Tom Hanks and WW2: Enough Already
The United States officially entered World War 2 after Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Then, less than four years later, the war ended as the axis surrendered at different times throughout the summer of 1945. That’s it. Four years. Meanwhile, Tom Hanks has either starred in or Executive Produced Saving Private Ryan, a movie about protecting a particular foot soldier in World War 2; Band of Brothers, an HBO mini-series following an airborne battalion also in WW2; and now The Pacific, a new HBO mini-series about Marines in, you guessed it, World War Number Two. One war, three very involved projects. Which means it is entirely possible that Tom Hanks has spent more time making entertainment about World War 2 than we did fighting the crazy thing in the first place. My God, what I wouldn’t do for to a bosom buddy right about now.
If you haven’t seen any of The Pacific yet, let me catch you up. It’s about a group of young men – too young, we would all agree, to witness the horrors of modern warfare – who struggle to survive and make sense of the world as it reveals itself through the gruesome realities of the second World War. “No, no”, you’re saying, “though clearly you are a gifted and eloquent writer, you have accidentally given us the summary of Hanks’ other miniseries, Band of Brothers.” But I haven’t. And don’t bother asking about Saving Private Ryan, because I wasn’t describing that one either. Or, rather, I was, because they’re all more or less the same story. Alright, screw “more or less”, they’re the same story. We get it, Tom. World War 2 sucked. Now would you please dance on a giant piano and play me some chopsticks? Please?
"There's no crying in Poland!"
Tom Hanks used to be awesome. Big. Toy Story. Apollo 13. Cast Away. Splash. Yeah, I’ll say it…Turner & Hooch. All great movies. Where are those? What, if it doesn’t involve a steel green helmet and a muddy foxhole you won’t make it anymore, Tom? How about this…you’re a manager of an all female baseball team that HAPPENS to be fighting in the infantry when we storm the beach at Normandy. Could we make that work? We can get Spielberg attached! Alright, maybe not. Would you take George Lucas?
Thing is, I’m sure Tom Hanks still is awesome. But lately there’s been a bit too much Dan Brown and dead Germans for my taste. For everyone’s taste. Get back to basics, Tom, I’m think you’ve got World War 2 pretty much covered. And if you can find a way to get Hooch involved, all the better.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
It’s bosom buddy, not bossom buddy.
Yeah Tom! More doggy fart jokes!
Screw that whole “most important period in the 20th century, the results of which our world is still based” thing….
I want to see you pretend to shoot more spray cheese out of your nose!!
Tom, don’t you understand? We CANT choose to watch or not watch on our own….so quit making WWII stories, because I’m sick of being forced to at gunpoint to not change the channel….
I’m sensing some sarcasm there, Stone.
Entertainment is not a history class. Just because it was important does not mean it should be repeated over and over on our screens. If we must tell the WW2 story again, at least do it in a new way. How about the Japanese or German point of view?
In response to another comment. See in context »You don’t have to watch! Why don’t you go back to American idol or what ever drivel that you watch.
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian, thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking for years. I say it’s as much time for Tom Hanks to star in a solid comedy as it is for Johnny Depp to stop playing dress up and just play a regular-guy fictional character again.
[...] Tom Hanks and WW2: Enough Already – Brian Donovan – NewsCast Aside – True/Slant [...]
WWII was a big deal to all the people the USA freed from tyranny…..it was a big deal to the half million americans killed in the war…
America used to be the land of the brave and home of the free….now it is just the home of pussy presidents
Mr. Donovan,
People like war movies but only about wars that they like. They like wars that 1) We win, 2) Are exciting, 3) Are not embarrassing. There are actually very few wars that are really captured in those three very simple rules. These rules becomes truer the farther in the past the war is.
