Philadelphia

[Boston Guy]

Did anyone watch Philadelphia on TBS tonight?

 

I thought this time I could watch it without sobbing. I was wrong. I hate this disease.

[Justice]

I know what you mean. I can't watch it either. (I cried so hard that I actually had to walk out of the theater the first time that I tried to watch it.) Ditto for "And the Band Played On" on HBO. At least I was able to change to channel for that one. I hate this disease too. We've come a long way, but we've got far too long to go.

[Guest 101]

>Did anyone watch Philadelphia on TBS

>tonight?

>

>I thought this time I could

>watch it without sobbing.

>I was wrong. I

>hate this disease.

 

 

I did not watch it on TBS tonight however, I have seen the film several times. Like several others in this genre Philadelphia is quite emotional, discouraging and depressing.

 

The one aspect of the film that I really liked is Tom Hanks' character never really gave up. He kept fighting and I feel that is what all socially concerned people must do to beat A.I.D.S.

[Guest pickwick]

I can never watch that film because it's so incredibly hokey. Ugh!

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

You must have laughed when Bambi's mother died.

[Guest pickwick]

When who died? This must be another nelly in-joke.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

wrong again

[Will]

Joey's right, Pickwick is wrong. Since when is it "nelly" to know one of the most famous Walt Disney schlock scenes in the entire history of film? Ever since I had to be carried screaming from the theater when Bambi's mother died, I've hated Walt Disney. And I still do.

 

More important, Joey's allusion is -- sort of -- gay. And Pickwick's use of the term "nelly" in this context indicates a contempt for an important (perhaps the most important) element of gay culture in this country, namely, camp humor. That's too bad. If we can't laugh, and laugh at ourselves, we're in bad shape. And not only as a group. As individuals, too.

 

This is off the subject, but now it's off my chest as well.

 

Speaking of Walt Disney and rose-colored fantasies, I return for a moment to Tom Hanks. Frankly, I despise PHILADELPHIA, though not because it's sad. I hate it because it's unreal, pre-digested sentimentality for straight people who don't want to watch Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas make love on the screen. (For all I know, neither do Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas.) In the context of this thread, I suppose that's heresy. Thus I suppose my demurral will start a controversy, too.

 

Please, though, let the controversy be about a movie and not about whether or not Will thinks AIDS is evil. For the record: Will does think AIDS is evil and he hates it.

[Traveller]

>You must have laughed when Bambi's

>mother died.

 

Of course not. I cried. That was a terrible waste of good venison.

 

Later.

[Guest regulation]

>Joey's right, Pickwick is wrong.

>Since when is it "nelly"

>to know one of the

>most famous Walt Disney schlock

>scenes in the entire history

>of film?

 

It isn't. Joey felt like slinging a bit of mud, as he occasionally does, and Pick slung back.

 

>More important, Joey's allusion is --

>sort of -- gay.

>And Pickwick's use of the

>term "nelly" in this context

>indicates a contempt for an

>important (perhaps the most important)

>element of gay culture in

>this country, namely, camp humor.

 

As Pickwick said in another recent thread, I don't think anyone has been elected to define gay culture, and those whom the popular media has selected as "representative" of gays are probably not typical of men who desire other men in this country. You may find "camp humor" important, but plenty of us find it trivial and annoying.

 

>Speaking of Walt Disney and rose-colored

>fantasies, I return for a

>moment to Tom Hanks.

>Frankly, I despise PHILADELPHIA, though

>not because it's sad.

>I hate it because it's

>unreal, pre-digested sentimentality for straight

>people who don't want to

>watch Tom Hanks and Antonio

>Banderas make love on the

>screen.

 

The movie isn't about a love affair between two men, but about discrimination against an AIDS victim. And as such it is very poorly plotted.

 

A man deceives his employers about the fact that he has a disease that is debilitating and ultimately terminal. He does this in order to induce them to put him in charge of a project that is important to the firm and very demanding in terms of the efforts that will be required of him personally. When his employers find out that he has been deceiving them, they fire him. He then sues and wins a fortune. Only in the P.C. fantasy world of Hollywood could this guy be considered a hero.

 

There are plenty of AIDS victims who have faced discrimination and its consequences although they themselves have done nothing wrong. Maybe someday someone will make a film about one of them.

