?

Log in

No account? Create an account
DT: come reap

...and now for another episode of When Apples Met Oranges, starring Tom Hanks and Paul Gross.

Posted on 2007.18.02 at 14:38
where am I: Off to work! Again!
How I feel about it all: confusedconfused
Soundtrack: heater fan, not that it's doing any good
Tags: , , ,
I'm ecstatic (and very unsurprised) that Slings & Arrows is getting yet another rave review.

But, um.

The main player in ``Slings'' is actor-turned-director Geoffrey Tennant (Paul Gross, a Canadian Tom Hanks best known in this country for the TV cult claassic ``Due South''), who became interim artistic director of the festival....

I really like Tom Hanks (Philadelphia is one of my very, very favourite movies in the world). Very talented guy, and from everything I've heard, a very nice guy. But he and Paul Gross are nothing alike (aside from being talented and, hopefully, nice). Their acting styles are completely different, they don't look anything alike, they don't sound anything alike. WTF? It's also a bad way to promote the series, because not everyone likes Tom Hanks. Not to mention that Tom Hanks as Geoffrey makes me wince a little, no matter how much I like him as an actor. To be fair, Paul Gross as Forrest Gump makes me wince a lot.

Original article is here, but I'm not sure if it's accessible without signing up.


ETA: Visual Aids A and B:

A.

B.

Comments:


Rosie
rosiedoes at 2007-02-18 19:45 (UTC) ()
I think they mean they're both talented, clean-cut and likeable.

One of those people you just can't not like.

Did I ever talk about Band of Brothers with you, btw? Tom Hanks directed part of that and it's so fucking awesome and so utterly slashy that I believer everyone ever should see it.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-18 19:55 (UTC) ()
It's on my list of Things to See. <lj user="peacey" keeps raving about how much I would like it.
Smelly
topaz7 at 2007-02-18 19:51 (UTC) ()
Or they're likeable, actors-turned-directors? Talented and multifaceted? I dunno. They are nothing alike, really.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-18 19:54 (UTC) ()
See added Visual Aids. :)
(Deleted comment)
bjohan57
bjohan57 at 2007-02-18 20:33 (UTC) ()
It is a tortuous comparison because I can seriously not think of anyone who is like Paul in the US and it doesn't help the reader at all to mention Tom Hanks when trying to understand who Paul is, as it completely disregards his other roles in the industry for which Paul is equally known.

I took the Tom Hanks thing to refer simply to their respective status: Paul is (highly arguably) the most famous and successful actor north of the border at present, as well as being one of its most versatile; but there the comparison ends really - it certainly wasn't referring to a physical similarity at all. Paul is far edgier as an actor, has way more gravitas and charisma and takes on more interesting projects in my view -and I like Tom Hanks, don't get me wrong, but he hardly dings my bell and I am rarely entranced by him although I appreciate his work.

And Paul as Forrest Gump? I can't believe for a minute that Paul would take on that pile of steaming sacchariny crap. Aside from a few mis-steps, he appears to have a very finely-tuned crapometer in terms of his career.
Of course the other big difference between the two actors is this: Paul has actually done really good work post-1995.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 06:57 (UTC) ()
It is a tortuous comparison because I can seriously not think of anyone who is like Paul in the US and it doesn't help the reader at all to mention Tom Hanks when trying to understand who Paul is, as it completely disregards his other roles in the industry for which Paul is equally known.

Exactly. That's basically my point, except you say it better. *G*

Imagine if Canadians had never heard of Tom, and their intro was that he was "The American Paul Gross". That would sound even more ridiculous. It's the same thing turned around.

I took the Tom Hanks thing to refer simply to their respective status: Paul is (highly arguably) the most famous and successful actor north of the border at present, as well as being one of its most versatile; but there the comparison ends really - it certainly wasn't referring to a physical similarity at all.

I realize it's not about physical resemblance, but people who don't know Paul who read this are going to assume resemblance, I think. I mostly posted the pics because I like posting pics, but I still think people will think visually at first read.

Paul is far edgier as an actor, has way more gravitas and charisma and takes on more interesting projects in my view -and I like Tom Hanks, don't get me wrong, but he hardly dings my bell and I am rarely entranced by him although I appreciate his work.

As much as I like Tom (and I really do), he's always Tom Hanks, even in his deepest character roles. I never forget that I'm watching Tom Hanks. Paul takes a role and wraps it around him until I forget about anything but the character. Geoffrey Tennant, case in point. I do wish that he'd take darker roles; Murder Most Likely was a screaming departure for him, and gorgeously done, and I wish he'd do something that gritty again. Tom McLaughlin is pretty dark, though. Having said that, Paul brings edginess even to roles where it probably wasn't in the character description. Benton Fraser, case in point OMG. Fraser has this deep, intense current running just under the surface, and okay, that's another meta!post entirely.

