MovieChat Forums > Tom Hanks Discussion > I think that in an earlier age, Hanks wo...

I think that in an earlier age, Hanks would only have been a character/supporting actor.

posted a year ago by whynotwriteme (7129)
20 replies | jump to latest

Now, he passes for a Henry Fonda/Jimmy Stewart 'everyman' type, but back in the 40s and 50s, competing with them, a weaker-persona guy like Hanks would have been limited to supporting roles.

The 60s and 70s were all about hardened 'tough guy' actors like McQueen, Eastwood, Bronson, Coburn and Marvin or handsome ladies' men like Newman, Beatty and Redford, so there would be no place for Hanks among the stars then, either.

Only in the 80s and onward would Hanks have a chance. He came along at the right time for him, when overt masculinity was beginning to be expunged from Hollywood.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

There have always been "everyman" actors, who weren't notably handsome and who didn't have the Alpha energy of a John Wayne or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but who were nonetheless extremely popular and who were considered stars and not character actors. Jimmy Stewart of course, Jack Lemmon, Richard Dreyfuss, Tim Allen, Will Ferrell, etc.

I put Hanks in this category.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

Fonda started out being pegged as the man who made the women stars look good, most notably Bette Davis in Jezebel. He became a stronger character after the war when he'd star in vehicles like Mr. Roberts and a variety of Westerns.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Henry Fonda was tall and had enough Alpha energy to qualify as a leading man type, not that I ever liked him. Cold, cold eyes.

But no, if Dustin Hoffman could be a major star in the 1970s then so could a Hanks, in fact, the 1970s equivalent of Hanks was Elliot Gould, who was always played the regular guy who got the girl because he had a sense of humor, as Hanks did early in his career. What can I saw, Hanks was a damn good actor before he lost all discipline, he was moderately attractive AWG when he was young, and he could do both comedy and drama well. In any era in the last 100 years, someone with his skills could make a solid living as a character actor, and had a shot at breaking out into genuine stardom.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

Indeed! And if you look at my post about his physical comedy ability -- the best faceplant I've ever seen -- then you'd know he could likely have made it in the silent era, too.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

He really was a genuine talent back in the day, what the hell happened! Did he let his ego run away with him and stop listening to directors? Because it's been years since I've seen him give a performance that wasn't over-the-top terrible,

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

A lot of actors either start believing their press or simply become caricatures of themselves.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I think the last restrained performance I saw from Hanks was in "Sully", in 2016.

It was directed by Clint Eastwood, who never had a fraction of Hank's talent as an actor... but maybe as a director he won't take any shit from actors.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

Hanks did a good Eastwood impersonation on a talk show, explaining how Eastwood would direct. Rather than say, "Cut!" he'd say, "That'll be enough of that." Yikes!

But he did a good job acting and directing in Grand Torino, and a masterful job of directing for Mystic River.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I've never liked Eastwood as an actor or a person, but if you say he's done a masterful job as a director I will take your word on it. Anything to avoid watching a film that doesn't sound like it'd be to my taste.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

I hated Mystic River when I first saw it. Then I realized I didn't understand it. There's no Eastwood in it. He's behind the camera. I actually liked Grand Torino. But then, I like seeing an old man stick it to greedy relatives who want to suck him dry.

Have you ever seen Secondhand Lions? The pesky relatives who want all of the old geezers money are not the heroes.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Sorry, haven't seen either.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) a year ago

💯💯💯💯

[–] Gd5150 (11042) a year ago

It’s funny how many comedians turn out to be really good dramatic actors.

Hanks wasn’t A list until his Oscar caliber role in Bachelor Party. From there on it was A list.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) a year ago

As Otter said, there were plenty of non-Alpha, everymen type leading men during the 60s and 70s. Jack Lemmon is arguably the best example and the closest comparator to Tom Hanks, aside from Jimmy Stewart, but there was also Dustin Hoffman, Elliot Gould, Charles Grodin, Alan Arkin and Richard Dreyfuss.

[–] Chester (223) a year ago

Hanks snuck in as a goofball comedy actor - we’ve always had them, then he morphed into a dramatic actor with Philadelphia in 93.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

He'd already been compared to Spencer Tracy, the "everyman," by that time. It was why he was cast as the gay guy in Philadelphia -- they wanted someone who was "relatable."

[–] Chester (223) a year ago

He certainly was an ‘everyman’ but almost exclusively in light comedies, where he deployed his cartoonish voices, mannerisms and reactions… until Philadelphia where he went full drama.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

He was in a made for TV movie where he played a young man who got so lost in Dungeons and Dragons that he lost his mind. (Based on at least one real life story.) This was decades ago, so I can't remember the name of the movie.

He was really good, though, so they knew he could be solid in a dramatic role. That, however, was secondary. He got the part in Philadelphia primarily because they wanted the face of AIDS to be likable, ol' Tom Hanks, the boy next door.

[–] Chester (223) a year ago

Philadelphia was originally titled ‘People Like Us’ which was way too propagandistic. It still feels manipulative the way they cast Tom Hanks, featured no gay sex with Banderas, made neither of them remotely camp, and even deleted a scene where they’re talking in bed.

[–] Destinata (2619) a year ago

Yeah, but they had Hanks go off with some random stranger he meets at a gay porno theater, so there's that.