Why They Hate (or Love) Larry Kramer

L arry Kramer’s commentary “Why I Hated ‘Philadelphia’ ” (Jan. 9) produced an unusually heavy response from readers. A sample of their opinions:

DID WE SEE THE SAME MOVIE?

I’m angry too, Larry--at you for being so oblivious to what “Philadelphia” really is, what director Jonathan Demme and screenwriter Ron Nyswaner have so lovingly created. The audience I was with, at the movie I saw, was moved beyond emotion. A woman was found in the restroom afterward, beyond consolation. The entire audience sat motionless for minutes after the final credits rolled in total silence.

Andy Beckett’s death was certainly not medically inaccurate. My brother would gladly dispute Kramer’s inaccuracy, if only he hadn’t died the very same way.

At fund-raising screenings of the movie, audiences have felt compelled to donate thousands of dollars to AIDS charities. That certainly goes a much longer way toward helping the cause than the misrepresentation of Kramer’s unbelievable critique.

If his commentary misguides just one potential viewer to not see the film, Kramer has done his part at setting back the cause.

Since his “fury is directed at the third silent President,” I’d strongly recommend that Kramer wake up and direct his anger in that direction, and not at what is one of the most socially important and compassionate films ever made.

LAWRENCE MONACO

Los Angeles

Kramer has overlooked the purpose of “Philadelphia.” The film wasn’t made to speak for him, or even to him. He is already so hyper-aware of the AIDS crisis, on a personal and political level, that it’s doubtful a six-hour documentary could adequately address his anger and concerns.

“Philadelphia” was made to speak to a much broader audience, as yet untouched by AIDS and still anxious to ignore the subject. This it does exceedingly well, and many of the film’s strengths become apparent only after one considers director Demme’s narrative options and choices.

Of necessity, the target audience for “Philadelphia” is overwhelmingly heterosexual, and rather than provoke and agitate, Demme chose to involve them with familiar, mainstream characters and situations. This was in fact the same approach employed, with great success, by “An Early Frost” and “Longtime Companion.” The bottom line is that a great many people are deeply and privately moved by the film.

I, for one, appreciated Tom Hanks’ morally centered, ambitious, cultured, successful, monogamous and, yes, straight-acting character, especially the way he integrated his life into a supportive and accepting traditional family. There are a great many gay men who find a flagrantly sexual lifestyle self-destructive, and who are angry about being a minority within a minority. “Philadelphia” speaks to them as well.

In its own strange way, Kramer’s pronouncement on “Philadelphia” is as arrogant and narrow as any made by the Catholic Legion of Decency during the 1940s and ‘50s. I suspect his real complaint is that he wasn’t approached to be consultant emeritus on the production. I’m curious to know who solicited his opinion, and why The Times ran it just as the film is opening wide.

SEAN FARRELL

Washington, D.C.

As a gay man living with AIDS, I was disgusted by Kramer’s comments concerning “Philadelphia.” As the self-anointed, all-knowing guru of AIDS activism, Kramer expects to be taken seriously by spewing forth nothing but mean-spirited diatribe.

His anger and resentment toward all who will not portray AIDS only as vile killer does nothing but a disservice to the brave individuals, like myself and those around the globe, who are struggling to come to grips with an early mortality.

Jonathan Demme rightfully made “Philadelphia” as “mainstream” because Americans don’t need to be confronted with images of young men and women suffering as their bodies, and often their minds, waste away.

I live with AIDS every day, as does Kramer. But I live with hope for a better tomorrow. Kramer lives in an AIDS-induced chamber of horrors wherein everything and everyone is wrong--except him.

Larry Kramer is indeed the world’s angriest and saddest man.

SCOTT PIAZZA

Los Angeles

As usual Kramer is the angriest dog in the world. That “Philadelphia” was produced at all is a miracle!

Granted, character development might leave something to be desired, but this occurs in many American movies, whether gay or straight. Let’s face facts--the name of the game in Hollywood is money. Maybe “Philadelphia” will lead to more movies addressing the issues of gays and AIDS.

