'Tom Hanks should not be ashamed of Philadelphia role'

Although somewhat a laggard, he has proven himself on-trend with his latest proclamation regarding his role playing Andrew Beckett in 1993’s Philadelphia, for which he won an Oscar. Hanks recently stated that, given the opportunity for such a career defining performance again, he would turn the role down and ‘rightly so’.

He explained there he believed there was a lack of ‘authenticity’ in a ‘straight guy playing a gay guy’.

File photo dated 31/05/22 of Tom Hanks, who has said he could not now make Philadelphia, in which he played a gay man dying of Aids. The Hollywood actor, 65, played lawyer Andrew Beckett in the 1993 film, a man who is fired from his job after his bosses

On the face of it, a noble pronouncement which many have lauded for its honesty. Yet the bigger picture screams otherwise: should entertainers, of whatever genre or moment in time, now denounce their works in the current climes? Should De Niro have played a boxer in Raging Bull, or Gylennhall and Ledger have played two gay cowboys in Brokeback Mountain? Not only did both identify as hetero, but neither of them, to the best of my knowledge, had any experience of cowboying as it was most certainly their first rodeo.

Now I’m certainly not equating my acting ‘experience’ with any of the aforementioned. It was a career that ended as soon as it began, in primary school when I was cast as Happy dwarf. Sadly, the glue used to stick on my beard was toxic and left me with a nasty rash, so Happy became Grumpy as his one and only experience of treading the boards shuddered to a sudden halt, never to be reprised. I did however have facial hair for but one rehearsal so I guess I must denounce myself for some level of appropriation and apologise for portraying a character beset with height issues.

An Oscar

Musos have been at it for years and to denounce themselves now could sound a career death knell, unlike actors who can change genres.

Mike D of the Beastie Boys grew up in the affluent upper west side of Manhattan to art dealer parents. ‘D’ went on to perform You Gotta Fight for your Right to Party which is highly unlikely, considering the wine and canapés that are cock of the culinary walk in such gilded areas.

My point is that everyone appropriates everything, every day, and artists like Hanks do little but encourage the craziness we currently see before us by public flagellation via an apology. Is any gay man you know seriously offended, 28 years after the event, by Hanks bravely taking on a role in which he challenged misconceptions and humanised the social acceptance of Aids? I teach business yet have never been a CEO of a large organisation. Vicky McClure has never been a Detective Inspector yet portrays one in Line of Duty and Anthony Hopkins has never serial killed and washed his victims' down with a nice Chianti (to the best of my knowledge).

It’s crazy to believe that you cannot portray a character as an actor or write about topics of which you are not a professor or sing about issues you may have only experienced second hand. Queen are arguably not experts on fat bottomed girls, and neither were the Beatles on living as a gay man in the swinging 1960s (You’ve Got to Hide your Love Away).

I’m not sure if I’m more annoyed at the woke brigade, who I often believe number but a few sad saps sitting in the suburbs behind a computer screen, or the likes of Hanks, who feel the need to apologise when there really is no need to do so whatsoever. All actions like his do is demonise his previous excellent work and put a stain on a cultural landmark that should be lauded, applauded and not apologised for. Thanks, but no Hanks.

• Brett Ellis is a teacher