Why Tom Hanks Needs to Work With The Coen Brothers Again

Tom Hanks in The Ladykillers
With Friday's release of directors Joel and Ethan Coen's latest film Hail, Caesar!, it seems like a great time to pull out the old classics and remember just how many great films they have given us. There's at least a dozen by this point, with four times as many memorable characters to credit. However, there's one thing that feels almost too taboo to discuss: their pitfalls. I am mostly talking about the films that don't quite click with their weird, idiosyncratic style of Midwest wholesomeness and absurdity. For me, the only two to their credit as outright duds are The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruetly. However, I'm not here to argue which is the worst film of their canon, but what actor I feel was done wrong by them. I am talking about The Ladykillers' star Tom Hanks.
It is difficult to really call any film of their as having bad performances. However, I am choosing to clarify this list solely based on the actors who have worked with them the least. Even those names can be accredited with turning in amazing performances. Just look at Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men), Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man), or most recently with Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis). All of them are performances defined by their singularity and dedication to the roles provided. Of course, these actors in general are prestigious enough that you almost expect them to deliver something of this stature, even on a bad day. 
Which brings me to Tom Hanks. In all honesty, Hanks is one of the most lovable actors of the 80's and 90's specifically. He was even great as recently as last year's Bridge of Spies (penned by The Coen Brothers, though I'm only counting directorial efforts). He hasn't really had too much of a lull over the past 30 years with his performances at worst just being tolerable. His role in The Ladykillers isn't necessarily bad. One could argue that George Clooney in Intolerable Cruelty is worse. Yet consider that Clooney continues to work with The Coen Brothers,  now on their fourth film together. Hanks seems like a strange anomaly; only appearing in one film for filmmakers who would seem to compliment his style. You almost expect to see his name regularly alongside John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, or even Jeff Bridges. Instead, you have The Ladykillers, which is such an odd film to choose from.
Of course, the early 00's was a weird transition period for The Coen Brothers. One could look at their work pre-Fargo and see independent directors with something to prove. Everything after felt like genre fare that meant to get them bigger jobs. The Big Lebowski may have been a farcical take on stoner and noir culture, but it ushered in the era where they would continually try to subvert expectations with far more aggression than they had before. O Brother Where Art Thou? kicked off the decade with a strange love letter to Americana. Then came their underrated The Man Who Wasn't There, which mixed noir this time with supernatural elements (and served as a strong basis for Fargo season 2). It was then that they hit their weakest efforts, done back to back between Intolerable Cruelty (a subversion of romantic comedy) and The Ladykillers (an adaptation that played on heist movie tropes). Strangely enough, one could argue that their best film (No Country For Old Men) followed next, marking an impressive comeback, especially for those who didn't care for anything post-Fargo.
I am willing to accept that The Coen Brothers can have a dud here or there. However, I am more curious by the strange choice in casting. It was that brief time post-Requiem for a Dream when Marlon Wayans was considered potentially promising. J.K. Simmons was coming off of Oz and Spiderman. Then, harboring everything together was Hanks, who was arguably at the height of his powers. It makes sense then why he would want to do a Coen Brothers movie. They were subversive and strange, which were things you'd almost expect Hanks to do whenever he hosted Saturday Night Live. Even if The Ladykillers was a break from his humdrum dramas of the time, one could hope that he brought his A Game, and in full force.
To be fair, the film's problems lay more in the script. The story asks for too much, never quite balancing the dark premise with the lighthearted comedy. It never does anything exciting with the tropes other than featuring the cast riffing on each other. It isn't a terrible way to make a film, but The Coen Brothers have an unprecedented standard by which it is difficult to suggest anything less than above average. For a film that's not very good, it's more interesting how much it stands out. For two artists who are ridiculously ambitious and creative, there's not much to enjoy here and set  unfair expectations for their upcoming adaptations, which were all very good.
So, why do I single Hanks out in a cast of promising faces? For starters, nobody expects much from Wayans. If he does something halfway decent, we think he's trying hard. Simmons was too early in his prime to really be problematic. Then there's Hanks, who could take the role and do so much with it. He gave him a southern accent that made him charming yet diabolical. You were uncomfortable by him. However, he was also not given much to do with his realized character, which makes it difficult to really say that he was well used. You see, the argument is mostly had because Hanks is a great actor working with great directors, and it makes no sense then why it wouldn't result in greatness.
If you're a fan of The Coen Brothers, it's hard enough to determine what the best film is, let alone the best character. However, it's even more difficult to figure out what actor doesn't meld to their sensibilities simply because almost every actor who has worked with them has provided some dynamic that can at least be called interesting. For me, Hanks is only the worst actor in The Coen Brothers' canon simply because I feel like their potential wasn't entirely met. Sure, Intolerable Cruelty may be worse, but at least Clooney worked with them on other great roles. If anything, I want to make a plea for Hanks to work with them again, much like how Bridges worked with them randomly and almost a decade apart on The Big Lebowski and True Grit. Otherwise, it makes me feel bad to call Hanks out like this simply  because of his impressive track record. He does great work, but I think that The Ladykillers isn't the best example of it.

Comments