OK, 20+ Years Later I Can Now Say It:

Did you want the stereotypical gay man? High pitched voice and feminine moves? Not all gay men act like this, despite it maybe being "typical". I've known quite a few who wouldn't even be considered gay, because they don't fall into what many would categorize as "gay behavior". May I ask what you thought would happen? How could he have been more convincing?

INSTAGRAM
http://instagram.com/thesablirab

I think he's saying Richard Simmons would have been more convincing.

re: Apparently the Academy thought his portrayal was convincing enough.

LOL it didn't matter who played the part, the PC-driven academy was going to award Best Actor regardless. It would've won best picture too if it wasn't up against Schindler's List

I believed it, but I kind of see where the OP was coming from. It's not that he wasn't "acting gay enough", it's that the aspect of his performance regarding his love for Antonio Banderas' character looked to be lacking compared to Banderas' performance regarding his love for Tom Hank's character. I can see where that might make someone feel that Hanks wasn't gay. That said, the difference can easily be explained by anything from their difference in personality to the effects that the disease was having on both of them.

Well, I think Tom and everyone involved probably, didn't want him portrayed as a steroetypical gay man. They wanted to show that gay people can be just as "normal" as straight people. To show that you may in fact know a gay man and not even know it.

It was the right call. Back then that scene would have repulsed too many audience members and pulled them out of the film, which would have defeated Demme's goal of bringing a general audience into an awareness film about homosexuality and AIDS. He also changed the title from the rather preachy original, 'People Like Us'. Demme made a phenomenal film, it's a shame he hasn't made more over the years.

This is an interesting conversation. It's pretty obvious to me that a lot of the choices made in the filmmaking intended to downplay the two men's relationship to make the film more accessible to straight '90s audiences. But Andrew's demeanor also reminds me of people I know who've become withdrawn when they know they have to leave soon (geographically or by dying).

Totally agree with your post. It's why I don't love this film; I didn't need a watered-down picture so that it could be more palatable to the naive heteros of the time. Nevertheless, I get why they did it then. It was a heavy topic to portray at a time when most people only knew of homosexuality from stereotypes and viewed AIDS as a plague they blamed sufferers for (even without wanting to admit it to themselves). This film had to play it safe in some parts so the tough parts were humanized for the masses.

It wasn't even how Hanks' character was written that was the most soft-soaped for me, although it would have been nice to see some evidence that there was a mutual partnership between Andy and Miguel. Films that featured homosexuality (and AIDS) prior to this one had the guts to portray relationships honestly. However, they were indie films, so a commercial-wide release like "Philadelphia" was not going to have the ability to be more honest if it didn't want its primary message to be completely ignored by its target audience.

Heck, the film had to make all characters one-demensional just so the general pop could be spoonfed what they were supposed to take away from this film. From the musical score to the dialogue (from the impossibly lovable family to the menacing partners), this film had to drill into you what side you were supposed to be rooting for.

It's its fatal flaw, but fortunately the film still has some merit.

He also played down his sniveling brother trying to hug him in the hospital bed and tried to joke away the emotions. Do you also think he wasn’t brotherly enough? Huh?

It was Andrew’s personality.

How is that douche ‘representing the community’?