Hanks Does the Right 'Thing'
by L. Brent Bozell III
It is probably a first, and more than likely a last as well:
Tom Hanks and the old-time actor to whom he is often compared, James Stewart,
have movies in release at the same time. Ironically, when Alfred Hitchcock
directed "Vertigo" in the late '50s, Hollywood's content
restrictions were such that he couldn't include nudity and foul language, both
of which he did use in later movies when restrictions were eased. Hanks (who
not only stars in "That Thing You Do!" but wrote and directed it)
was free to go the raunchy route -- but didn't.
"Thing" is set in the mid-'60s and revolves around
four teenage boys who compose a Beach Boys-style rock song, enter a talent
contest at a local college, and win. A small-town promoter encourages them to
cut a record; a local disc jockey puts it on the radio; other stations pick it
up -- and eventually it becomes a smash national hit. In the process, the
youngsters become teen idols, only to see fame and fortune almost devour them.
And yet, in the end, they are not defeated. The joyride has simply ended; it
is time to return to the real world.
It is the perfect setting for a movie laden with sex, drugs,
obscenities: raunch. And yet, every time the opportunity presents itself,
Hanks pulls away. No sex, no drugs, one obscenity (that I heard) for the PG
So why did Hanks do this? Maybe commercial considerations
had something to do with it. Remember "The Doors," Oliver Stone's
1991 tribute to Jim Morrison and glorification of the counterculture of the
late '60s? It wallowed in sex and drugs and bombed at the box office. The same
happened with "Backbeat," the 1994 story of the pre-fame Beatles.
But maybe it's just Hanks himself. He has starred in two of
the most popular motion pictures of the '90s, "Forrest Gump" and
"Apollo 13," and though each contained a smidgen of sexually
suggestive material, by modern standards they were remarkably clean. In "Gump,"
the hedonism of the late '60s is rejected in favor of the innocence projected
by the title character; in "Apollo 13" it is the blend of courage,
patriotism, and boldness that has the audience cheering at the end.
But the cheerfulness of "That Thing You Do!" also
seems to come from Hanks' heart. Asked in a Chicago Sun-Times interview why he
added to the already large number of movies about rock performers, he replied
that his would be different from the others, where musicians "always die
in airplane crashes, [or] they can't handle fame or [they] do too many
In other words, Hanks is no Oliver Stone, who in movie after
movie strives to convert the audience to his bitter, paranoid worldview.
Promoting "The Doors," Stone opined, "This film is about
excess...in Jim Morrison's case, how you can make excess work for you."
Hanks deliberately sets his movie before the advent of the drug culture and
thus can ignore the squalor altogether.
Victor Kempner served as production designer for both
"Thing" and Stone's "JFK." Kempner recently told
Entertainment Weekly that "Tom is the antithesis of Oliver in his
outlook." For that alone, Hanks deserves an honorary Oscar.
There's yet another irony in all this. Hanks champions
traditional values in his movies, yet in his own politics he's a Democrat who
used an Oscar acceptance speech to endorse gay rights. And on some matters,
he's flat-out factually wrong. In 1993, he told the New York Times, "I
don't feel that anybody is influenced in any way by the fact that a public
figure on the show-business level embraces any sort of political cause."
Making an incorrect statement even worse, he added, "The images just
balance out after a while. For every Warren Beatty, there's a Charlton Heston."
That Hanks is liberal in one area of his life and
essentially conservative in another is not as uncommon as you may believe. Ted
Turner, who has promoted abortion, trashed Christianity, served as a toady for
more than one Communist dictator, and hugged more tress than John Denver, is a
political leftist. Yet he shows basically the same devotion to wholesome
programming on his entertainment networks as does Pat Robertson on the Family
Channel. With his vast MGM library Turner could easily have launched Turner
T&A, a network devoted to sleazy programming, and made a financial
killing. He didn't, and that speaks volumes.
There's also the reverse. Rupert Murdoch has donated heavily
to the Republican Party, owns conservative publications such as the New York
Post and the Weekly Standard, and has now launched Fox News, hyping it as the
antithesis of the liberal television news media. But his Fox television
network is a conduit for smut.
Many ironies, many contradictions. Interesting times.
Voice Your Opinion!
Write to Brent Bozell
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe