Sympathy for the antagonists

I hope you are kidding. They all knew he had AIDS and that he was gay. They didn't want Bob blurting that out during a deposition though because if Bob said that during a deposition, it proves the defenses case.

I am confused - I thoght one of the mistakes the movie makes took place right after they get served the notice to appear at the ball game. Beckett was bringing them a lawsuit for wrongful termination, not because they fired him for disclosing his illness... right? I didnt think the firm knew Andrew was gay, as they seem to embrace him very well and that Andrew probably held that part of his life from them too.

Here's what I think happened - i think that once the taller firm partner ("whats that on your head, Andrew?") saw the lesion on Andrew's head, thats when he suspected he had AIDS. SO then they orchestrated the event to make it seem like he almost blew the case to remove him. Im beginning to think that after that moment, he went to Jason RObard's character and said

"Say, I think I saw an AIDS lesion on Andy's forehead, it must be from AIDS!"
"So that means, oh my God, that means he's gay! Terrible! He cant work here anymore."
"Then we have to somehow fire him. I have an idea, lets set him up for failure with the case he's about to take!"

That's how it probably went down, although its not shown or even hinted at. Maybe we arent meant to know, as an audience, the actions of the firm partners, but it could have helped - even a breif scene of the partners talking in a closed room or something.

But what I dont understand is how the partners already are convinced that Andrew is gay (per their talk in the Spectrum hallway). Did they believe his having AIDS confirmed he was gay? How does Jason Robard's character (brilliant acting btw, where was his BSA nom?) assume his gay life and secret dirty places? Was Andrew known to be gay at the office?

Then it seems the whole trial was about Andrew being gay, gay this, is the judge gay, blah, the typist, Denzel, etc (another BSA nom not handed out). That aspect of the movie, as to yes or no if the firm knew he was gay or fired him because he had aids and was gay, or just cuz he had aids? Either way, an excellent movie but a little bit flawed.

None!!!

"Peace and love"

That scene just reinforces that they all got together and agreed to lie about why they fired Andy. The one partner wanted to settle and the others beat him down - repeating their agreed upon lie as a challenge to his conscience.

We are the only two that actually watched the film. You are correct. Everyone else is using their politically correct blinders that tell them homosexual AIDS patient can do no wrong and rich lawyer is evil. Aside from Bob's assumption, they only found out at the basketball game because of the subpoena. I urge everyone to watch it again and listen to Charles and Kenton's voices at that part of the scene. They are being completely honest and not winking and slyly nudging each other or anything else that everyone wishes were true. They made the unfortunate mistake of being rich and happening to fire a gay man with AIDS without even knowing he was gay OR he had AIDS.

Total sympathy. I dont even believe they were homophobic. I concur they seemed concerned over a man they had grown to trust and like over the course of many years. Despite his perceived incompetence, they still seemed to care for him. I also admired their standing in the line of fire as one of them admirably stated his compassion for those who caught Grid through no fault of their own.


"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."

"Doesn't that indicate that Bob was the only character that knew Beckett had AIDS and orchestrated the entire missing file scandal himself?"

Remember who these guys are: corporate lawyers.

Meaning people who know NEVER to state anything (even to each other) incriminating (in case one of them, turns rat), so they can always play dummy or claim ignorance or different reasons.

The kind of people who NEVER give straight answers no matter what.

They were simply making sure their cover story was airtight, since if it could be PROVED that Bob knew beforehand Andy was sick, their claim would be seriously undermined.

And remember they were NOT truly alone, or have you forgotten the waiter servicing them, and that basketball celebrity right nest to them in the box?

"The rest of the partners all appear to genuinely believe that Beckett was incompetent. "

When? Based on what? Because up until his lesions were spotted he had just made senior partner and tasked with the firm's top case.

"Yes, they were homophobic, but that’s not against the law. AIDS seemed to bother them a lot more than homosexuality."

It is if you're suspected of having fired someone over it.
- Their defense made the claim again and again that Andy brought AIDS on himself by being gay. What sense does such claim serve if he was truly fired on incompetence? They didn't even bother (or just couldn't) to prove he was incompetent in any other instance. They were clearly trying to sway the jury hoping it had enough bigots (the camera shows several times one juror reacting positively to these arguments and the defense attorney for the law firm clearly taking notice).

I just watched finished watching this again the other day and I think I agree that most of the men in the group didn't know he was sick, except for the one man who dissented. I believe his name was Bob because I remember them saying "geez, Bob. Tell me you didn't know he was sick." Then there was a long pause and he replied "no, not really." This tells me Bob was the only one who had an idea he was sick. I never caught this the handful of times I saw this movie previously.

Another thing I caught was that Bob was the only partner who attended Andy's memorial. I thought it was poetic that the one partner who had an idea he was sick, was presumably invited to, and attended, Andy's memorial.

This is still a great movie, but I think it was intentionally left open to one's interpretation whether Andy was fired because he had AIDS and/or whether he was gay. You better believe that after the actual real case, companies thought twice about firing anyone; especially if they were a minority or group included in a potential discriminating subset (i.e. homosexual, non-white, female, etc.).

One could say that the real case paved the way for future cases involving wrongful terminations. Even if that person was a poor performer.