Not for one minute did I believe Tom Hanks was a gay man.
I watched Tom Hanks dying of AIDS
Yeah, I know he won the Oscar and gave that big, wonderful speech, but still. . .
The goldfish stays in the picture!
Why didn't you believe his portrayal of a gay man? Wasn't his acting good enough? Was it because you know he's straight in real life? Wasn't he stereotypically gay enough? Apparently the Academny thought his portrayal was convincing enough.
shareDid you want the stereotypical gay man? High pitched voice and feminine moves? Not all gay men act like this, despite it maybe being "typical". I've known quite a few who wouldn't even be considered gay, because they don't fall into what many would categorize as "gay behavior". May I ask what you thought would happen? How could he have been more convincing?
INSTAGRAM
http://instagram.com/thesablirab
You're preaching to the choir -- did you mean to reply to the OP and not me because you sound like you agree with me and disagree with the OP?
I too have known many men who most people wouldn't realize were gay unless they knew. Wanting Tom Hanks to be stereotypical would have completely ruined the movie.
I meant to say the OP, should have put that, my apologies. I totally agree with you; it just annoys me to no end when people try to make the point the OP seems to be trying to make. It's almost like me saying I want all straight men to be the stereotypical, Jersey Shore-like man when I see a movie.
INSTAGRAM
http://instagram.com/thesablirab
No problem.
shareI think he's saying Richard Simmons would have been more convincing.
sharere: Apparently the Academy thought his portrayal was convincing enough.
LOL it didn't matter who played the part, the PC-driven academy was going to award Best Actor regardless. It would've won best picture too if it wasn't up against Schindler's List
Tom Hanks has a habit of doing this. He is a remarkable actor who has the ability to make you forget that he is only portraying a character.
shareWhat was stopping you from saying it 20 years ago?
shareI believed it, but I kind of see where the OP was coming from. It's not that he wasn't "acting gay enough", it's that the aspect of his performance regarding his love for Antonio Banderas' character looked to be lacking compared to Banderas' performance regarding his love for Tom Hank's character. I can see where that might make someone feel that Hanks wasn't gay. That said, the difference can easily be explained by anything from their difference in personality to the effects that the disease was having on both of them.
sharePerhaps that's intentional. Tom didn't have to fit the gay stereotype. Did you buy that Miguel was gay?
shareWell, I think Tom and everyone involved probably, didn't want him portrayed as a steroetypical gay man. They wanted to show that gay people can be just as "normal" as straight people. To show that you may in fact know a gay man and not even know it.
shareDoc80, one premise of the plot was that he HAD passed as a straight man at his law firm for several years. He was fired when they figured it out.
shareWhich is why this movie is so good. Right now you have man who fit the physical stereotype of masculinity (like Matt Bommer) coming out as gay but in the early nineties this was so groundbreaking for mainstream cinema.
Being gay doesn't mean being queer.
Yes! And his winning the Oscar, which he totally deserved, was his portrayal of everything else....his getting justice, his getting sick, ect. There are many men out there that one would never know were gay, and they ARE! so, there ya go!
He was excellent!
Wait! Wait! Where are you going? I was gonna make Espresso!
They shot a scene of Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas in bed just so you can see them doing "gay stuff" but apparently it was too risky. It seems you could make a movie about aids as long as you don't show two gay man doing what straight people do 😕
If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list
It was the right call. Back then that scene would have repulsed too many audience members and pulled them out of the film, which would have defeated Demme's goal of bringing a general audience into an awareness film about homosexuality and AIDS. He also changed the title from the rather preachy original, 'People Like Us'. Demme made a phenomenal film, it's a shame he hasn't made more over the years.
Oh, I completely understand. Different times. I'm not blaming the filmakers.
If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list
I think I hear where you're coming from, ThomasJ. From the first time I saw this film, I've thought of it as an AIDS drama for straight people. I don't think the problem is with Hanks' acting -- though he shares a few shy-away-from-the-subject characteristics with Will Smith's unconvincing, barely-gay performance in Six Degrees of Separation -- so much as the fact that the character seems watered down, apparently so as not to panic the heterosexuals.
Contrary to the childish disparagement in this thread, he didn't need to be more flamboyant -- and possibly it's telling of the disparagers' attitudes that flamboyance is their own immediate go-to image of homosexuality -- but it's noticeable that he didn't show any particular level of fondness for Banderas' character, nor much interplay between them beyond what you might see between, say, flatmates. In fact, the script puts a lot more energy and emotional investment into the family's relationship with Andrew than his boyfriend's.
Hanks' performance was good, but I put his Oscar for this one down to the sort of socially-conscious "We Care" gesture the Academy likes to make -- along the same lines for instance as Charlize Theron winning the Oscar for (as the Academy actually stated) her "brave" performance as an ugly lesbian.
The target audience for this was heteros -- partly in awareness-raising, and partly so they could convince themselves they're Good Guys, and not part of the problem. What I call the Forrest Gump Effect.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
This is an interesting conversation. It's pretty obvious to me that a lot of the choices made in the filmmaking intended to downplay the two men's relationship to make the film more accessible to straight '90s audiences. But Andrew's demeanor also reminds me of people I know who've become withdrawn when they know they have to leave soon (geographically or by dying).
shareJust watched the movie again, don't know when i saw it the last time.
I am 31 know, living in cologne (about 10% of the population is homoesexual here) and working in the hospital.
From what i see amongst my gay colleages or gay relatives of a patient, i think Tom Hanks' performance was very good and believable.
Also the connection between him and his partner was very believable.
So for today in 2016, i must say it's still a good movie
Totally agree with your post. It's why I don't love this film; I didn't need a watered-down picture so that it could be more palatable to the naive heteros of the time. Nevertheless, I get why they did it then. It was a heavy topic to portray at a time when most people only knew of homosexuality from stereotypes and viewed AIDS as a plague they blamed sufferers for (even without wanting to admit it to themselves). This film had to play it safe in some parts so the tough parts were humanized for the masses.
It wasn't even how Hanks' character was written that was the most soft-soaped for me, although it would have been nice to see some evidence that there was a mutual partnership between Andy and Miguel. Films that featured homosexuality (and AIDS) prior to this one had the guts to portray relationships honestly. However, they were indie films, so a commercial-wide release like "Philadelphia" was not going to have the ability to be more honest if it didn't want its primary message to be completely ignored by its target audience.
Heck, the film had to make all characters one-demensional just so the general pop could be spoonfed what they were supposed to take away from this film. From the musical score to the dialogue (from the impossibly lovable family to the menacing partners), this film had to drill into you what side you were supposed to be rooting for.
It's its fatal flaw, but fortunately the film still has some merit.
He also played down his sniveling brother trying to hug him in the hospital bed and tried to joke away the emotions. Do you also think he wasn’t brotherly enough? Huh?
It was Andrew’s personality.
I just read in "Did you know" section, that the studio actually cut out intimate scenes between Hanks and Banderas. Although these scenes would make film more themed, Hanks did great job; unless you expected to see a stereotypical gay man.
share