[Guest Zach DC]

>I can never watch that film

>because it's so incredibly hokey. Ugh!

 

 

I must agree with Pickwick on this. Philadelphia is a moist lump of Hollywood cock-a-doodoo.

 

I saw it only once when it was first released, but I remember well it being a bad movie. So lousy, I too, have refused watching it again.

 

All the characters were either black or white. Tom Hanks seemed the only character painted in color--painfully deep shades of grey. (I remember some hokey attempt at surrealism where he is in a red room dancing with a lamp or something??) All the one-sided characters juxtaposed with Hanks' sad, sad depth--it only separated gays and straights, and widened the existing gap between reality and (Hollywood's version of) public perception.

 

I specifically recall the courtroom dialogue offensive. The prosecution's attack on Hank's character was insulting to intelligent moviegoers. I don't remember a lot of other details. I do remember the movie as a whole was completely unrealistic yet tried too hard to be plausible and mainstream and sentimental. It was Hollywood at its best/worst.

 

Does anyone remember all the prerelease press about Philadelphia? This was Hanks first serious role. Until then, the public knew nothing about the actor's private life.

 

Before its release, the producers of Philadelphia urged Hanks appear publicly, in interviews, on television--talking about his private life--his successful marriage--making countless appearances with his lovely wife. Tom's happy heterosexuality was promoted nationwide.

 

No doubt, this film was a Hollywood/Hetero production. Everyone was urged come see it, straights and even gays. And don't worry. It won't offend or enlighten. This is a hetero retelling of a gay disease.

 

Sorry for the cynicism. The worst movies are those with elements for greatness, but lacking courage to deliver. And reading other reviews here, maybe I'll rent Philadelphia this week. Maybe I missed something really good about it the first time.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Joey felt like slinging a bit of mud<

 

Easy does it, sweetie. Until you're inside my head, you have no clue what I feel like doing. But in the interest of fair play, let's see just how clairvoyant you are. What am I thinking right now?

 

>Pick slung back<

 

By calling me a fag. How butch.

 

>You may find "camp humor" important, but plenty of us find it trivial and annoying.<

 

Yet bruisers like you and Pickwick find the trivialization of others' emotions (those who were sobbing) so important and entertaining that you'll do it at every turn. Seems like a pretty muddy practice, even for a real man.

[Guest 101]

This is a hetero

>retelling of a gay disease.

>

 

Now I feel as if I missed something. When did A.I.D.S. become a "gay" disease? Has there been a revision to its original monkier (G.R.I.D.S.)that I missed?

 

Your view of the film is rightly subjective. This is why some appreciate the merits while others cannot find any.

 

---------------------------------------------

"How can I go forward when I don't know which way I'm facing" -John Lennon

[Guest regulation]

>>Joey felt like slinging a bit of mud<

>

>Easy does it, sweetie. Until you're

>inside my head, you have

>no clue what I feel

>like doing.

 

Okay, Joey, so you typed that insulting little post even though you didn't feel like doing it. You did it very much against your own inclinations in the cause of World Peace. That better?

 

>But in the

>interest of fair play, let's

>see just how clairvoyant you

>are. What am I thinking

>right now?

>

 

(Putting hand to forehead and closing eyes) Uhhhh . . . about the time when you were twelve and borrowed a volume of the World Book Encyclopedia from the kid next door and returned it with chewing gum stuck to the pages?

 

>>Pick slung back<

>

>By calling me a fag. How

>butch.

>

 

Well, Joe, most people, when you insult them, don't give you a list of possible comebacks for your approval before they respond, although I admit that it would be a better world if they did. :-)

 

>>You may find "camp humor" important, but plenty of us find it trivial and annoying.<

>

>Yet bruisers like you and Pickwick

>find the trivialization of others'

>emotions (those who were sobbing)

>so important and entertaining that

>you'll do it at every

>turn. Seems like a pretty

>muddy practice, even for a

>real man.

 

All Pick and I did was say we don't like that movie. You're the one who made this personal. Don't whine about it.

[Guest Zach DC]

Hey 101, you ask when did AIDS become a "gay disease"? A better question might be when did AIDS become a "straight disease" or a "straight concern"?

 

Philadelphia took place in the Reagan era.

 

That was my main problem with the movie. Its attempt to bridge gaps between gay issues and mainstream America. Its attempt to finally talk frankly about AIDS. Its attempt to be "honest" but still make a profit. It failed.