There are actually two phases of War Movies. The first phase immediately after the war and allows for some sort of national catharsis. After WW I, the first “movie war”, there were many movies made, most either neutral about the war with an emphasis on excitement and comradeship. One of these was “Hells Angels” direct by Howard Hughes but with an amazing production design and uncredited co-direction by the great James Whales. “Wings” the first movie by the great “Wild Bill” Wellman and the first movie to win the Oscar for “Best Picture” likewise avoids the nastiness on the ground or any sort of statement about the war. It is just those boys fighting, loving, and dying together. There were other more critical movies of course, “All Quite on the Western Front” and “The Long Parade” which of course examine the war as fought on the ground. These are two brilliant films which cannot be praised too highly and very critical of the war. There have been no movies with a positive spin that war, if it is set in the sky, it is neutral, on the ground it is an anti-war movie.
However, while in the narrowest technical sense we “won” that war, i.e. we were on the winning side, it became pretty clear pretty fast that it was disaster. US troops only fought for five months but racked up over 100,000 dead (a staggering 20,000 dead per month). Further, it was clearly fought to secure the massive loans US bankers had lent Great Britain. The American people had been suckered and bullied in to that war. Finally, nothing good came from it. As a result, movies about WW I quickly became passé, no one wants to be reminded that they had been had and that tens of thousands of American boys had been killed or maimed as a result. The few that have been made since 1940 are of the brutal anti-war variety (“Paths of Glory”, “Oh, What A Wonderful War”, “A Very Long Engagement”).
We can see this same pattern in other wars. There were lots of movies set in the Korean War immediately after the war including “Sayonara”, “Bridges at Toko-Ri”, “Pork Chop Hill” (ironically directed by the same fellow who directed “All Quiet on the Western Front”) and the “Manchurian Candidate” but once we had “got it out of our system” there have been few movies since about the Korean War (“MASH”, while technical set during the Korean War, was actually a Roman de Clef about Vietnam). This war was not popular source for movies because we did not win, it was a “tie”. We can see the same pattern in movies about the Vietnam war, while once an entire genre onto itself, “Platoon”, “Apocalypse Now”, “The Deer Hunter”, &c, they have now faded from the scene. We are now in the first phase of movies about the Iraq War. We have the war-neutral / pro-soldier movie “The Hurt Locker” and the more critical movie “The Green Zone” (which is appropriately doing rather poorly as it reminds people that they got bullied and suckered into another war). It is my prediction that movies about Iraq will follow the same trajectory, once the sorrow of the war is purged from collective soul of the nation, it will be quickly forgotten as a source of movies. Again, we did not win and it is a rather embarrassing war.
You can read my one and only True/Slant blog (thank to Michael Hastings) on the Spanish-American Water
http://trueslant.com/michaelhastings/2010/03/11/on-how-americans-remember-war/
So what does that leave us with for sources for war movies? WW II and the Civil War. Think about it, name another war that has the market value of WW II or the Civil War? We won, we were right, and – well damn – they were pretty exciting wars. WW II has the advantage of being within living memory. If you want to make a war movie that makes money, your best shot is to set it during WW II.
Tom is just doing what good movie makers do, give them what they want.
(AAA, I though “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers”, while visually interesting, were dull as door nails. The lacked any engaging stories.)
It was Emanuel Kant, iirc, who talked about the two dials that exist on your radio: One changes the station, the other turns it off.
Extrapolate “cable box” from “radio,” and perhaps “Carlin” from “Kant,” and there you go.
There’s lots on – choose the stuff you do like; lamenting “misspent talent” is well and good, but you’ve got the Power to do something about it -
So let me get this straight, Steve and others, we can never speak poorly about a piece of culture (pop or otherwise) because we are always able to turn it off? What of criticism then? We can not watch/read/listen to just about everything in the universe, so does that mean we can never critique it?
Critique: I thought Sam Lypsyte’s new book was disappointing.
Response: Well, no one made you read it, so stop bitching.
Critique: Ian McKellan was a pretty uninspired King Lear. He’s better in modern pieces.
Response: No one forced to buy a ticket. You should’ve just watched something else.
Critique: Lost is beyond confusing and I think the finale is gonna be a huge letdown.
Response: You should just change the channel. It’s not their responsibility to make it good and interesting, you’re free to watch whatever you want.
I think Kant’s a dope.
In response to another comment. See in context »Can’t talk to the others, but I’d specifically said
so, please feel free to critique (look: permission and everything!), just also know you can *do* something about it. e.g.
