THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 16, 1995 TAG: 9507140096
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E9 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines
RIGHT STUFF. Wrong stuff.
Quiet heroism and American ingenuity. Boyish charm and English twittery.
Six days of crisis in space (``Apollo 13''). Nine months of ``romance'' in utero (``Nine Months'').
Tom Hanks. Hugh Grant. Popular American actor. Popular British actor. A heckuva nice guy; a heartthrob. Family man. Street-prostitute john. One blasting off, the other falling to Earth. A comparison between the actors' on-screen personas, in light of their off-screen behavior, is difficult to resist.
My advice to both: Do ``Hamlet.'' Take a risk. Dig deep.
Whatever you may read about ``Apollo 13'' - critics are furiously analyzing the meaning of Ron Howard's commercial hit chronicling the near-disastrous 1970 NASA mission - the movie stands apart from its impressive special effects for one reason and one reason alone: It represents a triumph of the intellect. A life-threatening situation arises, and intellect, pooled from a team of bland, bespectacled, white male scientists sporting skinny neckties and buzz haircuts, resolves it. It ain't politically correct, but it's heroic.
As mission commander Jim Lovell, Tom Hanks invokes, as he has recently in his career - ``Philadelphia,'' ``Forrest Gump'' - the Gary Cooper/Henry Fonda/Jimmy Stewart tradition of ``ordinary'' heroism - decency, good-naturedness, humility, self-deprecating humor, common sense and virtue.
The Oxford-educated, stage-trained Grant, 34, would seem to have been born to similar heroism, befitting a classics student and a man of apparent intelligence and sophistication. But after screen portrayals of Lord Byron and Frederic Chopin, Grant crossed the line into shallow and silly leading-man stereotyping that elevated him to shallow and silly stardom. When he recently bemoaned his ``empty'' existence, it was hard not to conjure up Faust. ($$$$$)
Instant gratification may seem ``Divine,'' Hugh, but it is not the route to self-awareness, empathy, moral conviction or . . . heroism.
Compared to Hanks' Lovell, Hugh Grant's on-screen persona is George Jetson, a cartoon character, a bumbling, indecisive, vulnerable man who shirks from commitment.
``Houston, we have a problem,'' Hanks' Lovell says emphatically as he realizes for the first time that he's not going to make history by landing on the moon.
In his stead, the moppish Hugh Grant would have stammered: ``Well, yes, now, I see, now, how shall I say it? Houston, are you there? Yes, well, it does seem that things aren't quite what they should be, or one would want them to be . . . I mean, Houston, this could get sticky. . . . ''
In ``Apollo 13,'' men reason through a serious problem. They solve it with calm efficiency and smarts. ``Failure is not an option,'' bellows the Houston flight director.
With Grant's romantic-comedy persona, failure is the only option: failure to communicate, to make tough decisions, to love, to commit, to be more than superficial and glib, to reason.
Unlike the movie that made Hugh Grant a star (``Four Weddings and a Funeral''), on which ``Nine Months'' capitalizes, ``Apollo 13'' does not stop to explore messy psychological terrain or to notice life's ironies. There's no self-doubt here, no introspection. Where Hanks' disciplined character holds fast to principle, Grant's vacillates.
So, too, go the actors, it would appear. In talk-show appearances and at Academy Awards ceremonies, Hanks, adept at comedy and drama, is always gracious, mature, humble, generous and very, very funny. Publicly, he gushes affectionately about his wife and children.
A contrite Grant has hit the talk-show circuit, ostensibly to hawk ``Nine Months,'' but his sincerity is questionable. He whined about the Academy's failure to nominate him for an Oscar for ``Four Weddings and a Funeral'' and got drunk. Publicly, he gushes inappropriately about his stylish (former?) girlfriend Elizabeth Hurley's breasts.
Admittedly, Hanks, still boyishly charming himself at 39, is not burdened with the fresh, tousled cuteness of Sir Hugh and the movie packaging around it. Beauty can certainly be a beast if the bearer has no soul.
The melancholy Dane knows something of soul and the wretchedness and abandon within it: To be or not to be? Does a man take difficult principled action or opt for the easy way out? Honor or instant gratification? Playing the complex, doomed Hamlet is the ultimate risk, a shot at redemption. Tom Hanks needs such an acting challenge to propel him into gritty dramatic roles in his 40s; Hugh Grant needs it to inventory himself for substance.
Grant should take the high road (up a mountain, not a hill) with the sex-offense charge, acknowledging the act and apologizing to those people who deserve apology - privately and in court - and then getting on with learning a few of life's lessons that crisis can teach. His crime has more to do with love and respect, for self and others affected by his behavior, than with sexuality. He would benefit from seeing ``Apollo 13.''
As for Hanks, who rejected the title role in Oliver Stone's ``Nixon,'' he may yet prove to have a ``tragic flaw'' - ironically, his penchant for heroism and playing it safe. It sometimes takes the wrong stuff - a fall from grace or glory, a turn as a movie villain - to test what's really right about the right stuff. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is book editor for The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star.
by CNB