Click here to visit the American Film Institute (AFI) website and read more about the AFI Life Achievement Award.

I’m feeling very terse about now.

You remember those wonderful Life Achievement Awards that the American Film Institute began awarding in the 1970s? The great John Ford was the first recipient. Other greats followed like Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, etc. Luminaries, one and all.

With each of these winners you felt there was indeed a lifetime’s worth of achievement-a body of work that would outlive the creators, thrilling film-goers for generations to come.

In recent years the AFI has seen fit to award a few people I’ve honestly felt were not truly worthy of the honour. But it is the latest nominee that has me so rankled, I fired off an email to the AFI in protest.

The recipient? Tom Hanks.

I am not a Tom Hanks fan. I do not think he is the heir apparent to Jimmy Stewart. I do not think he is deserving of two Oscars, let alone a Life Achievement Award from the AFI.

Already I can imagine the backlash: ‘What? You can’t say that about our Tom! He’s such a nice guy!’

Well I’m not saying he isn’t a nice guy. I’m not saying you are wrong to like him or think he’s a good actor. In fact I’m not saying he should not get the award because of my personal taste towards his acting.

I’m saying he should not get the award because there are others, far more deserving, who have been left out in the cold.

First of all, let me tell you that, to my surprise, the AFI emailed me back with a very polite response. I respect them for that. They explained the selection process, defining that recipients must be individuals ‘whose talent has in a fundamental way advanced the film art; whose accomplishment has been acknowledged by the scholars, critics, professional peers and the general public; and whose work has stood the test of time.’ Has stood the test of time is what really irks me. The first part of that description is predominantly subjective and therefore anyone could be nominated if they are thought to be worthy by enough influential people. But STOOD THE TEST OF TIME? When that gets entered into the equation I have to wonder just what that means, since it clearly no longer means a period of at least 30, 40, 50 years (even that is short, but we have to limit ourselves to a time frame where the recipient is still living).

The closest approximation I can make to this (lack of) reasoning is going into a video store and asking to see the classic section and having some kid point to movies made in the 1980s.

The great director John Frankenheimer said in an interview that the biggest problem with most young filmmakers today is that they are blissfully ignorant of the great filmmakers of the past: John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Carol Reed, Ernst Lubitsch, etc. etc. etc.

Let me shift gears here. If Tom Hanks were the oldest successful actor in the world still living then an argument might be made for his receiving the AFI award, but the fact is there are a lot of artists out there who are for more deserving.

Even allowing for nominees who politely turn down the award and withdraw themselves from consideration, such as Doris Day, Katharine Hepburn and Meryl Streep (she is one I would argue against being worthy of nomination-perhaps she sees that herself), there are some stellar performers (not to mention directors, writers, technicians, etc.) who should be honoured before it is too late.

Remember, the AFI missed their opportunity to honour the great Robert Mitchum, a performer who almost single-handedly defined film noir (or at least cemented it into our consciousness).

Let’s limit ourselves to three worthy candidates, who we hope will be acknowledged by the AFI (and the Academy Of Motion Pictures, Arts & Sciences, for that matter).

The biggest knock against Glenn Ford is that he made so many Westerns he is probably eliminated from consideration on that basis alone. Personally, I love his Westerns. He was one of the few truly great Western actors, who brought humanity and mythic proportion to his characters. He could also play villains as well as heroes and always gave them psychological depth. It is hard to imagine an actor more natural in front of the camera. Glenn Ford brought the brilliance of great film acting to a genre that has traditionally been viewed as ‘second rate’. It is entirely possible Glenn Ford's commitment to Westerns has worked against him, when it comes to being remembered for his outstanding body of work.

At the same time, Glenn Ford was also deft at playing light comedy. He held his own with many major stars, including Marlon Brando (THE TEAHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON) and always came through steady as a rock. He was the quintessential leading man, at times stoic, capable of great calm, action when necessary, nerves of steel, could suffer in silence and make you feel his pain and angst with a simple narrowing of the eyes. I’m an actor. I know how hard that is to achieve. Glenn Ford’s film acting technique is unparalleled.

And he graduated into character work, giving phenomenal performances in many later TV films like THE GIFT, ONCE AN EAGLE and THE SACKETTS. Glenn Ford also took part in many ground-breaking, socially relevant films like TRIAL and THE BLACKBOARD JUNGLE.

For the love of integrity AFI, remember Glenn Ford next November (when your nominating committee meets).

Another actor of class, huge talent and enormous range and versatility, Richard Widmark has often been overlooked because he was so darn good at playing tough guys.

Come on, folks. Acting is acting. When it is totally believable it is still acting. If you think Richard Widmark was so effective as a tough guy because he was a tough guy, think again. Even if he was (is) a tough guy, it’s one thing to be it in real life, it’s quite another to convey it in front of the camera.

Richard Widmark began his film career by playing one of the most memorable psychos in all of cinema, Tommy Udo in KISS OF DEATH. He was accomplished on stage and radio long before that. He once commented he gave up a place with a swimming pool to come to Hollywood to make movies! Usually the swimming pool comes with success in Hollywood. In Widmark’s case, he enjoyed both. (I guess he likes to swim).

He’s another one who made a slew of Westerns and therefore has probably eliminated himself from serious contention at awards time. But to see only his ‘tough as leather’ portrayals is to do a great disservice to this seriously underrated performer. Look up his films and pick any five (as diverse as you can find on video) and watch them. Then tell me he can’t act. Richard Widmark is a brilliant actor.

He’s another one who aged gracefully into character parts. Richard Widmark brings presence, artistry and true star power to every performance he gives. Why not acknowledge his unique contribution to the motion picture industry?

Yeah, that’s right. Bernie Schwartz from New York. Personal problems aside, Tony Curtis will probably never get the acknowledgement he deserves because he’s made enough bad movies to sink a lot of careers. But he’s also been in some truly great films, as well. Typecast in adventure films, he still managed to give rich performances in three of my favourite action films: THE VIKINGS, SPARTACUS and TARAS BULBA. Few actors could participate in films so genre-specific and still give the powerful dramatic performances he managed to give in such socially potent films as THE DEFIANT ONES and THE BOSTON STRANGLER.

Tony Curtis fought typecasting and won. He fought personal demons and a tendency to self-destruct (booze, drugs) and won. He held his own onscreen with some of the biggest stars (and egos) going (Kirk Douglas, Yul Brynner). He could switch to give a definitive comedic performance (SOME LIKE IT HOT, for example) at the drop of a hat.

If Tony Curtis has shot himself in the foot, so to speak, against ever winning a Life Achievement Award, it’s because of the twinkle in his eye and the self-deprecating sense of humour that allows him to do schlock like TV’s HOLLYWOOD BABYLON. Tony Curtis, I suspect, does not take himself too seriously. But I would suggest that we should.

At least Tony Curtis, the film artist. Not actor, artist.

I said I would limit myself to three and I will, but just in passing let me mention two other luminaries who jump to mind. Charlton Heston and Elia Kazan. The names speak for themselves. Although both will never get it because of politics. What the NRA or HUAC have to do with the enormous contribution both these giants have made to world cinema is beyond me.

There you have it. I mean no personal disrespect to Tom Hanks, who despite my (I admit, rather intense) dislike for his acting and public persona, is a fan favourite and very successful in his career. There are simply others, in my opinion, who are far more deserving. At least, if we are to continue to take such awards seriously. When politics dictate who wins, it is difficult to view such awards as prestigious. Pretentious, maybe.

The supreme irony in all of this is that Tom Hanks would probably agree with me.

What do you think?

Jon Ted Wynne