Critique: Tom “WWII” Hanks is dead to me. (Good stuff he’s done that I prefer; stinky stuff he’s done since and why I think it’s stinky). I’ll be watching “World Poker Tour” Sunday nights, instead.
Response: Voting with your eyeballs? Rock on!
btw – what disappointed you about “The Ask?”
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re right, that’s a fair distinction. And thank you, I’m gonna critique the crap out of something right now. Sorry kitty, the bell tolls for thee.
I thought the humor in The Ask sometimes doubled over on itself. The narration often felt too aware of being witty book narration. I liked it, I just didn’t love it. Liked “This is Where I Leave You” a lot more, which for some reason I’ve pitted as “The Ask”’s rival in my mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do too.
What bothers me about crummy art: it retards the brains of those who indulge in it, who then expel their stupidness into the public domain.
What bothers me about Hanks and his fetish for WWII: I don’t trust it at all. I think he’s a shill for Halliburton or something, busily inspiring redneck kids to join the service and kill for the corporate empire.
Other than that, sure, Hanks is a great guy. Nice, obedient, utterly fucking white. who could be turned off by that?
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course, we can always turn the TV or the radio off, leave the theater if the movie sucks, not buy the CD, or get out of the country if we hate the president’s policies. That doesn’t mean we still can’t critique and complain. If that were the case, most writers — and True/Slant — would go out of business. It would be more interesting to hear someone say why Tom Hanks should continue with the World War II projects rather than the easy turn-off-the-TV argument.
Personally, I’d take another Saving Private Ryan — blood, dismemberment, swears, pass the peanuts.
Band of Brothers and Pacific, though, are like saturday morning cartoon serializations of Saving Private Ryan, obvious capitalizing on a franchise that was executed nicely. The first time.
In response to another comment. See in context »Let me answer this then.
First of all, I’ll need to follow Brian’s conceit that Tom Hanks is personally and almost solely responsible for Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and The Pacific — even though an equally big name, if not bigger, is Steven Spielberg, and even though both are “executive producers” which as we all know means “Okay we’ll lend our names and money and production companies to this and visit from time to time”. But Brian can’t write about showrunners/head writers Bruce McKenna (Pacific) or Erik Jendresen (Band of Brothers) because they haven’t been in Turner & Hooch. So Tom Hanks it is.
Hanks never was a history buff, aside from his space program kick, but after he did Saving Private Ryan, he and Spielberg began to be interested in the true stories of American veterans from that war — which ‘Ryan’ was not. (Aside from the opening sequence, it was completely fictional and not particularly truthful.) The pivotal decision, it would seem, in creating the circumstances of Brian’s lament, is the decision to adapt the concept (not the book) of Ambrose’s ‘Band of Brothers’, due to its proximity to the inspirational anecdote behind ‘Ryan’, that of the Niland brothers (which BTW would’ve made a more interesting and less sentimental movie.)
‘Band of Brothers’ is their magnum opus to date, and I daresay anyone who can’t find something to like about it probably is the sort who says Beethoven isn’t particularly interesting because he’s good and all but just not my thing. A central performance from Damian Lewis that assays that most difficult thing: how an almost perfectly good man can exist, let alone flourish, in a mad world. Its central topic: the cruel phenomenon that occurs in war that men (and specifically men) create extraordinary bonds of love with each other that cannot occur in any other situation. A world at peace will never know this kind of love because it will never be required. Add to that a stunning climax that turns the entire series on its head and translates all that has happened as applicable to the common German soldier (and the depiction of what can only be described as a war crime by one of the series’ most poignant heroes, the Jew Liebgott), and you have a tour-de-force of moral examination that challenges any presupposition you may have on any side of this country’s blinkered right-left axis.
‘The Pacific’, on the other hand, is almost completely engendered from the acclaim received by ‘Band of Brothers’, both in terms of business for HBO and in creative terms, as Spielberg (oh, excuse me, Hanks) felt behooved to tackle the other side of the war, and this time to show the racist barbarity that afflicted the US Marines when faced with an indecipherably brutal enemy, and how (real) men reduced to automatons of pure hate and destruction, return to normal life and become anything like good men again … if they even can.
