Hanks phoned Movieline last week to discuss what drew him to The Good Guys, his intriguing Mad Men stint, and the reason Turner and Hooch recently made him laugh.
Your character on The Good Guys, Jack Bailey, is a sane, by-the-book guy. On paper it sounds like some of your other roles. What's been surprising and new about this character for you?
Well, the thing that I enjoyed the most about it was that this was a character that actually talks back. There are two major things that I've noticed in a lot of the stuff I get sent. It's always sort of a sane person surrounded by insane people -- and constantly reacting big to the crazy people, and saying, "Why can't you be normal?" In this case, there is an element of that, of course. But it's not that he's surrounded by a whole bunch of crazy people, just one crazy person. Brad (Whitford), or Dan. But he speaks back. He speaks his mind. He does it in a sometimes-frustrated, but sometimes very funny (way). It was someone who I thought had more of a spine and more of a clear drive than the other characters I've played.
But also, he was his own obstacle. His insistence on being by-the-book was one of the things that prevented him from moving forward. His relationships with other people were prohibiting him from moving forward. There's an injustice in his world -- "If I could only just be invited to the party." Or, "If only I could get into the school." He's his own sort of problem. He insists on correcting people's spelling and he insists on telling his bosses when they're doing a horrible job. Well, that's not getting him anywhere. So it's a combination of himself and the things he shouldn't be doing with Dan Stark that put him in this place. Those kind of things may not jump out to most people as, "Oh, I get it, yeah." But when I'm reading it, those are the things, my homework that I have to do, that make me say, "Oh, I like this." It was familiar and yet a little bit different. And that's what I like.
Has it been unnerving to be considered a go-to for the kinds of characters who don't talk back?
Well, it's not exciting to me to have these roles in which the person doesn't speak up for themselves. That's not interesting to me. I wanted to be able to play a role in which a character spoke up for himself and said things and was in his own way funny. It's been really great to have that ability to be sort of a smart aleck and answer back. And have a little sting on certain comments -- as opposed to sitting around and saying, "Why are you all so crazy?!" There's only so many of those reactions I can do.
Bradley Whitford is certainly playing against type. How did you react when you saw him play a character who's such a break from his familiar presence?
I think what's been interesting is he sort of evolved over the past eleven episodes. For me, it's funny, I knew who he was. I watched episodes of The West Wing. I knew it was a good show. But I was by no means a "Winger," apparently, as they're called -- these people who are so obsessed with The West Wing that it's their end-all be-all. He's an insanely talented guy, and he's doing so different than what he had been doing for almost 10 years, I think. That's always really fun to see. It's a very similar thing to when I worked with [John] Malkovich in The Great Buck Howard where he was playing something so different from his norm that he was really enjoying it and having fun. He was so grateful to be able to do something different from his normal routine.
Bradley is the exact same way. He's no longer a guy in a suit talking about some sort of obscure political policy. This time he's talking about busting punks or wanting to sleep with women because, quote-unquote, "it's natural." I just think it's really funny. For me, it's really great when you see an actor who's totally devouring what he's doing, and Bradley is most definitely devouring everything that he's doing and chewing up tons of scenery all around him. It's a lot of fun for my own personal amusement because I've been laughing pretty much nonstop since we started working together. But it's really more fun egging him than everything else, to say, "Do that thing that seems wrong and a bit much, but trust me it's really funny."
No, I sort of definitely feel like the kind of things I like to do and see are of a bygone era. I look at things already and I'm starting to go, "Why does it have to be so fast and so loud? Can we just have a moment where we just look at each other for a minute and get lost in each others' eyes?" You know? I'm a little bit different than the faster-faster-faster, better-quicker-faster-warmer kind of mentality of the past few years. But I totally understand what Matt is saying. I think that's a very apt description of the two characters. But I sort of -- I'm constantly wrestling with "What is the best way to tell a story?" There have only been a few instances in which I've been able to help tell a story in the way that I like to tell stories. That is in no way putting down the jobs in which I've not been able to do that. I am an actor, and my job is to tell a story, and it's a collaborative thing. The first question is, "OK, what's the story we're telling? And how do we want to tell it?" And you find out what that is, and you go about doing it the best you can. You try and add little things here, you try to bring your stuff to the table. It's a collaborative thing. It's what I love doing. But yeah, I definitely feel like my way of doing things is a little bit more old-school in that regard. I don't think you're wrong there. You've just validated my last eight years of existence. (Laughs.) We're needy people, actors.
No problem. I guess I see... a Hitchcock protagonist in you? A classic gent who cautiously allows himself to enter a world of intrigue?
There's the classic archetype of the guy you have to go on a journey with. And that's primarily the kind of stuff that has come my way. I'm not a particularly scary-looking individual, or a particularly unique looking individual. There is that sort of middle-of-the-road, "Oh, he looks like a nice guy" type of thing.
The fact that you look so much like your dad must influence the roles you get.