 

The story was over the top but weak. The characters one dimensional.

 

And I don't think Tom Hanks received the Oscar for his brilliant acting. The role was turned down by Hollywood's A-list and B-list actors. Tom, with his lovable non-confrontational looks, accepted the role. And yes, America, Tom is 100% heterosexual. So come see the movie.

 

And honestly 101, I haven't seen Philadelphia since it was released. I do remember much of what made it a bad film. My review was negative. And my "gay disease" comment was blatant cynicism which I immediately apologized for.

 

Obviously, there are good points to be mentioned for this film. I appreciate Philadelphia's attempt. And I imagine for many it did bring needed awareness.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>All Pick and I did was say we don't like that movie.<

 

In your haste to spin your own little digs, you must have missed the part of my post where I spell out what was done. I'll repost for your enjoyment and clarification.

 

>>>you and Pickwick find the trivialization of others' emotions so important and entertaining that you'll do it at every turn.<<<

 

>so you typed that insulting little post even though you didn't feel like doing it.<

 

Well you're partially right. I didn't feel like doing it, but when the crossed brow of belittlement clouds an otherwise poignant horizon, I am compelled to bathe that brow in a golden shower of "insults". Go figure.

 

>You did it very much against your own inclinations in the cause of World Peace. That better?<

 

No. It's a cure for cancer that I'm working on. Are you sure you can read minds?

 

>>let's see just how clairvoyant you are.<<

>>What am I thinking right now?<<

 

>(Putting hand to forehead and closing eyes) Uhhhh . . . <

 

Ha! So far so good...

 

>about the time when you were twelve and borrowed a volume of the World Book Encyclopedia from the kid next door and returned it with chewing gum stuck to the pages?<

 

Not bad, miss Cleo. But it wasn't the watchamapedia, it was Fanny Hill. And it wasn't gum sticking to the pages, you silly thing. On a side note, it's comforting to know you still think of me.

 

>>>Pick slung back<<<

>>By calling me a fag. How butch.<<

 

>most people, when you insult them, don't give you a list of possible comebacks for your approval before they respond, although I admit that it would be a better world if they did.<

 

I'll agree with you there, but according to my insultometer, my crack was about as insulting as pickwicks original post, which was more deliberately insensitive to those feeling something deep and real and sad (those discussing how a film affected them) than it was insulting, although many will equate the two. My post called attention to that insensitivity. I see no insults, not until the nelly bit anyway, which I feel was designed to show contempt, as Will so ably points out. Still, I've taken no real offense and readily admit that it was mildly humorous.

 

>You're the one who made this personal. Don't whine about it.<

 

Beneath your monotonous shrieking I suppose everything sounds like a whine, but I'm really just making conversation. I've never even seen the damn film. But I've seen it's affect on people's emotions, and that's nothing to make light of or scoff at.

 

The last word's all yours.

[Guest TFNH]

I recall no scenes which indicated that the Hanks character lobbied in any way for the assignment he was given. Under protection of US labor laws he was under no obligation to disclose his illness; at the time of the assignment he was fully capable of handling the assignment. Even if his capacities had been diminished he would have been protected by the ADA. Protecting of his privacy is the legal right of all employees, not a deception.

[Guest regulation]

>I recall no scenes which indicated

>that the Hanks character lobbied

>in any way for the

>assignment he was given.

 

Then see the film again. He had a long meeting with the firm's senior partner, portrayed by Jason Robards, in which he was unmistakably auditioning for that job, which if I recall correctly was a major private antitrust action.

 

 

>Under protection of US labor

>laws he was under no

>obligation to disclose his illness;

>at the time of the

>assignment he was fully capable

>of handling the assignment.

 

Not true. He was fired after a document that he needed to file on behalf of the client went missing. That happened because he was not at the office. He was not at the office because he was dealing with symptoms of his illness.

 

So far as disclosure is concerned, I seem to recall that a major issue at the trial was whether anyone at his firm knew of his illness before he was fired. Without establishing that, there is no way he could prevail. The whole problem arose because he failed to disclose.

 

>Even if his capacities had

>been diminished he would have

>been protected by the ADA.

> Protecting of his privacy

>is the legal right of

>all employees, not a deception.