Kramer ends his diatribe blaming Reagan, Bush and Clinton for AIDS. Every piece he writes ends with the same old chestnut. Larry: Get a life. It doesn’t matter who is President. More money is being spent on AIDS research than on any disease in history. We are no closer to a cure or vaccine than five years ago. Maybe there will never be a cure or prevention. Who are you going to blame in 10 years?

JOSEPH W. KRAATZ

Vista

Kramer’s commentary ranks right up there with his last snitty tantrum about Barbra Streisand’s failure to produce his “masterwork,” “The Normal Heart.”

It seems that his problems with “Philadelphia” stem from the slightly unrealistic notion that one movie should serve as a vehicle to vent all of his venom toward our “silent” Presidents and somehow change the entire country’s opinion about AIDS and the gay community. It’s only a movie. It does not claim to be the definitive manifesto on AIDS or gays or anything else.

Apparently Kramer’s desire to see Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks naked in bed, embracing and talking to each other in an adult fashion, has kept him from appreciating Jonathan Demme’s courage in resisting such “fortune”-making banalities.

Surprising that Kramer, in his cliche-ridden diatribe, did not yearn to see a naked homosexual couple lighting up a pair of cigarettes at the end of a passionate sex scene.

NICK PACCIONE

Long Beach

I find great irony in the fact that Larry Kramer found that the story of one rich white gay male “doesn’t bare any truthful resemblance to the life, world and universe” in which he lives. I was unaware that Hollywood was supposed to have been making “The Larry Kramer Story”--that of another rich(er) white gay man with AIDS.

And speaking of the world in which Kramer lives, I can certainly say that it bears no truthful resemblance to the world in which I live. If Kramer believes that the Americans With Disabilities Act has indeed ended all discrimination in the workplace on the basis of HIV, then he lives in an even greater fantasy world than the “ludicrously unbelievable” one he accuses Hollywood of creating.

I have read both of Kramer’s autobiographical plays, and although I found them more dramatically and emotionally satisfying than “Philadelphia,” they are again but one personal story that could easily be condensed into one film possibly titled “New York”!

As a gay man whose life has been transformed by HIV and who actually is from Philadelphia, I cannot say that the movie namesake of my hometown is my story, nor that of countless other men and women across the globe whose lives are affected by HIV. However, for Kramer to state that the film is “simply not good enough and I’d rather people not see it at all” is narcissism at its highest.

TONY ZIMBARDI

Los Angeles

WAIT . . . HE’S RIGHT

Larry Kramer is right on target. The makers of “Philadelphia” probably thought that the notion that Tom Hanks’ character could not find able representation was a dramatic conceit upon which an ennobling story could be built. Wrong. This miserable plot device implies that we queers lack the will and talent to take care of our own.

These filmmakers were so busy trying to demonstrate that they had “heart” that they failed to notice that their entire plot rested on a homophobic absurdity.

TOM BIANCHI

Los Angeles

Bianchi is a lawyer and the author of “Out of the Studio” and “Extraordinary Friends.”

What an honest, insightful and powerful commentary. Kramer’s anger regarding how AIDS and being gay are so inadequately presented in the media, especially in “Philadelphia,” is inspiring.

And how fortunate that the gay community has a spokesman who challenges all of our attitudes about AIDS and being gay. I am also very impressed with The Times’ willingness to print such a provocative, non-mainstream commentary. It is refreshing to read commentaries that provoke thought, enlighten and challenge us to go further with respect to our treatment of one another.

TERENCE RICE

Los Angeles

In his blessedly loud and abrasive manner, Kramer has zeroed in on the lamentable deficiencies of Hollywood’s long-delayed depiction of the AIDS crisis in “Philadelphia.” In their nervous attempt to appease the widest audience possible, the filmmakers have created a message movie that ultimately speaks to no one--a plea for tolerance so timid as to be insulting.

I, for one, hope that Kramer can keep up his shouting long enough to ensure that the film version of his AIDS play “The Normal Heart” retains its fury, outrage, love and passion--aspects of humanity that when presented honestly and without apology speak to all peoples.

SCOTT SLAVEN

Los Angeles