Research 5 - Philadelphia pharmacy scene

Homosexuality in film


Article; Gays in Film, by Richard Dyer

Through researching this article, I have found that there are certain ‘stumbling blocks’ that must be overcome to gain an accurate representation of homosexuality in film. Dyer makes good points regarding what gay people would like to see, simply stating “gays as ordinary human beings”, but also acknowledges that “physically, emotionally and socially” gays are different from heterosexuals. This, to me, feels like an excuse, as the first point of being represented as “ordinary human beings” would suggest that they would want a film that, for once, does not focus on the physical or even emotional side of a homosexual relationship, it merely sees two gay protagonists within the film in a story not driven by their sexuality. This is much more in line with one of Dyer’s later quotes “in terms of aspects of our lives not directly involving relationships, we are, clearly, the same as heterosexuals”
Therefore, it appears that the ability to represent homosexuals within cinema is not too difficult; it is actually the audience that make it difficult. Filmmakers would want to appeal to a dominant audience, and sadly it is unlikely that a film featuring two gay protagonists will attract more of an audience than a film featuring a man and a woman, even if both films did not centre around their relationships.

Scene; The pharmacy scene from Philadelphia 

In the pharmacy scene from Philadelphia, we see Joe engage in a short conversation with a college student in the drug store. Joe seems to have a lot in common with the man, and is perfectly comfortable having a conversation with him. The student, however, then asks Joe out for a drink, and that is when we realise he is gay. Joe’s whole demeanour changes, he steps back, very aware of the woman next to him. He essentially has his back to the man when he asks “Do I look gay to you?”, to which the student replies with a shrug “Do I look gay to you?”. The scene is framed in quite a tight way, the two-shots and over the shoulder shots keep both characters in the frame, connoting how close the two characters are. This could suggest that despite Joe’s later uncomfortable demeanour around the gay man, he is perfectly fine with being close to someone who ‘doesn’t look gay’. Furthermore, this could connote that everyday he is that close to homosexuals, he just doesn’t know it. This supports Dyer’s quote that gays are “the same as heterosexuals” as clearly in this scene, there is nothing that stands out to show that the college student is gay or straight until he asks Joe to go for a drink. Therefore, Dyer’s theory that the differences are “physically and emotionally” (in a relationship sense) are supported, but the idea of a difference “socially” is only established when we get to see Joe’s reaction, suggesting that there is only a social difference when people are fully aware that someone is gay, if it is not known, then there is no difference, as seen with Joe’s encounter with the college student. This has clearly been done as a reflection of the audience, who at the time fully expected gay people to be different to them in every sense, the fact Philadelphia uses three gay characters who ‘don’t look gay’ to the ordinary passer-by, or who ‘don’t act gay’ challenges expectations in a way Hollywood hadn’t done before. Since Hollywood’s first gay stock character ‘the sissy’, gay men had been seen as flamboyant, camp, womanly and hugely different to ‘normal men’. This had grown to become the expectation for homosexuals in film, so to portray them as something different, something so similar to heterosexuals, was a risk. However, it is a risk that pays off effectively in Philadelphia.

As the scene progresses, Joe’s reaction to the man telling him to “take it as a compliment” shows just how uncomfortable homosexuality makes him. In Joe’s head, he is being told to take being confused for a homosexual as a compliment, but in reality, the thing he should take as a compliment is ‘getting hit on’. It is highly likely that, married or not, Joe would have no issue with a female flirting with him in the drug store and offering to buy him a drink, he simply has an issue with the fact that the man is gay, and made an honest mistake.

Twice in the scene, Joe uses the same derogatory term to describe the man, and is speaking quite loud. In a busy drug store, no one even cares. The only time we see recognition of Joe’s exchange with the man is when the woman looks on with disgust when Joe is asked out, and then when the other shoppers are shocked about the gay man calling Joe an “asshole”. This connotes just how second class homosexuals were seen; the shoppers have no issue with Joe physically grabbing the man by the neck, essentially threatening him and using derogatory language, but when the gay man calls Joe an ‘asshole’ all eyes are immediately on him as if he were in the wrong the whole time. This connotes the idea that Joe grabbing the man by the neck is a response to the ‘threat’ that the man poses; the fact he is gay is threat to Joe enough. As the audience we are in a privileged position to be watching this in a time period that has moved on, and we can now highlight Joe’s prejudice towards the man. However, to give the balanced view we can also consider that the homosexual man may have crossed the line. He was rather forward in what he did; he merely assumes Joe is gay due to him representing a gay man in a case, he jumps to conclusions when Joe gives him his card, and then asks Joe out anyway even though we hear Joe utter the words ‘my wife..’. Despite it being an honest mistake, I feel the filmmakers have done this deliberately to provoke debate. The film was made in 1993 and homophobia was (it actually still is 20 years later) very much existing, but there were also those who were very accepting of homosexuality. This scene is one that can have two points of view depending on the opinion of the person watching, and it comes back to Dyer’s quote about being “the same as heterosexuals”; what separates Joe and the college student in this scene (before the student asks him out)? How are they different when they talk about the case? They are not, as the student isn’t the flamboyant, overly camp gay man that we normally see in mainstream cinema, he almost defies logic and certainly defies expectations. He can make the audience think twice about the differences between straight people and gay people, because on the surface, as Dyer states, there are none.