that main juror speaking was the perfect red herring. the way he was smirking while the defendants were testifying really made me think he was on their side. it was nice reversal hearing him talk in the deliberations.
well it's on-theme with the rest of the movie. denzel is homophobic, and he points out that their whole society is homophobic. that guy's facial expressions, you're right, point to him sharing the generalized homophobia, being disgusted by gay people. but like denzel he's still seeking to apply justice. there's a difference between the bigotry of cultural distance and the bigotry of wanting to use all institutions available against a target.
@Him535 not sure if you saw the 90s version (12 angry men). Amazon has it, I liked it. As for movies with talking, give Conspiracy a look. It's about the Holocaust. Phenom movie
Jonathan Demme had a handful of favourite character actors that he would regularly cast, like Charles Napier (the judge) and Tracey Walter (the librarian). There were some others too. He was a loyal guy.
I watched maybe two or three movies between 1981 and 2000. I never got to see this of a young Denzel Washington. His acting is so honest and endearing. You just have to love the guy. Tom hanks was young and he had to play a hard part, most probably out of character for him; but that is the job of actor. Thank you for posting. I suppose I should see the whole movie now.
I have seen this movie plenty of times and never noticed until just now.. that one of the lawyers at the law firm who said he would regret it the rest of his life.. congratulates Denzel on his win against the firm he works for... Unsure why I never noticed that before.
You notice it a lot in lawyer movies once you start noticing it. Its all serious and competitive until the verdict comes in then its game recognizing game amongst the lawyers. Handshakes, back slaps and offers to grab lunch sometime.
Right after the senior partners are served during a Sixers game in their corporate suite, they’re shown leaving abruptly and talking about defense strategy while walking down a hallway, and the partners learn then that one of them had suspected Andy had AIDS long before they sabotaged him which upset the others (1. Because it’s a weakness in their defense that can be exploited and 2. Because they obviously had expected him to say something to the other senior partners about it rather than hide it).
These random clips from the movie Philadelphia keep popping up here and I watch them. Thinking I should re watch the film. Sure I have already seen it 6 times but is an absolutely perfect movie.
I know money isn’t justice, but I remember the faith in people I felt restored after watching this verdict as a teenager in the 90s. And this was before the LGBTQ mvt and at the very height of the AIDS crisis
Does it ever bother you that in many civil cases, when it is definitively proven that a party has wronged someone in the eyes of a jury. Their first response is not self-reflection, remorse, or even acknowledgment of their wrongdoing. Instead, it's run straight to the appellate court to try and reverse the judgment?
All the time. No one likes taking responsibility. Especially in something as horrifying as this. Anyone who thinks such people would be willing to admit mistakes after doing such hateful things is in fantasy land.
It doesnt bother me at all. Thats the way the court system is. It is there to both protect the victim and the aggresor. If it wasnt, it would be running amuck.
@@kootybear Did you even finish reading the question? Someone is 100000% proven guilty and instead of learning, they run to twist the law to protect themselves from accountability. NOT from wrongful conviction.
@@Soldier4USA2005 Even though it may seem like the defendant may have been "100000%" liable in a civil case, there are many legitimate grounds for the defendant to appeal the verdict. For example, the jury may not have been provided the proper jury instructions; evidence that should have been excluded was heard by the jury; there evidence of jury tampering. The appeal process is a part of our justice system.
@@Adam-mj5hl Congratulations on completely missing the point of my comment. There are people on death row for DECADES because they abuse the legal system to keep pushing their execution date. NOT because they're innocent.
The producers were sued for this film. It was based on interviews with a real man(men) who actually went through this and they had been promised to be compensated for their story being used.
@@danielchilton5400 It wasn’t an insult. I didn’t say you don’t understand inflation. I just looked up the amount in case anyone was wondering what it was exactly. I’m really sorry for whatever is going on in your life that made you hostile to a RU-vid comment from a year ago, but I hope things get better for you.
@@jtaco4101 Lord, Zoomers know more than I did at that age. If anyone in particular is giving you grief, laugh at them. It shuts people up without making you a jerk. If it’s the media making you feel that way, they’re lying. Generational arguments help them sell stories and get clicks. If it’s just general internal insecurity… make peace with it. You can wind up like me as a middle aged millennial who still doesn’t know anything. 😂
@@ashwaganda yes, congratulations, ill see you at the appeal. but i still think the congratulations was genuine. Besides the other lawyer, the man, also tells him "well done".