 

It is highly unethical for an attorney to undertake a matter for a client if he knows that some personal problem may interfere with his handling of that matter. Attorneys are routinely suspended or even disbarred for doing such things.

 

In truth, a savvy litigator such as the one portrayed by Hanks in the movie wouldn't behave as he did. Instead of concealing his illness, he would have disclosed it to the firm's management immediately. That would have put them in a position in which they couldn't fire or in any way penalize him without risking some major liability.

[Will]

> No doubt, this film was a Hollywood/Hetero production.

 

Well, actually it wasn't, which is something that has always puzzled me. The screenwriter is gay and out, and in many interviews (including one, as I recall, in THE ADVOCATE) he made it clear that he was aiming at the broad middle of American attitudes towards homosexuality, not at gay men. One of my closest friends and his wife saw the film and were so moved that they started giving money to an AIDS charity. Naturally, they recommended it to me, and I rushed right out to see it. Then I rushed to the computer and wrote a scathing "review" of it from my perspective as a gay man. My friend was so angry, assuming that it was an attack on his values and his tastes, that it almost cost me that friendship.

 

At the time it came out, PHILADELPHIA was wildly popular. It was very, very interesting from that point of view -- that is, from the way it appealed to straight, liberal, educated, white, middle-class people.

 

As far as I was concerned, the story was really about a middle-class, straight, homophobic-but-educated African American man (played by Denzel Washington) who was finally able to accept a gay man into his life. In fact, the only scenes of real affection, sexually expressed, were between the Denzel character and his wife. What's more, we learned a lot more about her as a human being than we did about the character Antonio Banderas played, even though he was the protagonist's life-partner.

[Guest regulation]

>>so you typed that insulting little post even though you didn't feel like doing it.<

>

>Well you're partially right. I didn't

>feel like doing it, but

>when the crossed brow of

>belittlement clouds an otherwise poignant

>horizon, I am compelled to

>bathe that brow in a

>golden shower of "insults". Go

>figure.

>

 

No one is compelling you to do anything. Every word you put on this message board is there because you want it there. If you don't like insulting people, don't do it. If you're going to do it, don't whine and complain when others respond in kind.

 

 

>>You did it very much against your own inclinations in the cause of World Peace. That better?<

>

>No. It's a cure for cancer

>that I'm working on. Are

>you sure you can read

>minds?

>

 

Yes I can, but I can read only if there is something there to read, see my point? :-)

 

 

>Pick slung back<<<

>>>By calling me a fag. How butch.<<

>

>>most people, when you insult them, don't give you a list of possible comebacks for your approval before they respond, although I admit that it would be a better world if they did.<

>

>I'll agree with you there, but

>according to my insultometer, my

>crack was about as insulting

>as pickwicks original post, which

>was more deliberately insensitive to

>those feeling something deep and

>real and sad (those discussing

>how a film affected them)

>than it was insulting, although

>many will equate the two.

>My post called attention to

>that insensitivity. I see no

>insults, not until the nelly

>bit anyway, which I feel

>was designed to show contempt,

>as Will so ably points

>out. Still, I've taken no

>real offense and readily admit

>that it was mildly humorous.

>

>

 

The difference that you seem unable to comprehend is the same one that HB has tried to address in BIG letters at the top of every page of this message board: attack the issues, not the people. Our comments were not addressed to or about any person. Yours were.

 

 

>>You're the one who made this personal. Don't whine about it.<

>

>Beneath your monotonous shrieking I suppose

>everything sounds like a whine,

 

It always sounds like whining to me when you follow your usual pattern of insulting another poster, then complaining when he fires back.

 

>but I'm really just making

>conversation. I've never even seen

>the damn film. But I've

>seen it's affect on people's

>emotions, and that's nothing to

>make light of or scoff

>at.

>

>The last word's all yours.

 

The word that always occurs to me when I see one of your posts is "bullshit."

[Boston Guy]

I've always found it interesting how different people react differently to a movie, even people who otherwise share a somewhat similar view of the world.

 

Even more interesting to me, though, is how some of my friends seem to feel a need to condemn many of the movies they see, as if doing so is somehow an affirmation of their own continuing good taste. And let me hasten to add that I say this, Will, not as an attack on what you or anyone has written above, but rather as in introduction to what I write below.