And Paul as Forrest Gump? I can't believe for a minute that Paul would take on that pile of steaming sacchariny crap. Aside from a few mis-steps, he appears to have a very finely-tuned crapometer in terms of his career.
Of course the other big difference between the two actors is this: Paul has actually done really good work post-1995.


I liked Forrest Gump until my kids overplayed it and I got sick of it. Also Road to Perdition and The Green Mile. But yeah, there's only a couple of Paul's films I refuse to see, and I think those were made for exposure and quite possibly to pay the rent.
joandarck at 2007-02-18 20:33 (UTC) ()
Hm. I think they mean the sweet-little-boy look, but it makes Paul sound more... well, boring, than he is. Paul Gross is flamboyant, a little bitchy and unpredictable. Tom Hanks is more of a, well, canvas for people to project onto. He has a kind of stealth darkness under it, but it's not the same effect.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 07:01 (UTC) ()
I don't see so much stealth darkness with Tom. I don't know a whole lot about him, either, so my observation isn't exactly the Tom Hanks version of the Oracle of Delphi. He's got the Nice label pinned on really tight, though, and I bet he doesn't like it.
Cats. Not to be trusted.
catwalksalone at 2007-02-18 20:50 (UTC) ()
-_- *hides eyes from appalling comparison*

If I didn't know better, i.e. was a P.G. virgin, the Tom Hanks reference wouldn't have made me rush out and watch. Probably the opposite.

But yay! for rave review. Sooooooooo well deserved.

(My friend at choir has now watched all my DVDs and keeps nagging about s3 - everyone falls under the spell of Geoffrey in the end. It's inevitable.)
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 07:04 (UTC) ()
I've got S2 out on loan to a co-worker, and another friend has already seen S1 and 2. I've got S3 possibly coming my way on a recorded DVD, so yay, pimpage! Neither of my two friends are familiar in any way with fandom, either. S&A is so in a class by itself. *g*


Isis
isiscolo at 2007-02-18 20:58 (UTC) ()
I join you in the general jawdroppery. Tom Hanks?!?
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 07:06 (UTC) ()
*pictures Tom Hanks as Fraser* I somehow don't see the connection. Um?

Tom might make an acceptable Buddy French, though. It's the only role I can think of that even looks like something Tom would choose.
ruthless1
ruthless1 at 2007-02-19 04:33 (UTC) ()
*grabs soapbox*
It's cultural imperialism. The writer can't imagine that someone of PG's talent can exist in his own right outside of this country. So in order for the not-so-smart American cultural unelite to understand PG's talents - they have to compare him to Tom Hanks. Who is quite talented - but not nearly as much as our dear Canadian friend.
//end rant//
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 07:09 (UTC) ()
It's also the fact that the entire planet looks to Hollywood for the cream of the crop (and Tom Hanks is certainly one of the best). Unfortunately, the planet's missing out on Paul Gross and Callum Keith Rennie and holy shit, Don McKellar (who blows my mind with just how good he is), and that's just a tiny sampling in one country.
sam80853
sam80853 at 2007-02-19 15:15 (UTC) ()
It's obviously meant as a compliment ... For Paul or Tom is anyone's guess. But I was laughing out loud reading it. The picture of Paul writing love letters to Meg Ryan sprung to my mind and ... ::chuckles:: ... ::giggles:: ... See?
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-19 18:18 (UTC) ()
It's obviously meant as a compliment ... For Paul or Tom is anyone's guess

I guess it's really a compliment for both of them. They both are way talented. Just...their acting styles are like night and day.

The picture of Paul writing love letters to Meg Ryan sprung to my mind and ... ::chuckles:: ... ::giggles:: ... See?

Or carrying Gary Sinise through the jungles of Vietnam...
It was the best of times,it was the worst of times
mickeymvt at 2007-02-20 02:35 (UTC) ()
Ehh, they sorta, kinda look like. If you squint. A lot. As much as I like Tom Hanks as an actor, I really don't believe he could pull off crazy-cakes Geoffrey. JMO, of course.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2007-02-20 03:51 (UTC) ()
If you're Ray Kowalski and you squint, maybe. *g*

Geoffrey is Geoffrey. If someone else played him, he wouldn't be Geoffrey. I guess the same goes for Ray Kowalski. *loves*
Previous Entry  Next Entry