bcurran

I find this piece both refreshing and hopeful. Recently, there has been a notable shift towards characters in popular culture who are increasingly sexually fluid. More and more screenwriters seem to be consulting the Kinsey scale and helping bring this concept out of the proverbial closet. Although not a member of the ‘sword and sandal’ genre, the hugely popular Game of Thrones has featured multiple characters who sleep with both members of the opposite and their own sex. It is well past time that we see realistic human sexual behaviour represented on both big and small screen.

I have been a longtime fan of Lonergan’s directorial debut, You Can Count on Me (2000). These two films share a universe in which the characters are living with grief and are attempting to move past it. In the former, however, the opening scene depicts the accident that claims the lives of the main characters’ parents. There is no ‘big reveal’.
Lonergan exercises a lot of the same techniques in You Can Count on Me. Mark Ruffalo’s character, Terry, is a lot like Affleck’s Lee. And just like the character of Lee, the audience is left with an uncertain feeling about the prospects of Terry’s future. He just “can’t beat it.”
Manchester by the Sea and You Can Count on Me are both fantastic movies. I hope to see more of their likes from Lonergan’s career.

I just had the privilege of discovering this great article. I think TKing has done an excellent job of reflecting on the redeeming qualities of “Philadelphia”, which has indeed faced a lot of harsh criticism. A month following Jonathan Demme’s death in April, I think this piece is actually a great commentary on his pop culture legacy.

I have worked part-time as a men’s sexual health counsellor in Toronto for more than 9 years; I do HIV testing and counselling in this role. I guess you could say that I’m in the front lines of the ongoing battle against HIV transmission rates. And I proudly identify as a gay man.

Without a doubt, I agree that the film is highly flawed and a grave misrepresentation of the gay community. It’s also highly unfortunate that it disregards the relentless efforts of grassroots organizations throughout the era. However, I agree that it still succeeds in having instilled a much needed sense of AIDS awareness in popular culture. TKing is right–this film was not made for me. And I’m okay with that.

When I perform an HIV test on a client, one of my pre-test counselling questions it to ask how much they know about HIV. On more than one occasion, heterosexual male-identifying clients of a certain generation (often receiving their first ever test) inform me that they know about AIDS from “Philadelphia”. Although I spend some time informing them of the advancements in the field and ‘correcting’ their perspective, I believe it is a comment on the film’s lasting legacy that these men can at least trace their consciousness of AIDS back to the film’s release in 1993. Despite how problematic, it was still a long overdue Hollywood representation of AIDS. So I say kudos to Demme for this achievement.

I agree that Snyder’s iteration of the Batman universe only made me nostalgic for Nolan’s. BVS barely has a toe in reality, whilst I’d argue that ‘The Dark Knight’ trilogy’s appropriation of our erratic world was one of its strongest qualities.

Furthermore, Affleck’s Batman suit was all but laughable. How’s a superhero expected to function when he can barely rotate his head?! Not to mention his oversized, bloated physique…