In a recent interview with the New York Times, Tom Hanks talked about a range of topics including his most famous films, Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994) which won him consecutive Oscars.
Tom Hanks, played a gay man suffering from AIDS in the film
"Philadelphia."
The following is a
revealing portion of the interview:
“Q: We’ve been
talking a bunch about cultural shifts. I want to ask about cultural shifts
related to
Hanks: Timely
movies, at the time, that you might not be able to make now.
Q: That’s
exactly it. There’s no way a straight actor would be cast in
“Philadelphia” today and “Forrest Gump” would be dead in the water.
Hanks: Gary
Sinise would not have been able to play Lieutenant Dan because he has legs?”
It was a preposterous
question and Hanks rightly ridiculed it.
Hanks probably
realized he may incur the wrath of the mob. He is ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ and the
reputation has to be preserved. Hence he pivoted straight to what he thought
his interviewer and others wanted to hear.
Hanks said as
follows:
“There’s
nothing you can do about that, but let’s address “could a straight man do what
I did in ‘Philadelphia’ now?” No, and rightly so. The whole point of
“Philadelphia” was don’t be afraid. One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of
that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We’re beyond that now, and I don’t
think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay
guy.”
Actor Eddie Redmayne
was nominated for an Oscar for playing a transgender character in The
Danish Girl (2015).
Back in 2021, when he
was asked about his role, Redmayne
told The Sunday Times that he:
“…. wouldn’t
take it (the role) on now. I made that film with the best intentions, but I
think it was a mistake. The bigger discussion about the frustrations around
casting is because many people (transgender) don’t have a chair at the table.
There must be a leveling, otherwise, we are going to carry on having these
debates,”
Like Hanks, Redmayne
probably hopes his remarks will make him appear to be among the ‘good ones’.
The question remains
if we go down this road, how far can actors travel?
Why just restrict it
to sexual orientation, what about
nationalities? Should British actors stop playing American characters? What
about religions? Do Christian actors stop playing Jewish characters? What about
hair? Do bald actors stop playing characters with a head of hair?
This is an insane
balloon of faux political correctness that can only be burst by stating the
obvious and revisiting the basics.
The screenwriter and
director have a vision of the world they are creating and the characters that
inhabit their world. They choose actors whom they see as potential to breathe
life into their characters.
Some filmmakers cast actors who have a striking physical and behavioral resemblance with their characters. There have been occasions where actors have shone playing characters with whom they have nothing in common either physically or mentally or verbally. In fact, many actors see this as a challenge. They use makeup and prosthetics, and they alter their body language and manner of speaking to create characters that have no resemblance to them in any manner.
In the end, acting is
pretending.
Hanks currently plays
Colonel Thomas Andrew Parker a Dutch American musical mogul who became
Elvis Priestley’s manager. Should Hanks have rejected the part and insisted
that a Dutch American of the appropriate age and physical resemblance play the character?
There also seems
another problem.
The current liberal
diktat states that we must accept the identity that an individual chooses,
irrespective of biological realities. If this principle is acceptable for the
real world, why not take it further to the pretend world, and accept any actor
for any kind of role? A great deal of delivering performance is identifying
both with and as the character.
This reevaluation of
older movies is not just restricted to casting choices of actors.
Last month while
promoting the latest installment in the Jurassic series, Jurassic World:
Dominion (2022), the film's lead players Laura Dern and Sam Neill were asked
about the first film of the series, Jurassic Park.
Neill referred to the
fact that he is 20 years older than Dern and hence the on-screen relationship
between his paleontologist and her paleobotanist was inappropriate. Dern
responded that it was only now, when they “returned in a moment of cultural
awareness about the patriarchy”, that she realized the age difference.
Dern failed to
realize that the character is an educated adult woman who is perfectly entitled
to be in a relationship with whomever she finds compelling. Setting rules on
what is appropriate for a young woman could be seen as anti-feminist.
Last year, while
promoting the Bond movie, No Time To Die.
The director Cary
Fukunaga claimed that Sean Connery's Bond "basically
rapes a woman" in one of the franchise's earlier
films. Fukunaga referenced scenes from Connery’s earlier Bond films
Goldfinger (1964) and Thunderball (1965).
Gone with the Wind (1939) isn’t being spared.
There is a common theme
across all these utterances.
Redmayne, Hank, Neill, Dern, and Fukunaga have all reaped benefits from the past works. Now that they have crossed the bridge and earned their plaudits, fame, and wealth, they intend to blow up the bridge with dynamite made of faux political correctness. The result of these rules is that newcomers in the business have lesser casting opportunities.
The other goal seems
to be to appease the woke mob. Hanks and the rest think if they attack their
own works, perhaps the mob will spare them from being canceled because they
are among the ‘good ones’.
They probably think the shallow virtue signaling will extend their careers. They could identify as activists or ambassadors for minorities, which could increase casting opportunities?
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment