So many people missed the point of this film

Rating: 10/10 (10 April 2001)

I've seen Cast Away nine times, and I'm still noticing bits of new information here and there. Some of the people who missed the point of this film did so because they have basic details wrong. I wish I had the space to write an in-depth review, but instead I'll just concentrate on one specific area of contention--the ending--and add my general opinion as to why this movie has been so widely misunderstood and misinterpreted.

*********SPOILER ALERT*********
***READ ON ONLY IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM***

First of all, Noland is *not* smiling at the end of the picture, although he may be intentionally mimicking Wilson's half-smile. He is clearly facing in Bettina's direction but it is not clear that he is going to follow her. The point is that he knows that he could follow her if he wanted to; he is back to the place where he has choices about life again. In the "ice in my glass" speech, he says his low point on the island is about having "power over nothing". At the end of the film he has regained that personal power--to go in whatever direction he chooses, to follow Bettina or not. The mere opportunity to make the decision is the resolution, more important than the specific decision itself. That is a psychologically sophisticated ending, much more satisfying than the typical Hollywood alternative. If he had jumped in the truck and driven after her I would have thrown something at the screen--it just wouldn't have fit.
Also, although he thought that Kelly was the woman with him on the island giving him the strength to go on during the four isolated years, it is equally true that Bettina was with him on the island--she was present with him through her art and his reproductions of her art even though he had never met her. Bettina is a good match for Chuck; for whatever reason, she's grown comfortable with being isolated from modern life too: she's living out in the middle of nowhere, she's driving an antique truck in a culture that judges you by the trendiness of the car you drive, she does not recognize him even though he's an international media celebrity (the story of his rescue was thoroughly covered in all those newspapers and magazines on Kelly's dining room table). Noland thought Kelly was his reason for living, and he lost her, but Bettina was his reason for living too, in some ways more directly responsible for his survival and salvation/escape, and there is still a chance that he could have her (a fairly good chance from the way she flirted with him, and just wait till she hears the story about how her art saved his life!). I could go on, and that's about the ending alone.
I think that the real problem with people's mixed response to this picture is that you do have to care about Tom Hanks to appreciate this performance. I think he is a great actor, and more than just a movie star, but who says that the two can't be one and the same? I care about every character he plays (well, we won't mention Sherman McCoy) and the whole point of my moviegoing is to enter into a story about characters I can care about. But that is a sign of my age and my identity as a student of human nature. Most of us reading this board know that the modern movie going audience isn't interested in caring about characters anymore. They don't care about Hanks, Noland, any other character, or maybe even themselves, for that matter. In fact, watching bad things happen to characters no one cares about drives most movies these days. The vast majority of commercial hits are made for people who can only be entertained by laughing at people doing stupid things (for the price of a movie ticket they get a chance to feel superior to *somebody*); laughing at people being killed, maimed or otherwise physically harmed (how sick is *that*); pat sentimental mush at the level of romance novels or true confession magazines; stuff blowing up; sexual display and innuendo. How could those people hope to get anything out of Cast Away, or any other serious picture? They have no frame of reference, no experience of reflecting on the meaning of life.
The other group of people who hate this film are the "too cool for film school" cynics who use their art as a distancing tool to keep from feeling uncool emotions like empathy, tenderness and transcendence. I don't even have space to go into how much I pity those people, for they also have trouble entering into the real meaning of life, and their art is therefore destined to be empty, only appealing to others who have adopted the same cynical worldview.
I do love Tom Hanks, I'll admit that. I adore him, admire him and respect him. I love his intelligence, his discipline, his integrity, his dedication to his craft, his interest in history, his liberal politics, his happy marriage (no small feat in this world) and the fact that he shares my vocation as a student of human nature. Also, he is lovely to look at even with a Buddha belly, a scraggly beard, or wild man's hair (those lips, those eyes!) and he plays the full range of his expressive speaking voice like Yo Yo Ma on the cello. Some of his critics think that those of us who love him are reading into his work a subtlety of emotion that isn't really there, and/or overlooking his over the top moments because of personal devotion to him. I only know that I feel bonded to all the people who reacted to the depth of his performance in the same way that I did. Whether we react to him out of our feelings for him or out of his acting ability is almost irrelevant--how can who he is be separated from the art he creates? This is what it means to be an icon, a national treasure, and all the other superlatives we use to describe him. His own self is the only canvas on which any actor can paint; he uses his personality, his access to his own emotional history, even the aura of decency that keeps us from accepting him as a bad guy, he uses all of this to create these unforgettable roles, and in return we care about the characters he portrays and the stories he tells. In my opinion he should have about five Oscars by now; look at Apollo 13 again, look at Saving Private Ryan, imagine them without Hanks, imagine any other actor who ever lived trying to do what he did in Cast Away--how many people would pay to watch Russell Crowe rub two sticks together, especially if he were robbed of the superficial elements of his physical attractiveness?
As some other reviewer said, it shouldn't matter how many Oscars you already have, if you give the best performance of the year (most physically challenging, most emotionally authentic, most essential to the artistic success of your film) you ought to be the winner. Hanks can easily do without that third Oscar for now. But one of these days he will get it--and with it the proof that he is the finest actor of my lifetime. Let Russell have his make-up Oscar; Tom was robbed as surely as Ralph Fiennes was robbed for Schindler's List. But in 25 years we'll still be watching Schindler's List, and we'll still be watching Cast Away, while The Fugitive will lie on some forgotten celluloid heap and Gladiator will have become as laughable as the Ten Commandments. So although I'm disappointed, I can wait, because Hanks will be turning in fine nuanced performances and making memorable, emotionally resonant films for another 20 years, long after Crowe has been supplanted by the next alpha male on the block. Unsolicited advice for Russell Crowe: get over yourself, put your Oscar in a box, send it to Tom Hanks, and shut up! And anyone who thinks Gladiator was a great film needs to arrange an immediate screening of Spartacus.
I'll stop short of saying that Cast Away is a great film--like many others on this board I think I could have made (or edited) a better movie, both a tighter movie with respect to the set up and a more complete movie with an expanded development of his descent into despair and resignation on the island. It's too obvious that they shot a lot of other island footage that is left out, but I guess Zemekis was right to be concerned about length since people have been complaining about that (as for me, it was 2:23 well spent and I dream of a three hour director's cut). I would have also made the ending longer, expanding the resolution between Noland and Frears. But while Cast Away may not be a brilliant picture, Tom Hanks definitely gives a brilliant performance. It is the kind of acting that makes people think, re-evaluate, come to a new understanding of the world. It is the kind of performance that changes people's lives. It changed mine. I am still stunned that Hanks was overlooked on Oscar night. I heard the Best Actor race was tight and the voting very close. I guess too many of the Academy voters fit my description above--cluelessly shallow or smugly cynical. The rest of us love Hanks, love his acting and loved Cast Away.
I think I'll go see it again tomorrow.