Just realized, Andy’s “case” is bookended with applause. The partners applauding him when he receives his promotion, and now the gallery applauding when he gets his vindication. Not sure if I’m reading into it, but it makes a valid point that there was always somebody in Andy’s corner.
It is very true what others have commented on this film. Unless you lived through this terrible time, people who came after would have no idea what consequence this film has. God bless all those that we lost before this terrible virus was bought under control.
Great movie over all. But if you think about it the law firm (defendants) can appeal the decision and tie it up in court proceedings relatively for the next 10 years than pay a penny. Which in essence the plaintiff will have long passed away from his illness therefore never receiving a penny. The harsh truth.
Like it's not bad enough he was going through a " shame filled" disease, but then he loses his job due to people's pure ignorance and stupidity. My heart goes out to any of you that were diagnosed with HIV in the 80's or 90's. 💜
They are a form of justice. And they are total justice in a breach of contract where there is a liquidated sum lost and the liquidated sum lost is awarded in a money judgment. That's the very definition of justice.
Sometimes it's not about the money settlement. It's about taking it from a wrongdoer who only understands financial repercusions over moral repercusions.
If I were on that jury then I would have insisted that at least fifty million dollars be awarded in punitive damages. This could set a precedent for other big firms and corporations who come under fire that the sexual orientation of any human being is not for them to judge.
Spoken like someone who has never been on a jury and has no idea how the justice system works. Punitive damages cannot generally exceed a certain ratio of the compensatory damages except in extremely extenuating circumstances. This law firm almost certainly doesn't have 50 million dollars to pay in punitive damages, and the judge has the authority to overrule the jury's decision on amounts. This has happened countless times when juries think like you do.
This was such a powerful movie well cast well written, it brought awareness of the Hate scare n discrimination of this disease, the out come was AWESOME!! This movie will NEVER get OLD!!!!
Ron Vawter who played Bob Seidman here was openly HIV-positive at the time of filming the director went out of his way to make sure Ron was accommodate after he was hospitalized during filming. Ron Vawter died of complications from AIDS less than five months after the film's premiere
Who would've thought Mr. Kruger would end up in a position to award nearly 5 million dollars to somebody. I'll bet the court doesn't know he can also spin around in his chair 3 times in a row without help. "All me, all meeeeee"
Man Denzel gonna clear almost a million in his cut of the settlement From what I understand the type of lawyer he is “you don’t pay unless we win!” Comes with a hefty price tag.
It is nice to think that the jury would stick so faithfully to the remit of their task - can't deny though, I never bought it. The distraction of an aids carrier who got infected through casual sex with a stranger in a porn theatre would have been too much, I felt. People would have just had sympathy for the defendants for not wanting to be around him and the virus.
Well that’s generally the Hollywood route, they put the way things should go in these cases where Justice is served. If the film ended with him losing and then dying, then what is it wanting to show? The cold hard reality is something already seen. Don’t need it hammered home in a film
In 2024 money, that back and loss of benefits would equal $311,528.22, adjusted for inflation. The mental anguish and humiliation would be $217,851.90, while the punitive damages would be $10,417,678.01 adjusted for inflation. Given the laws back then, I wonder who would have inherited Andrew's money? Hopefully he had a will.
@@jjackson59100 Sorry, that is not JK Simmons. He would have been about 48 during the filming - this guy is a lot older; besides, Simmons was working as a Broadway performer while this movie was being filmed.
@@jjackson59100 Jesus how old do you think JF Simmons is? He's not even as old as that dude now never mind back in the 90's. Looks nothing like him either.
Hnnng. on the one hand...Andy REALLY should have been up front about his illness. If the firm had just been up front and let him go, that's one thing. The only reason they deserved those rather excessive punative damages was the LYING....the coverup. they were breaking thier own rules and KNEW it.
At the time, he would have been fired on the spot if he had volunteered he had AIDS. There was a lot of ignorance about it, how it was transmitted, etc., And was a death sentence.
There was really no legit reason for the lawfirm to let Andy go. They couldn't have let him go simply because he was infected with AIDS. And if they'd have let him go for "performance reasons" the timing would have been awfully suspect anyways, so Andy would have still brought on a lawsuit. The lawfirm would simply have to wait until he became incapacitated, and then hire a new lawyer for his position. They'd also have to keep his insurance coverage until he passed.
A public apology from that firm that fired him plus the settlement.Money would've been a whole lot better but I still wouldn't have come close to what this character deserved.