All this, with the added difficulty that most of the characters in ‘Brothers’ and ‘Pacific’, were actual men, many of them still living today, to whom McKenna and Jendresen (excuse me, Hanks, sorry, forgot Hanks is the only person who makes these) have to do justice … even if it means going against their wishes.
Ultimately of course Spielberg and Hanks’s motivations for these productions is less about entertainment than about documentation. The actors from ‘Band of Brothers’ and as far as I have heard from ‘Pacific’ have all said this is less a normal job than it is a “document” for future times. So in that sense Brian is perfectly correct that these things aren’t fun or entertaining. And being “documents” obviously they become subjects of and expressions of points of view to be debated and discussed. HBO is in it for the prestige, of course, as is the case in almost everything they do (except maybe True Blood, which is all about the skin.) And while Brian may be sick of it, those of us who adore the Spielberg/Hanks WW2 subgenre (which includes ‘Flags of Our Fathers’ and ‘Letters from Iwo Jima’ both produced by Amblin/Dreamworks and Play-Tone as well as Eastwood’s Malpaso) just eat it up. Some uncritically. Some very critically. But still devoured with our eyes. That war was, after all, the real creation story of our world.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Donovan,
I am sorry, I forgot to comment that Tom Hanks best movie, by a country mile, is “That Thing You Do”. Writing, directing, acting, the music, everything was dead nuts on. A totally satisfying movie from beginning to end.
Interesting…I too was a bit confused when I saw the commercials for The Pacific. I never watched Band of Brothers but I did enjoy Saving Private Ryan. WWII, and all of the 30s/40s, are actually fascinating to me so I enjoy even repetative documentaries, movies, or series. I’d actually like to see someone make a good movie or series about the Korean war. I think someone could do a fair and fascinating movie on any of our wars – if they didn’t try to slant it against the US on purpose (not to say that it couldn’t be critical…just not “US bad, others good” that we see too much in modern war movies).
I probably won’t watch this series either. It doesn’t sound different than what he’s done in the past. Why doesn’t he follow some less known part of the war? Some nurse. Or Rosie the Riveter type (my grandma was one). Or the campaign in Africa. Something ppl don’t learn a lot about.
Why doesn’t he follow some less known part of the war? Some nurse. Or Rosie the Riveter type (my grandma was one). Or the campaign in Africa. Something ppl don’t learn a lot about.
This is so true. And why does it have to be an American campaign? What about Henry V’s many campaigns, the Huns, the first Byzantine defenses, stuff like that? America only has 200 years worth of historical territorial advancement (and loss) to pull from.
Of course then again, there were no kind-but-tough suburban value adherents around between 4000 BC and the 1500s, so casting the one-note Hanks would be out of the question.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, I was dissapointed by the Pacific. It feels like it could have been made in 1943 or 1946, at least the episode I saw. I would have preferred had Hanks and co. stuck closer to the novelist James Jones incredible WWII trilogy: From Here to Eternity, Thin Red Line, and Whistle. Those books capture the depth and complexity and horror of war without the extra dose of apple pie nostalgia for a war that resulted in the deaths of some 30 million world wide.
Totally agree with Mr. Donovan. Hanks is boring. And don’t we already have “Sands of Iwo-Jima”?
Well, I for one, really like The Pacific. I always start off feeling like, ‘Well, this feels a little too much like something I ought to watch, not something I want to watch’, but always wind up shocked and enthralled by the end. The little coda at the end of last week’s episode had me choked up. It’s guy dry drama at its best.
Obviously, the war is a big thing for both Hanks and Spielberg and I know from interviews they want to tell their stories before all the people who really witnessed it our gone. Considering what a monumental impact WWII has on the globe, it’s hard to fault them.
I so however, still think Terrence Malik’s Thin Red Line is the best modern war film ever made.
