DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
PHILADELPHIA

SUBJECT
English

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Dr. Narasinga Rao Barnikana

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

Sarthika Singhal
ROLL NO.
21LLB141

SEMESTER
1st Semester

1
 Acknowledgement

I heartily and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to my project supervisor Dr. Narasinga

Rao Barnikana who guided this study from its inception and whose learning and insights helped
me immensely in the writing of the project on the movie “Article 15”. Working under him has
indeed been a rewarding experience for me.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY library and the academic department for their continuous support and availability
of resources and books without which it would have been impossible to complete this project
within the stipulated time frame.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my parents and classmates for their unconditional
support, as well as their ideas and viewpoints, which helped me move forward with my project.

Sarthika Singhal

2
 Table of Contents

S. No. Topic Page No.

1. Abstract 4

2. Objectives of The Study 5

3. Scope & Significance of the study 5

4. Review of Literature 6

5. Plot Summary of the movie 7-8

6. Judicial Perspective of the movie 9-10

7. Outcome/s of the Project 11

8. Conclusion and Suggestions 12

9. Bibliography 13

3
 Abstract
Philadelphia, which was released in 1993, begins with Andrew Beckett, a young and capable
lawyer who was diagnosed with AIDS and sacked after his sickness was revealed by the firm's
partners. Beckett seeks to hire a lawyer to sue his previous employer, Wyant Wheeler, for
discrimination, but every lawyer he meets with turns him down. After seeing discriminatory
behaviours against Beckett, Joe Miller, a lawyer he had previously defeated in a court dispute,
decided to represent him in court. Beckett triumphs in his case after a series of proceedings,
setting a precedent in America. The true story of Geoffrey Bowers, an attorney who sued
American law firm Baker & McKenzie in one of the earliest AIDS discrimination cases in the
country in 1987, was the inspiration for this film.

The film Philadelphia, featuring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, is The first major
Hollywood film to directly address the condition, this incredibly well-made message picture
about tolerance, fairness, and discrimination is aimed at general viewers. Jonathan Demme's
follow-up to his Oscar-winning "The Silence of the Lambs," which is fronted by a dynamite lead
performance from Tom Hanks, will need top reviews and a superior marketing campaign to
make it a must-see for members of the general public whose idea of a night out might not be to
see a movie about a man dying of AIDS, is intelligent but too neatly worked out in its political
and melodramatic details.

Jonathan Demme's groundbreaking film about AIDS gives one of the disease's victims a human
face and permanently imprints the disease's personal costs on our minds. As Andrew Beckett, a
man whose vital essence is drained out in front of our eyes, Tom Hanks provides a riveting
performance. While many AIDS patients suffer in silence, this one is blessed to have his family's
unconditional love.

Philadelphia sends two powerful messages: we can't ignore mortality, and we can learn to live in
the moment from people living with AIDS. When Andrew tries to share his love of opera with
Joe in his apartment, the film's most dramatic sequence occurs. He dances across the room,
attached to his I.V. bottle, mesmerised by a Maria Callas aria. Andrew has perfected the
technique of living fully in the ripeness, fully aware that he is dying. Andrew has learned the
discipline of living fully in the moment, fully knowing that he is dying, whereas Joe,
embarrassed by his client's emotional swoon, wants to flee quickly.

The movie also successfully conveys the hornet's nest of AIDS-related misinformation,
prejudice, half-truths, and fatal lies. As Joe discovers, this epidemic causes a social death that
occurs before the physical death. Denzel Washington's performance is a tour de force in
portraying the insidiousness of abuse towards people living with AIDS. He demonstrates how
prejudice can contaminate even the most sensible people as he eventually transforms his attitudes

4
 and overcomes his concerns. Despite Joe's failure to totally overcome his homophobia, he
admires Andrew's brave fight for life and his attempt to die with dignity and grace.

Objectives of the Study:

 The objective of this study is to observe how legal English/language had been
implemented in the movie. (or)
 The main objective of this investigation is to see how legal English/language was used in
the film.
 To observe how Courts/ Law Enforcement agencies/law making bodies are perceived by
the Director/makers of the movie.
 To identify principles of law, if any, that are used in the movie.
 And also, Review the movie from legal perspective.

Scope of the Study:

The study is confined to the movie “Philadealphia” summary, legal systems and their
implementation.

Signification of the Study:

The research will help us in comprehending the past, present, and future of legal
perspectives, as well as their implementation in the legal profession.

5
 Survey and Review of Literature

The articles and websites used in this project are –

1. IMDB:

In this article, the reviewer examines the director’s point of view at the time and examines the
film from their perspective. He gave a rating of 7.7/10 for the film “Philadelphia”. He didn’t
explained much about the film except explaning storyline , plot , trivia and the cast of the movie.

2. Rotten Tomatoes:

The reviewer has written the critical review of this film in this article and has criticized the
discrimination shown in the movie. The reviewer appraised the lawyer how stood up against the
company and also the film due to its message to mainstream audience regarding the taboo of
AIDS. The reviewer also said that it is a piece of history that anyone with a heart and a sense of
justice can understand.

3. NY Times :

In this post, the reviewer has exhaustively discussed the film, leaving no room for interpretation;
reading this review is akin to seeing the entire film without any personal bias or preference. The
reviewer also critically analyzed the cast and their performance and expressed that the movie
accomplished the aim that it wanted to achieve.

4. Wikipedia :
In this post , the reviewer discussed everything about the movie from head to toe and also
appreciated the movie for winning not only momentos but the hearts of the mainstream
audience.