There's definitely -- there's really nothing I can do about that. The older I get, the more and more it comes up. "Oh, you look so much like him! You sound so much like him!" I mean, that's science. It's like that with everybody. (Laughs.) Whether we want to admit it or not, it's just the way the whole life thing kind of happens. It just so happens that everyone knows what my dad looks and sounds like. Workwise, you were talking about eras; I look at some of the movies that he did, and I'm like, "Oh, he's already playing a young married guy, and he's got a good job and all of that sort of stuff. He's doing funny stuff." He was doing that at 27. Well, I'm 32, and the only things that are available are "Why can't I get the girl?" The stories are different. A lot of times I feel like, I'm not worried if I do something too similar to him because there are just different types of stories now. It's not a huge major concern.
So far I haven't read many Good Guys reviews that go for the Bosom Buddies comparison. So I guess I should congratulate you.
There were a few when we were doing the press junket. One thing that actually made me laugh was that they called Bradley my "Hooch." I'm Turner and Bradley is Hooch. That made me laugh.
The interesting thing is you sort of do as much work as you possibly can. You memorize your lines, you have conversations with the writers. I had conversations with Matthew Weiner about how he sort of fits in and, again, "What's the story here?" The interesting thing with Father Gil was the amount of stuff that people brought to the character that we didn't necessarily really have to do. There was a great freedom with that. I mean, we had our A's, B's, and C's that we needed to hit, very specific moments.
I don't know if it's people's own issues with priests or the way that their brains start coming up with different ideas for what the show might be when they're watching it and sort of playing along with the show. "Oh, now this is going to happen!" There's a lot of stuff that people brought to the party on their own. When the show was on, the first question was, "Is he going to sleep with Peggy?" It was really interesting to see people's reactions to what was going on because I don't believe we gave any serious indication that that was going to happen. The real thing that was going was that Father Gil was trying to fight for her soul -- was trying to save her soul. (Laughs.) That's really what it was. That's not to say he wasn't a repressed individual and he might've had some physical attraction to Peggy. There's always that stuff there, like, "Oh, of course, Father Gil would like to be with Peggy, of course." But Father Gil knew exactly what was going on with Peggy and Peggy refused to admit it to him. That's what the real relationship was.
The challenge for me was trying to deliver this dialogue that was a conversation I would never have with anyone. Saying things like, "Hell is a very real place, and if you don't confess...," you know, those kinds of things. These very philosophical -- well, actually, not philosophical, but theological conversations that I frankly don't have with people. That was the main challenge. Everything else, I thought it was so well-written, the cat and mouse game. What was interesting was that everyone took it as such a sexual thing. That's not to say that I don't like that people thought it was a sexual thing. It was interesting to see people's reactions. I was just trying to not screw up! I was and still am a huge fan of the show. I didn't want to be a weak link, or one of those characters where you go, "I can't wait for this storyline to be over." That was really sort of my biggest fear. I just wanted to the best job I could.
I think our suspicions about Father Gil's sexual undertones were allayed when, after all this build-up surrounding his character, we finally see him in a private moment, and he's jamming on a Peter, Paul and Mary song.
Well, yeah. It was a song about the Lord! Which was interesting. The thing that I really did like about him, he did represent the world changing -- the same as everyone else does on that show. There are some characters on that show that are steeped in the past, and there are characters that are representative of the future. Even though he was involved in arguably the oldest of the professions, so to speak, the church, he still represented the youth and moving forward and, for lack of a better term, evolving. There were certain things that were very traditional in his beliefs, but he was trying to change the way the message was told. I wanted to be the smoking, drinking ad guy! I got a suit, but it was the wrong kind of suit.
You mentioned John Malkovich earlier. I notice you've worked with two totemic actors -- Malkovich, in The Great Buck Howard, and Jane Fonda, in the Broadway play 33 Variations. Can you talk about working with these two -- and I'm picking a word specific to them -- fierce presences?
It's interesting. More than anything, you instantly see them as human beings. John was and is an extremely nice, fun guy to work with and to be around. He's got a great sense of humor and could talk about any billion different things. Very friendly. That's not to say he doesn't scare the bejesus out of other people. And he scared the bejesus out of me at first. And then I said, "Oh, this is like a normal guy." Jane Fonda is no different. With Jane, I think the thing that was so interesting with her is she was so excited and nervous to be on Broadway, as was I. The only difference -- and this is coming from her mouth -- "I haven't done Broadway since Kennedy was president!" She was nervous just like I was nervous. It was different, yet it was similar. When you see these performers who are sort of larger than life and have their own, I don't know, mystique about them, you see they're just like normal people. Really refreshing.
Lastly, you have two films coming up that could mark a departure for you. Lucky is a kooky serial killer movie, and High School is a seemingly off-kilter movie. Could this be the beginning of... a dark period? A blue period?
Lucky is a black comedy, but it's really a comedy. And High School is just a stoner comedy! They're just comedies, supposed to be funny. I would love for a little bit of a blue period, but comedies seem to be the only things they want to make that they want me to be in. I take the best of what's given to me, and those things are funny. With High School, what was interesting I was no longer the kid. I was the assistant principal. That made me laugh. With Lucky, the thing that was enjoyable about that was that this woman discovers her husband is a serial killer. It was fun to play with those kinds of things, to mess with people's minds a little bit. To do something a little different, but also funny, enjoyable and... "Oh, what a sweet guy! Can't believe he's a killer." That's fun, sort of messing with people's minds a little bit.