After reading Albert Brecht's comments on the portrayal of librarians
in "Philadelphia" (I have not seen the film yet) I was curious to get
the perspective of a friend (not a librarian, but employed in academia
and familiar with what librarians do) who had seen the film. I thought
I would pass along her comments in response to Mr. Brecht's message--
and add for myself that maybe we are sometimes too sensitive about
image, and maybe in being so cannot see the forest for the trees.
Robin Klein
>
>Since we are talking library week, perhaps ALA or the President via his
>Hollywood contacts can look into media portrayal of librarians.
>
>I recently saw the film Philadelphia, a very good movie in my opinion.
>The film has a scene in a law library. One part of the scene has Tom
>Hanks taking a bite of a sandwich and still chewing when a library
>employee comes by and glares for several seconds, not actually
>discovering the sandwich but very suspicious. The second part taking
>place in the library has a library employee bring Tom Hanks a document
>and say yes there is a supplement to this work and HIV is covered in the
>supplement (very ggod portrayal I say to myself as I'm watching the
>film). Then immediately this same library employee asks Tom Hanks if he
>wouldn't be more comfortable in a private study room. Tom says no and
>asks the librarian if he would be more comfortable if Tom was in a private
>study room. Several seconds of staring at one another go by and the
>film fades to another scene.
>
>Publicity like this we do not need. Philadelphia happened to be the
>most seen film in the US its first week out.
>
>By the way, the paralegals came out smelling like roses in the film.
> Albert Brecht
Robin-
I'm doing a reply, so you will get this back yet again. I understand the
concern expressed in this memo, but I must say that the facts are
incorrect and Mr. Brecht's criticisms are very narrow-visioned. First of
all, it is Denzel Washington eating the sandwich (or maybe pastry even,
because it is crumbly), not Tom Hanks. This may seem trivial, but it has a
lot to do with character development - Washington's character, that is. Am
I to understand Mr. Brecht to be saying that it was inappropriate for the
"library employee" to be suspicious? It seemed appropriate to me - and by
the way it was NOT the same "library employee" in the interchange with
Hanks later - for all we know it was just some kind of monitor making sure
the law books don't get covered with food!
Secondly, the other "library employee" (who appeared to be a real
reference librarian type person), after bringing Hanks the materials and
reporting that HIV is referenced, appears to suddenly realize that Hanks
is probably interested in this issue because he himself has AIDS. He asks
Hanks SEVERAL times if he might be more comfortable in a private room, and
it is only after Hanks declines and the librarian continues to hover -
and in fact is bordering on harassment - that Hanks says, no, but would YOU
be more comfortable, etc. Washington is watching all this and approaches
Hanks. This is a turning point in the film (Washington has previously
declined working with Hanks because he is very obviously homophobic and
AIDSphobic, but he seems to feel somehow touched by or at least
sympathetic to the discrimination Hanks is experiencing in this situation).
This interruption appears to help the librarian decide to back-off. Also
portrayed are other students, one in particular who gets up and leaves very
obviously to avoid being around an HIV+ person. To say "several seconds of
staring at one another go by and the film fades to another scene" is not
only blatantly false, but misses a major turning point in the movie, and
implies that the librarian is the only one portrayed as AIDSphobic or
unprofessional. The movie, including that scene, is full of AIDSphobes and
homophobes.
So, to make a long story even longer, the whole movie is full of
stereotypes. I will not list every single one, but certainly African-
Americans, Euro-Americans, law students, corporate lawyers, not-so-
corporate lawyers (Washington), gays, "fag hags," homophobes, doctors,
etc., etc., are portrayed with less than a full picture of the diversity
within each of those groups. It is interesting that Mr. Brecht only picked
up on the one stereotype with which he identifies, rather than to see that
the whole movie is a rather shallow presentation of a very complex and
painful issue. In fact, he says in his memo that this is "a very good
movie in my opinion," implying that the only inaccurate or offensive
portrayal is about librarians. It saddens me, and "pushes buttons" for me
that Mr. Brecht only sees what touches him - certainly professionals in a
library setting are trained and practiced at being more unbiased and
uniformly critical than that!! To me, Mr. Brecht's note has demonstrated
much worse characteristics of a library professional than were portrayed in
"Philadelphia."
One last point: I don't agree that paralegals "came out smelling like
roses." One paralegal is a witness in the trial, and though she is witty,
intelligent, well-poised, nice looking, etc. (a positive stereotype) she is
also "put in her place" by the cross-examiner. Her position as a paralegal
seemed less significant to me than the fact that she is African-American
and speaking about the oppressive atmosphere in the company.
Katherine L. Murphy, k-murp@maroon.tc.umn.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST