that he 99.9% probably committed. Why would a Black man be acquitted of that crime if systemic racism existed?
Present day racial issues are a result of the instability brought about by a combination of the War on terror(permanent state of fear about the other) combined with the lingering impact of the recession. These two events radicalised politics. More recently the covid pandemic destabilised society in ways unseen since WW2. The moment the pandemic hit I knew for certain violence would follow. Its not something to get mad about. Its a natural perfectly normal human reaction to times of stress and fear. Nothing more. Sure its bad if you end up dead but a trully enlightened individual would hold no ill will towards such persons since their behaviours are perfectly logical and predictable given the context. These reactions are normal because humans when faced with an enemy they cannot see will eventually turn against each other.People when afraid will want to lash out hit something anything to make themselves feel in control again. Again perfectly normal and predictable nothing weird about it. Fear breeds violence. And US society since 9/11 has been fear driven. Long story short blame Bush II for everything. Or Bin Laden.
Because Obama was a puppet. He was supported by white liberals because they had an agenda and thought he would get votes so they could move forward with their agenda.
Mary Nell Steenburgen (Newport, 08 de febrero de 1953) es una actriz estadounidense, ganadora del Premio Óscar a la mejor actriz de reparto en 1980 por su papel en la película Melvin y Howard. También es reconocida por su participación en filmes de éxito como Back to the Future Part III y Philadelphia. 🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛⌛
