Tom Hanks "now", will not play a Gay fella
 

[Tom Hanks has said that as a straight man
he could not now make Philadelphia,
in which he played a gay man who is dying of Aids.

Speaking to the New York Times
magazine to promote the new
Elvis Presley biopic,
Hanks called both Philadelphia – for which he
won an Oscar in 1993 – and Forrest Gump – for which
he repeated the trick a
year later – as “timely movies, at the time,
that you might not be able to make now”.]



He is an Older actor now
who cares?
He is permitted to pick and choose


https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...y-philadelphia

There's a ridiculous idea floating around that actors can only portray characters who share the same demographic traits as themselves...

cancel him


:oh:

I don't think either role is particularly an issue although Philadelphia has additional considerations - it's not just a film with a character who happens to be gay, I can see the argument that a gay actor should play a role with that sort of significance (AIDS in the 80's etc).

Forrest Gump hmmmm I don't actually think there's any massive issue with it; I don't think it's an offensive film and I think he plays the role sensitively. It's not making fun of intellectual disability in any way :shrug:. It's not Adam Sandler in "The Water Boy" or Knoxville in "The Ringer"

Tom Hanks is a very good actor, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing a role outside your own life & comfort zone. Aslong as it's done properly :shrug:.

Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man is one of his best performances imo.

is he basically saying it wouldn't be appropriate in these times to play a gay actor or that he is much to hetro now to consider it .... if its the former, it's falling into line with political correctness

I agree on Hoffman's performance, much like Hanks in Forrest Gump I don't think he portrays it offensively and certainly not mockingly.

I do think that Rain Man plays into the "maths savant" stereotype/tropes a little too heavily but otherwise it's a sensitively made film, Tom Cruise is good in it as well, does a good job of portraying someone who (by the end) genuinely wants to be able to care for his brother but ultimately comes to the realisation that he can't provide the care he needs.

That "trope" was to make the film more exciting I guess but it did highlight something pretty real that used to happen a lot in the past, where children with mental illnesses were often put in homes and immediate family members didn't even know they existed

I think it is the former, but like I said I can see his point because Philadelphia isn't just a film about a character who happens to be gay, or a film with a gay character in it... it's ultimately about AIDS and the huge impact that had on gay men in the 80's. I think it would be appropriate to at least SEEK a gay actor for the role, personally. I don't think all gay characters necessarily have to be played by gay people. Especially when it comes to TV... I can think of multiple examples of gay characters who weren't known to be gay and probably hadn't been written as such at the time of casting - so then it surely HAS to be OK for a straight actor to continue playing the character :shrug:

Disagree.

Acting is acting. You are being someone else. Sexuality does not come into it. Acting ability does in the sense of whether you are believable to the audience. If that happens to be gay or straight I think is irrelevant and just political correctness madness.

good on you Tom :clap1:

I think any actor or actress should be able to play any sexuality in a part, it’s literally a character, however, I have to admit that it does border on offensive when straight men act as gay characters and they make it as stereotypical as humanly possible that it turns into a caricature, the whole limp wrist, lisping thing, it just feels.. gross

Yeah that's the only thing I find annoying tbh,the brain dead stereotypes ..that are milked to death :rolleyes:.

Which goes against the point of acting imo if you're just playing yourself.

Obviously in this particular case fiction shouldn't be deliberately homophobic in it's intent, but imo there would be nothing wrong with Tom Hanks playing a gay character today as long as the character is well written and well portrayed by Hanks himself.

I don't think Hanks has ever been disrespectful in his roles,as mentioned ..even in Forest Gump he was professional . And that's like one of his most well known movies. So I would agree.