Best Example of Why We Shouldn't Prejudge a Film by its Title

I saw this movie when it first came out in ’88, when I was ~23. At the time, I “liked it”, influenced by being in my party days, i.e., in all likelihood under the influence of some mind altering chemical. Over the years, I’ve watched it numerous times, so that tells you my level of appreciation for the film. I just watched it yesterday, once again. And has been the case over the last couple times I’ve watched it within the last few years, I’ve clued into a greater overall understanding of what David Seltzer (writer/director) was expressing. One early comment I will make, having read pages of other comments including quite a few that didn’t like it, is…I feel sorry for you.

In one regard, it’s forgivable to sit down in the late ‘80’s and expect to get a bunch of laughs, with several things considered – The title of the movie, the movie poster (with Hanks posed doing Stand Up) and Tom Hanks himself, who had by then clearly established himself has a comedic actor in the early ‘80’s with films like Splash, Volunteers, Bachelor Party, The Man with One Red Shoe, etc. So yeah, talk about misleading. And on the other hand, after watching the movie, the title is surely fitting. We are simply left with the full understanding that we should never prejudge a movie by its title. And I say “prejudge” vs. judge, because I see that so many people’s comments are simple based on the fact that they thought it was intended to be funny. Well, a little embarrassing to them, that they never clued into fact that that wasn’t the case…they got tunnel vision and stayed blind to all the other brilliance and depth in it.

As I alluded, I’ve watched it a few times over the last 10 years, and obviously by then knew what I was “in for”. But something changed this last viewing last night. Whereas obviously I knew Stephen was a complex and troubled character from before, this time I saw Tom Hanks’ performance as – acting as good as it gets. Let me put it this way, I cried several times throughout the film. I caught things I never saw before; after he checks on the sick boy in the hospital, they cut to him in the subway. Whereas he’s being cheerful with Lilah on the subway on the way there, the director cuts to him staring silently up on the subway, so pained by his inside knowledge of that gravely sick child; having just looked at his medical chart. See…I can’t describe a simple stare and have you feel it. It was Mr. Hanks “living” (when it’s not even best described as “acting”) the character so completely...you feel that pain he felt for that little boy right with him. And the other thing noted was the editing right there. You have to be paying attention, because either Seltzer or whoever edited the movie only stayed on him for about 3 seconds flat before cutting to the next scene.

I’m not spending too much time on that point. I think it’s those subtleties that contribute to making this film such a masterful one. I’ve watched it probably close to 10 times total in my life, and I was deeply impacted by it last night for the first time. Evidently…as I am so inspired to write this.

I suppose I am saddened that we have among us such a significant portion of people who don’t have the sense or “sensitivity” in them to detect that. Well, of course there are many factors. Last night, admittedly, I was pre-sensitized with some personal issues that opened my awareness. And as I’ve admitted, I didn’t always have the same take on it as I did last night. But for those who in short thought the film was crap, I am saddened. I want to weep knowing we humans don’t open ourselves up to what’s truly important in this life – living sincerely. If anything could be said about Stephen’s character, and more specifically, how Tom Hanks “lived” that character, is that he was a deeply troubled, sensitive person. He was troubled by not being able to follow in his father and brother’s footsteps, and yet, part of him didn’t want to be like them and others. Stephen was traumatized with compassion and empathy at the thought of killing deer or even the suffering of a frog. And what he revealed, I believe is true for many comedians – that deep down they do what they do in an attempt to survive; that they fight depression and anguish in their past. Stephen said to Lilah, “Nothing’s funny to me”. There’s a lot more to that statement than most think. I don’t want to shift the focus to me for too long, but I can relate. And I would do the exact same thing. Almost 20 years ago, I did a little stand up myself. At the darkest times of my life, I believe some who didn’t know me too well would’ve assessed me as nothing but hilarious. I can quote a guy who (didn’t know me too well) once said, “There was a time I didn’t think you had a serious bone in your body”. An example that no one will debate is - Robin Williams.

Anyway, Hanks lives this role as much as any actor could. I really liked Big, have seen it at least 6 times as well. But Punchline has a 1,000 times more depth, and Tom’s character was infinitely more captivating to me. Some have said they didn’t buy the connection between him and Lilah. I’ll just say I had no major red flags with anything in this film. I thought Sally Field was cast just fine. I always took her oddness (or out-of-placeness) as just that – a housewife that wants to be a comedienne? That is odd, and that’s what gave her character uniquely entertaining as a comic.

And for those who criticized the lack of laughs. Sigh…the laughter in the hospital was 100% real…that was exceedingly obvious. And it was roaring…Tom Hanks (basically as himself, I’m sure) had them genuinely laughing their butts off in that hospital. I could tell everyone had a blast making that scene…including Tom.

Others have mentioned the “singing in the rain” scene. Personally, I think that’s one of cinema’s all-time greatest film scenes. But starting back when the scene starts, when Lilah walks into the diner and Stephen comments about someone drilling holes in her head so they can use it as a bowling ball. That scene, start to finish, is one of my top favorites of any film. He’s in love with her, and that’s after being rejected, his way of going insane with heart ache. The tears were flowing for me along with Lilah’s there.

Well, I guess I’ll stop there. I’ll conclude to say that I’m also sad they don’t make films like this anymore. This for me is one of those “pure” movies. It’s all heart. I couldn’t feel any production, the intent to entertain, any “acting” whatsoever, etc. I’m a big Hanks fan, and Forrest Gump is one of my all time favorite films. But it’s comparing apples to oranges in a way. I gauge a movie by its ability to impact me. Tom took me to his soul, his life and who he was at his core. I left my life last night and lived his. And I give that the greatest credit a film can achieve. I gave it a 9.