It’s the big question journalists ask when investigating the life of the Rev. Fred Rogers, the ordained Presbyterian minister who became one of the most iconic figures in television history.
Was this man as stunningly kind and compassionate as he seemed to be when he gazed through a television lens and into the minds and hearts of millions of children? Was he real? This was, of course, the question at the heart of a brilliant 2018 documentary entitled, “Won't You Be My Neighbor?”
Now, only a year later, the same question is the hook for the plot of a new feature film entitled, “A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood.”
Further complicating matters is the fact that Mister Rogers, in this film, is played by actor Tom Hanks, an actor whose career — especially the second half of it — has been haunted by similar questions: Could Hanks truly be as nice, as kind and as sensitive as his coworkers say that he is? Is Hanks real?
These two questions come together in a long, first-person New York Times arts feature by Taffy Brodesser-Akner that ran under this rather meta double-decker headline:
This Tom Hanks Story Will Help You Feel Less Bad
Hanks is playing Mister Rogers in a new movie and is just as nice as you think he is. Please read this article anyway.
It’s a must-read story, even though it has — #Surprise — a massive God-shaped hole in the middle of it.
What role did faith play in the work of the seminary-trained Rogers? Apparently none.
What did Hanks — a churchgoer — think about the faith-driven side of Rogers life and work, a topic that Rogers talked about on many occasions? Once again, the answer seems to be — nada.
Are these questions relevant in a Times feature in which the pivotal moment, in the real story behind the movie plot, was Mister Rogers pausing to pray with a troubled journalist? Yes, we are talking about real, personal prayer. Here is a long chunk of the Times piece that is hard to edit or shorten:
In “Can You Say … Hero?,” the magazine article that “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” is based on, the writer Tom Junod follows Fred Rogers as he interacts with children and commits acts of kindness and empathy that are simple yet totally astounding. But the protagonist of “Beautiful Day” is not named Tom Junod; he’s named Lloyd Vogel. In the movie, Lloyd (Matthew Rhys) is an Esquire writer with a bad reputation whose broken relationships with his father and his new son have led to anger and despair. His editor assigns him a short piece on Mister Rogers that changes his life. …
In the last part of the article, Junod prays with Fred Rogers at Rogers’ behest, and he writes that his “heart felt like a spike, and then, in that room, it opened and felt like an umbrella” — that just being around him was enough to make him see the world differently, and then, to be loved by him, was enough to make him a completely different kind of journalist and a completely different kind of person.
Junod’s encounter with Rogers came during a crisis in his journalism career, one that left him with profound questions about his own ethics and the direction of his work.
It was then that he met Mister Rogers, who prayed for him and his family every day, and who kept a file on Junod, which the screenwriters, Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, found in Rogers’ archives in Pittsburgh. In that file, he laid out four pillars of journalism that he hoped Junod would stick to: 1. Journalists are human beings not stenographers, human beings not automatons. 2. Point out injustice when you have to. 3. Point out beauty when you can. 4. Be aware of celebrating the wonders of creation.
Did that all-important prayer scene make it into the new movie? It’s hard to tell, but it appears that it did not — based on the Times report.
Now, the main trailer for the new film does, at one point, show Hanks — playing Rogers, of course — on his knees at his bedside, holding what appears to be a small prayer book or New Testament. There are other small hints at religious issues in the trailer.
That seems to be appropriate for a movie about the life and pastoral impact of a television star who was also an ordained minister (sorry to have to repeat that basic biographical fact).
What was the role of Christian faith in the life of the real Mister Rogers? When the documentary came out, I had a chance to interview Fred Rogers’ own pastor. Here is a key chunk of that column:
"The bottom line for Fred Rogers was that the faith he had in God — Christian tradition and his own beliefs — infused everything that he did," said the Rev. George Wirth, a friend and pastor to Rogers for two decades. "He was not a grab you by the lapels man, obviously. He was more careful, and I would say prayerful, in terms of how he discussed faith."
In the documentary, Rogers summed up his approach: "Love is at the root of everything — all learning, all parenting, all relationships. Love, or the lack of it. And what we see and hear on the screen is part of what we become." The space created by a TV lens, between himself and a child, was "very holy ground," he said.
What would faith-savvy observers see in all of those classic TV episodes, in terms of theology, especially the ones about death, divorce, war and loneliness?
While we are asking question, what about that important word “neighbor”? Pastor Wirth said Rogers had biblical reasons for choosing that term. Remember the key question in the parable of the Good Samaritan?
Was Rogers preaching sermons or simply doing pastoral care?
Over and over, he slowly donned his comfy sweater and sneakers and quietly told kids that he wanted to be their neighbor.
But he also kept addressing questions about why bad things happen to good people, the hard questions that sent Rogers to seminary, even while he kept working in television. While his cheery attitude framed everything, Rogers was actually handling — in kindergarten-level scripts — ancient questions about "theodicy," attempting to reconcile the existence of a loving God with the reality of evil in the world.
Now, what about Hanks, who is known both for his fierce curiosity, attention to detail and a willingness to explore the deeper motivations of his characters? Would Hanks have thought through some of these issues.
Frankly, I don’t know. But I suspect that the answer is “of course he would.” However, it would help if journalists asked him about that.
I had a chance to do that during press events linked to “Angels & Demons,” the second film in which Hanks played the fictional Harvard professor Robert Langdon, a skeptic’s skeptic. Here’s the end of that column, “Angels, demons, Hanks & God.” I had asked Hanks how his own personal beliefs interacted with the content of this controversial film.
Hanks quoted key lines in which the Swiss Guard commander aims this shot at the hero: "My church feeds the hungry and takes care of the needs of the poor. What has your church done? Oh, that's right, Mr. Langdon, you don't have one."
"This is true," noted Hanks, whose complex family history included doses of Catholicism, Mormonism, the Church of the Nazarene and several years as a Bible-toting evangelical teen-ager. "The church does feed the poor. It does take care of the hungry. It heals the sick. I think that the grace of God seems to be not only in the eye of the believer, but also in the hands of the believer."
These days, he said, he still ponders the big questions, while raising a family with his Greek Orthodox wife, actress Rita Wilson. Miracles are everywhere in daily life, he said, and it's the "mystery of it all" that continues to haunt him.
"I must say that when I go to church — and I do go to church — I ponder the mystery," he said. "I meditate on the, 'why?' of 'Why people are as they are,' and 'Why bad things happen to good people,' and 'Why good things happen to bad people.' ... The mystery is what I think is, almost, the grand unifying theory of all mankind."
Note that final reference to “theodicy” questions.
I believe it’s obvious that Hanks would immediately connect with those same themes, in the life, ministry and art of Fred Rogers.
So why leave all of that out of a major feature in The New York Times? Why not spot this classic religion “ghost”?
Just asking.