 

I long ago decided that I didn't need to apologize to anyone for liking or disliking a movie. If my friends and I don't agree on a movie, that's fine -- in fact, it's often more interesting that way because it gives us more to discuss. I think movies can help us understand ourselves and how we react to them is just the beginning of that process.

 

But it's also important to understand how we approach the movie, too. The attitude and life experience we bring to it is as important as what the director and the actors have put on the screen. If one were to suddenly transport the most educated man or woman of 1890 to the present day and take them to see any movie showing in any theater, they would judge it to be the most marvelous thing they had ever seen.

 

When I go to see a movie, I'm usually looking for entertainment and I use that world carefully. I work very hard, often long hours, and my job is quite demanding. When I find myself in a movie theater on a weekend night, I'm often tired and I want to be entertained. I want to be amused, I want it to be fun or funny or whatever. It doesn't have to be a great film for me to enjoy it.

 

That's not true for some of my friends. When we come out of shows, they are often critical and annoyed and haven't enjoyed the time or the process, whereas I've usually had a perfectly good time and fulfilled my goal: to be entertained, to be amused.

 

One friend and I go to see light romantic comedies from time to time. He likes these movies and I have to come to like many of them, too. None of them are great art or even great movies. But they amuse and they make us laugh and we usually leave the theater feeling like romance is alive and all is well with the world, at least for 120 minutes.

 

Philadelphia is a different story, in more ways than one. I went to see it with rather high hopes and, unlike many of those who have posted in this thread, I was not particularly disappointed. In fact, on some levels, I was amazed at this movie that was being presented to people all over America.

 

Sure, the movie is not one of the great ones. And it's easy to point out flaws. But, I think that doing so rather misses the point.

 

When this movie came out, much of middle America was in denial big-time about AIDS and Philadelphia really was the first thing that some Americans saw -- literally saw -- that dealt with the disease. I had straight friends from around the country who called me after it came out, in some cases to ask if I was OK and, in other cases, to say "I hadn't realized what you were going through."

 

Movies are art and, from that perspective, any viewer's honest reaction is a valid one. There is no "right" or correct view of any piece of art and I'm not even sure that I buy the idea that an educated view is more valid than an uneducated view: an educated view is certainly more informed but I don't think I'd go so far as to say more valid.

 

So I don't criticize my gay friends if they put down this movie. That's their honest feeling about it and it's ok. My reaction is different and its visceral and it has a great deal to do with what was going on in my life at the time the movie came out. It has to do with seeing the looks on the faces of the family and friends of the people in the movie -- the looks I had seen on the family and friends of my sick friends. It has to do with scenes in the hospital: scared, worried people gathered about a loved one, straight family and gay friends mingling in a hospital corridor. I could have been in one of those scenes. It has to do with a memorial service filled with a such a mixed group, with people gathered together to try to celebrate a life that ended way too soon. I have been at too many of these. There are too many moments in the film that strike too close to home for me to dismiss it. It tugs at my life experience.

 

I don't mind the plot details and I don't mind the flaws. I don't care one iota if it's not a perfect film. It affects me and it affects me strongly and that is simply what it is. And the fact that it also helped waken some of my straight friends and family to AIDS and helped them understand a little of what my friends and I were going through as we helped other friends die, well, from my perspective, that was a pretty powerful thing for a simple movie to accomplish.

 

I didn't want to watch the movie the other night and in fact I skipped about the first 45 minutes. But I finally did turn it on and I am glad that I did.

[Traveller]

Philadelphia was a tad treacly for me; altho I'm not completely David Lynchy, the eyes did get a little moist at the end of Moulin Rouge. However, when in doubt, always "Serpentine Shel, serpentine."

 

Later.

 

PS. And now for something completely different....

[Will]

Because of my profession, which has to do with scholarship and the fine arts, I can almost never watch a movie as "entertainment" unless it is an action film. When it concerns something that affects me very deeply, it is just not possible for me to take out the "art" filters. (I'm the same way about novels and music. The only kind of novel I can read for pure entertainment is whodunnits; otherwise, I read them as literature.) The friend to whom I referred makes his living writing about Greek poetry; therefore, when we talk about a film that has serious content, we talk about "art" not "entertainment." (The ease with which those two things get mixed and matched is a major symptom of What Ails Us as a nation, but that's another thread.)