6
 Plot Summary
Andrew Beckett works as a senior associate at Wyant, Wheeler, Hellerman,
Tetlow, and Brown, the city's largest business law firm. He keeps his
homosexuality and AIDS patient status hidden from the rest of the firm. Beckett
has a lesion on his forehead, which a company partner sees. Despite Beckett's
claim that the lesion was caused by a racquetball injury, it is Kaposi's sarcoma, an
AIDS-related disease.
Beckett takes a few days off work to try to disguise his lesions following that. He
completes paperwork for a case he's been given while at home and brings it to his
office, leaving instructions for his assistants to submit the papers the next day,
which is the end of the case's statute of limitations. He gets a call later that
morning, asking for the documentation since the paper copy is missing and no
copies are on the computer's hard drive. The paperwork is eventually found in a
different location and filed with the court at the very last minute. Beckett is fired
the next day by the partners of the firm.
Beckett believes that his paperwork was purposefully hidden to provide the firm a
pretext to fire him, and that his dismissal is a result of both his AIDS diagnosis and
his sexuality. He asks eleven lawyers to take his case, including Joe Miller, an
African-American personal injury lawyer whom Beckett had previously fought in a
separate matter. Miller seems concerned that he might get Beckett's illness. Miller
promptly contacts his doctor after declining the case to see if he may have
contracted the sickness. The doctor clarifies that HIV infection does not spread
through casual contact.
Beckett is forced to serve as his own attorney after failing to locate a lawyer
willing to represent him. Miller notices Beckett at an adjacent table while
researching a case at a law library. Beckett is approached by a librarian who
informs him that he has uncovered a case on AIDS discrimination for him. The
librarian suggests Beckett withdraw to a separate room as others in the library
begin to gaze uncomfortably. Miller approaches Beckett, studies the material he
has gathered, and accepts the case after seeing parallels in how he has endured
discrimination because of his colour.
As the case progresses in court, the firm's partners testify, each saying that Beckett
was incompetent and had purposefully tried to conceal his illness. Beckett was not
a victim of AIDS, according to the defence, because he inflicted it on himself by
7
 having gay intercourse. During testimony, it was discovered that Walter Kenton,
the partner who had seen Beckett's lesion, had previously worked with a lady who
had contracted AIDS after receiving a blood transfusion, and thus should have
identified the lesion as being related to AIDS. Kenton testified that, unlike Beckett,
the woman was an innocent victim, and that he did not recognise Beckett's lesions.
Miller asks Beckett to unbutton his shirt while on the witness stand to illustrate that
the lesions would have been visible, indicating that his lesions are certainly visible
and recognisable as such. Throughout the process, Miller's homophobia slowly
disappears as he and Beckett bond from working together.
Beckett finally passes out during the trial and is taken to the hospital. Following
that, another partner, Bob Seidman, who had also spotted Beckett's lesions, says
that he knew Beckett had AIDS but never told anyone or allowed him to explain
himself, something he regrets greatly. During Beckett's hospitalisation, the jury
rules in his favour, paying him nearly $5 million in back pay, pain and suffering
damages, and punitive penalties. After the verdict, Miller visits the clearly failing
Beckett in the hospital and overcomes his anxiety of touching Beckett's face.
Beckett tells his associate Miguel Alvarez that he is "ready" once the family has
left the room. Miller and his wife are awoken later that night by a phone call from
Alvarez, who informs them that Beckett has died peacefully. Following the
funeral, a memorial is held at Beckett's family home, where numerous mourners,
including Miller and his family, view home movies of Beckett as a happy child.

8
 Judicial Perspective

Article 15 in the Constitution of India, 1950

Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

“(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them,
be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or
partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women
and children.
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any
special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”1

Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Defines rape as "sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by
coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped, or is of
unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age."
It's rape if it falls under following categories:

1
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 15.
9
“1. Against her will.
 
2. Without her consent.
 

3. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom
she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
 
4. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is
given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be
lawfully married.
 
5. With her consent, when, at the time of giving such a consent, by reason of unsoundness of
mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any
stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences
of that to which she gives consent.
 
6. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation: Penetration
is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.”2

Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Except in certain aggravated situations, the punishment will be imprisonment of not less than
seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In
aggravated situations, punishment will be rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.3

2
Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 375.
3
Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 376.

10
 Outcome/s of the Project

We can see how legal skills have been integrated in this movie in detail. How much dedication
has been shown for investigating and resolving the case. Article 15 is a gutsy work, not the least
explanation, it is loaded up with references to current undertakings from the Badaun hangings to
the Una case and more.

Each smooth sentence spoken in Article 15 feels like a bolt set free from a rigid bowstring by a
pro toxophilite, slicing through horse crap and past the play-it-safe ramblings ruling the
continuous liberal talk to say it like it is and express what is required be said.

Watching this film is a staggering psychic encounter. Article 15 is the best film that Indian film
industry could have given in these grieved times in the event that it decides to hold a mirror up to
our general public, convincing us to face the most terrible that we are and the best that we can be
when we are not occupied with saving our own skins.

11
 Conclusion and suggestions

The thing I realized after watching the movie “Article 15” is that even after including the Article
15 in the Indian Constitution which says that there should be a prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, there is casteism visible in most of the parts
of the country. Also, the rape laws which have been passed, are not getting implemented in the
country in a proper manner. Still there are numerous number of rape cases happening in our
country. What the main point is that there is no lack of laws, but there is a dire need of the
implementation of these laws in a genuine manner to make our country a better and safe place.

12
 Bibliography

1) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10324144/
2) https://www5.himovies.to/movie/article-15-47242
3) https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/article-15-movie-review-ayushmann-khurranas-
restraint-fits-this-gutsy-overwhelming-take-on-dalit-abuse-6888671.html
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_15_(film)
5) The Constitution Of India, Article 15
6) Indian Penal Code, Section 375 & 376

13
14