Interesting, Japhy. I have the exact same experience with The Pacific. I start watching it because I feel like I supposed to. Then about ten minutes I end up enthralled. BUT, I have another stage, which is about 20 minutes later being bored out of my mind. I realize it all of a sudden — “wait, I’m really not into this.” For some reason it’s minutes 10-20 which always seem to really appeal to me. But there’s something good there, I just think I tire of seeing such a similar story again.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Mr. Grant,
I agree that Mr. Malik’s adaptation of “The Thin Red Line” is very good. Those men on the screen did not look like plaster heroes but real men in real danger filled with real fear, not really sure what the hell it is that they are supposed to be doing – but doing it anyway. Having said that, my vote goes to Edward Zwick’s “Glory” (you know, the Civil War, “The Other Good War”). He tells an amazing story of real men in real battles (ones you have never heard though) who do what is needed, even what is right, almost in spite their own very human nature. Every scene rings true, every performance amazing, all of it adding up to much more than the sum of its parts (Oh, & BTW, Danzel Washington’s best performance – period!).
In response to another comment. See in context »We are at war…anyone inconvenienced by it? It’s really no big thing very few casualties…compared to today…maybe a reminder of what it could really be like is just boring…seen that…we made heroes of the European guys so the Pacific was the same right…been there. Yeah Hanks is a weird fucking freak…has some thing about heroes and sacrifice…WTF…Tarintino has it right…look at all the praise for his realistic portrayal of WW2 and the suffering and revenge of the jews…he got it right.
Now my family died on beaches, the opening scene of Ryan was familiar because my great uncle described it to me…his son died in the first wave…my cousin. As a boy I listened to stories about the Pacific and saw John Wayne movies…so sanitized. I ahve friends who think it is romantic, a place to prove yourself, that there is glory to be had.
There is not enough blood and horror in Pacific, it should be louder, bloodier…war is not heroes entering a city as liberators…it is something that should never happen it is organized murder and if it is the mission of one man to put a point on this, he is doing a service to us all.
OMG that was so funny! I haven’t even tried to watch his new show. Never went out for that Dan Brown shit neither. But damn if this doesn’t seem about right. Bosom Buddies. I like that.
“The ridiculous thing”? World War II? You ARE a complete and utter moron, aren’t you?
“How about the Japanese or German point of view?” Yeah. Great idea. Can I pitch some?
“Those obnoxious American and British POW’s are nothing but a bunch of cowards and a drain on Empire’s resources. Let’s behead the whole bunch. And now I tell you how tired I was swinging this katana”.
Or:
“You know how energy-draining this is, sorting through all those filthy Jews day after day after day? Work. Oven. Work. Oven. And now I tell you how I managed not to go crazy and even escape the persecution with American connivance”.
You like to think of yourself as trendy and hip, aren’t you?
I agree that World War II has been something of a hobby horse for Tom Hanks as of late, but I do think he’s done it both technically well and tastefully — Hanks seems to genuinely admire the Greatest Generation, and his film projects have definitely been more about paying tribute to veterans than they have been about cashing in on patriotic nostalgia (see Pearl Harbor for an example of the latter).
In all fairness, the Pacific theater has been very under-represented, culturally speaking, as the Normandy landing has come to represent WW II to all Americans. In fact, I do believe that Hanks agreed to be a part of “Band of Brothers” only if a series about the war in the Pacific would follow. I get that you’re “over” WW II, but historically speaking, and in terms of the time devoted to exploring WW II, the wars in Europe and the Pacific couldn’t have been more different.
Oh, and Tom Hanks lent his voice to the Ken Burns PBS series, “The War.” So there’s another one to add to the litany of WW II projects with Hanks involved, bringing the tally to four.
Very insightful and sound reply here, Jody.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not only is Tom Hanks obsessed with World War II, he has continually left out the history of African-American soldiers in “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific.”
With regard to “The Pacific” how does a production with a budget that is in excess of $150 million manage to flunk on the issue of research? The important role of African-American soldiers in the Pacific during World War II is extremely easy to find in terms of photographs, film footage and even interviews with the men who fought there (Full disclosure, my father was one of those African-Americans who saw action in the Pacific during World War II).
Here’s one example: http://twurl.nl/bvo58w
And here’s another: http://twurl.nl/gpt637
Hanks and Spielberg should be ashamed of themselves.
Ronald, BOB and PAC are stories that follow a group of select individuals and their particular outfits with the typical, more abundantly apparent segment of soldier in these campaigns.