 

Thus, my critique of PHILADELPHIA was not aimed at the degree to which it aroused passion in people like my friends. My criticism had to do with what I still think was a deliberately sanitized representation of the way most gay men of my acquaintance live, think, and work.

 

Believe me, I enjoy a movie that makes me think. PHILADELPHIA made me think, and think hard, about a lot of things that touch the core of my very being. Therefore, although I don't like the movie -- and still don't -- I have to take it seriously. And that, I suppose, is precisely where my reservations about it would start.

 

Another thread also would be your point that "educated" vs. "uneducated" doesn't matter. If education -- whatever you mean by that -- isn't useful when it comes to understanding how one of the major mythic operations of our times (film) works, then I don't know why we even bother to send kids to school. Surely, if it doesn't matter whether or not ordinary people have developed some kind of critical abilities, then why does it matter how they decide on whom to vote for?

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>see my point?<

 

I've always been aware of your point. It's right there on top of your head, supporting your propeller beanie.

 

>The difference that you seem unable to comprehend is the same one that HB has tried to address in BIG letters at the top of every page of this message board: attack the issues, not the people.<

 

But I'm playing by the rules. You and your presumptuous rudeness are what I take issue with, as surely must be the case with your feelings about me. You're just as bad as I am. Incapable of behaving better than a common whore. The shame of it all. But you're not even under attack, ya big baby. You just don't like it when an uppity escort feeds you some of your own brand of Gerber crap. And you're within your rights to feel that way. A dignified guy like you should never have to take the kind of lip I'm giving you.

 

>your usual pattern of insulting another poster, then complaining when he fires back<

 

Love the military jargon (all this attacking and firing), but yet again you are mistaken. The pattern has not been to complain, but to stand and deliver a volley of my own. Pick and I traded slight barbs. You're the one who began to bitch and moan. If you can't handle the dialogue, get thee to a hospice!

Forgive me for stealing one of your standby lines here, but you and your hypocrisy slay me.

 

>>The last word's all yours<<

 

>The word that always occurs to me when I see one of your posts is "bullshit."<

 

Perhaps because you're so full of it.

And such noble parting words.

Would you care for another crack at it?

[Boston Guy]

>

>Another thread also would be your

>point that "educated" vs. "uneducated"

>doesn't matter. If education

>-- whatever you mean by

>that -- isn't useful when

>it comes to understanding how

>one of the major mythic

>operations of our times (film)

>works, then I don't know

>why we even bother to

>send kids to school.

>Surely, if it doesn't matter

>whether or not ordinary people

>have developed some kind of

>critical abilities, then why does

>it matter how they decide

>on whom to vote for?

>

 

I didn't and don't claim that education doesn't matter; as someone who has worked in and around higher education for his whole life, I take it quite seriously and value it quite highly.

 

But I do believe that although art is often created with an audience in mind, the reaction of other audiences -- even ones not informed about the technical, cultural or historical context in which the work was created -- are still valid.

 

To use a different example, consider the skyscraper. Most of the people walking by, living and working in its shadow, will probably not understand the architectural context in which it was created or even the engineering or financial decisions upon which its design was based. But they may well have an opinion about the building and I think these "citizen opinions" should be viewed as valid and worth considering.

 

As for film, films today are shipped around the world and viewed in many contexts and cultures. Something looks or feels right in one place may be very wrong in another. So I think that when any of us tries to make an authoritative statement about whether a film is "good" or "bad", we really have to place ourselves within the context with which we are judging it.

 

As for Philadelphia, if anything, the gay community is outside the context and target audience that it was made for, in my opinion. I think it was aimed directly at the heart of America and, like all films, was made to make money. That it touched on an important and timely topic was simply a by-product.

 

There's so much money at stake these days in any one film that Hollywood is loathe to take chances that cause the financial downfall of a studio. For a film like Philadelphia to be made at all, I think, was really sort of remarkable.

 

Finally, I'm not at all sure that I think the ability to critically decide how to vote is based upon the same things as being able to critically look at a piece of art. Certainly, some of the same skills come into play. But the background, at least, is different. I'm not suggesting that at least some background in art history isn't a valuable thing; it is and I have consistently recommended it strongly to undergraduates.

 

But I think the knowledge needed to be able to effectively participate as a citizen in a democracy is different. Both are valuable but they are different.