Tom

You're Still Missing
the Cutoff Man!

An E-Mail Conversation
About Tom Hanks

By John Larrabee and John V. Brennan
October 2005
The following conversation was edited from various emails sent between the two wembasters of this site. Minimal correction for spelling and grammar has taken place. No words were harmed in the making of this article.

     JB...And while we are on movies, I've just seen THE TERMINAL, the latest Spielberg - Hanks epic.  It's far-fetched but eminently enjoyable.  But what struck me as I was watching it was Tom Hanks.  I know we have praised him much in the past, and I know he has multiple Oscars and nominations, but it seems to me that he is still underrated.  Is it just us two who think he is our last throwback to the days of Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant?

     JL: I sense he's underrated too, perhaps because he makes popular mainstream films and isn't edgy enough for the critics.  Yet he's one of the few actors today whose name on a film is sure-fire box office, and last year's Oscars introduced him with "Hail to the Chief," as if he's the top dog in Hollywood.  But he's rarely mentioned in the same breath with other great actors of the last half-century.  Maybe he's too subtle and too much the everyman to stand out.   

     Or maybe it's just that Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart had such distinctive voices and personalties.  Grant could play everything from charming sophisticates to bumbling nerds, Stewart could play "gosh-shucks" innocents as well as tough western heroes and obsessive types, yet both of them were always dependably Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, known commodities.  Hanks might be a better, more versatile actor than either of them, yet he tends to disappear in a role more and doesn't have the sort of qualities that lend themselves to impression.  He does have some consistent qualities that audiences enjoy, but he's not a big personality-type that can be mimicked by Frank Gorshin or Rich Little.

     So while I agree that he's a throwback, the old-time star I'd compare him to is Spencer Tracy.  Nothing especially distinctive about their voices, mannerisms, or physical appearances, just damn good actors who can carry a film on sheer talent.  Maybe a better word than "underrated" would be "underrecognized."  Tracy and Hanks are perhaps the best film actors of their respective generations, both men are big stars, but not quite as big as the Big Personalities.  And they'd have made a great Willy [Loman] and Biff.

Tom   JB:  I think he carries THE TERMINAL on his shoulders in the same way he did CASTAWAY, and I am hard pressed to think of another contemporary actor who could do that - carry an entire film.  Certainly we can dismiss the Sandlers, Stillers and Careys, but what about De Niro?  When's the last time he carried a film by himself?  Even in his heyday, he was always surrounded by excellent casts, with guys like Joe Pesci and the rest of the Scorsese crew.

    JL:  He's also got too much baggage of too many mediocre films and too many phoned-in performances.  He's spread himself too thin by accepting any job offer short of bodyguard at the Phelps Department Store.  1

     Plus, I think De Niro's become almost comical in appearance as he's aged.  Think of the lean and hungry look he had when he was young, with eyes more piercing than Pacino at his scariest.  Now he looks like a character actor.  A few more comedy roles and he'll be tainted with the Leslie Nielsen Effect: it's impossible to take him seriously in his younger dramatic roles any more.  After he shoots Don Fanucci, we'll giggle in anticipation of a one-liner ("If it makes you feel any better, my analyst isn't going to like this one bit.").

    JB: Pacino?  He used to be able to do it.  SCARFACE and SCENT OF A WOMAN are both flawed films made memorable by Pacino's characterizations. In fact, the only real reason to watch either film is to watch Pacino.  But can he do it any more?  I don't know.

    JL: Given the right vehicle, I think he can.  Same for Dustin Hoffman.  But they're all getting to an age now where leading roles are fewer and farther between.  Unless the role is a funny aging gangster or a grumpy dad.

   JB: Tom Hanks has done it twice in recent years - CASTAWAY and THE TERMINAL - and makes it all seem so easy.  And he doesn't do it by chewing the scenery the way Pacino did.  He does it with quiet, dignified and funny performances. 

    JL: I've never once been aware of him "acting" or displaying any technique.  He's got the ability to be totally natural and dominate a scene at the same time.  Again, like Tracy, whose OLD MAN AND THE SEA was sort of like his CASTAWAY.

   JB: And directors like Zemekis and Spielberg have no fear in just building entire huge films around the guy.  I don't think either director ever considered that CASTAWAY or THE TERMINAL wouldn't work.  They probably thought "I've got Hanks, I've got a great set, I've got a movie."

     I thought back to when Hanks first became a star. Technically it was BOSOM BUDDIES on TV, but if we are talking movies, it was probably SPLASH.  That was more than two decades ago and he's been doing quality work ever since, even if he wound up, like every other actor ever, in the occasional clunker (and he's actually had his fair share of those, mostly early in his career).  But even stuff like BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, PUNCHLINE or THE MONEY PIT were probably lesser films despite Hanks, not because of him.  Meanwhile, he's got these films on his resume - SPLASH, NOTHING IN COMMON, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, BIG, PHILADELPHIA, FORREST GUMP, APOLLO 13, THAT THING YOU DO, THE GREEN MILE, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CASTAWAY, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and THE TERMINAL.  That's a hell of an impressive list (the only one I haven't seen is PHILADELPHIA, but I have faith that he deserved his Oscar for that one).  I may not love every single movie listed (such as FORREST GUMP) but who wouldn't want to have a list of films like that to their credit?

   JL:  I've seen them all except THE TERMINAL and they're all among my favorite films of the last 20 years (though I'm not nuts about GUMP either).  Sort of puts things into perspective when you consider that SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, a film you didn't even bother to mention, would be a highlight in the career of Matt Perry.

   JB: If Chaplin was our first great movie star, perhaps Hanks is our last great one.

1. See our review of THE BIG STORE for an explanation.

Back to Ready for the Closeup

Home

Stuff You Gotta Watch
http://thestuffyougottawatch.com
Copyright © 2008 John V. Brennan, John Larrabee