This is no way fails by design or by ignorance to acknowledge the African-American soldier. You’re forming unfair conclusions.
In BOB, the storyline was based upon the factual memoir accounts of “Easy Company,” a specific airborne division. (The source was the book of the same title written by historian and biographer Stephen Ambrose.)
In PAC, the specific memoir accounts of two people (Eugene Sledge and Robert Leckie) writing the experiences of the US 1st Marine division are highlighted.
I can assure you, no one, especially Hanks and Spielberg (a Jew who did Schindler’s List), had any conscious thought of “leaving out” African-American soldiers.
These films were about specific memoirs – not an all-inclusive detailed account on just who fought where and to what degree, etc. They simply sought out to follow these given memoirs as closely as they could.
One should certainly not translate nor perceive any disrespect or exclusion of the valiant contributions made during both of these campaigns (war theaters of WWII) by African-American soldiers. Heaven’s no. This would simply not be the case, respectfully.
In response to another comment. See in context »If Hanks wants to make these patriotic, feel-good war stories, good on him. BoB had enough blood ‘n’ guts to give notice to most sentient viewers that war isn’t a good time, and it illustrated the extraordinary acts of these relatively ordinary men, as well as their too-often clay feet. Fine. Leave it to other filmmakers to tell the stories that aren’t so flag-wavey.
It might be more profitable to figure out why Hanks’s career is moving away from comedy. He’s not the first big star to shift from what made him popular. Jimmy Stewart and Harrison Ford come to mind as actors who started out fun and have ended up something else.
And can we stop with the “Greatest Generation” ™ HS? There have been a couple generations in American history without which the US as we know would have ceased to be, or never happened at all. The “GG” is dishonest flattery.
Precisely! Good job here.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s a reason that generation is called the “greatest generation”: First enduring the depression only to then have the entire world at war with the very real possibility at the beginning of it we might actually LOSE.
The era and all the hardships that came with it used to be taught in the schools. Proof that it’s no longer a lesson to learn is this column itlself.
Hanks isn’t doing this for himself, he’s doing it for something that Donovan’s generation will never get: that without that generation who sacrificed so much they themselves wouldn’t have a latte cup to piss in or more recently thanks to their “savior” be able to milk off their parent’s insurance until age 26.
There was a time in this country when personal responsibility, work ethic, honor and duty were things people actually lived by.
This war was far from “crazy” – it is the most vital war responsible for our freedom today – even yours, despite how rather disrespectful and unappreciative you appear to be of the sacrifice others made for your behalf and the efforts of Hanks to showcase this. Surely it wasn’t a “we” fought this war; you mean those hardy veterans.
We’re losing our WWII veterans and few will be left as historical remnants of the immense importance these brave and inspiring people made to the world some 65 years ago. This may seem like ancient and irrelevant history to you, and not entertaining enough for you to applaud productions for, but this only reflects a shallow perspective.
For many of us, these great people will be surely missed, never forgotten, and always deeply appreciated. Each and every opportunity I get to meet veterans, I take that precious opportunity. The time for doing so is running out.
Tom Hanks (and Spielberg) need to be highly commended for their energy, fortitude and resilience in bringing these great cinematic epics to life (even if the production itself fails to please everyone) and for their remarkable work in illuminating the sacrifice made by so few towards benefiting so many (to paraphrase Churchill) of humankind.
Series like this bring important insight (documentary oriented) outwardly through (fictional) cinema and thus, it has its place. Too few would never watch a documentary otherwise – they require too badly to be strictly entertained (personally stimulated) to appreciate something like this for what it is.
Hank has my accolades. If this isn’t the case for someone else, then don’t watch it. He never asked for your investment dollars.
Why doesn’t he follow some less known part of the war? Some nurse. Or Rosie the Riveter type (my grandma was one). Or the campaign in Africa. Something ppl don’t learn a lot about
—–
Well, if you’re looking for a WWII subject that hasn’t been publicized much, how about the American Graves Registration Command in Europe? This link explains more about that subject and why I think Hanks and Spielberg should consider it for a future movie.
http://benning7.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/constructing-the-normandy-cemetery/