It’s the dog that gets me about Gene Hackman. Decades ago he went off to New Mexico, away from the bright lights of fame. And the dog went with him and his wife. Hackman was a firm man – you might say hard. He had been a marine, and seldom bowed to all the suck-up stuff about being lovable and a movie star. He was 95.Clint Eastwoodis 94, Robert Duvall the same. Jack Nicholson is only 87, still the kid.Dustin Hoffman is 87 too, Robert Redford 88, Warren Beatty 87. Harrison Ford is 82, and he seems older, or worried. We can’t expect these guys to go on for ever, just because they’re geezers, veterans and not forgotten.Not all of those fellows are as hard as Hackman was. None of them could summon up the nastiness he had in Unforgiven or the desperate isolation of Harry Caul in The Conversation. Hackman went off to Santa Fe and stopped working (on movies, anyway), while Eastwood directed a picture last year, Juror #2, which was not bad. I wonder if Eastwood has dogs.View image in fullscreenBy any means necessary … Gene Hackman as sheriff Little Bill Daggett and Clint Eastwood as gunslinger William ‘Bill’ Munny in the 1992 western Unforgiven, which Eastwood directed.Photograph: Warner Bros./AllstarPeople speak of these guys and their generation as real or tough movie stars. I get the point, and I know it’s meant kindly. But bear in mind that Hackman, Nicholson, Eastwood and the others came of age as an earlier wave was dying off – Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power and Gary Cooper, who was the godfather then. He was only 60, but he had looked anxious for years, and he would have thought of Douglas Fairbanks Jr, John Gilbert and even Rudolph Valentino as the real men.It’s not just that the generations come and go, and that in time a name such as Power sounds fond or quaint. It’s more that we put a load of affection and expectation on stars and it can wear them out.We shouldn’t make as much as we do of actors and stars when they are trying to represent usHackman’s generation seem like “the right stuff” now, good guys who had come up the hard way and had to struggle for attention. But Philip Kaufman’s wry picture The Right Stuff realises that the stuff can be like a slogan or ice-cream. The best of us understand that real hardness is having your Medicaid slashed in Oklahoma or Kentucky, even if you were befuddled enough to vote for the golden slasher. Hard was the 1930s when you might be a vagrant hitching a ride on the burning prairie, wondering if you’d end up a thief or worse.We shouldn’t make as much as we do of actors and stars when they are trying to represent us – no matter the money, the wives, the residuals and the magazine covers.View image in fullscreenHold up … Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway and Gene Hackman in Bonnie and Clyde, 1967.Photograph: Warner Bros./AllstarThe stars who were “men” once know that the new generation has to wrestle with CGI and social media.Gene Hackman: the star of every scene he was inRead moreThere are guys around – such as Brad Pitt, Robert Downey Jr and Ed Harris – who may look like worn rock soon, as well as top actors. Can you anticipate Mel Gibson at 90? That’s only 21 years away, and maybe that’s too long to wait. Most of these fellows still remember their lines, or make them up. They can do an acceptable smile. It’s having to run on camera that finds them out.Actors playing strong men often fret over their own weakness. That’s how close to us they are, and why Hackman knew, without resentment, that no one quite looked at his character Buck Barrow, in Bonnie and Clyde, when Clyde was played by Warren Beatty.Hackman was firm enough to have no faith in being likable – and that is rare among movie actors, who can be comically insecure. So in The French Connection he was a rowdy scumbag, as great a danger as the advertised rascals. In Crimson Tide he was a grim tyrant, a threat to the world, someone Denzel Washington had to take down. He let us hate him. And in that role, as Captain Frank Ramsey, even on the submarine, he had a dog.
‘He let us hate him’: Gene Hackman had a rare power – he didn’t need to be liked | David Thomson
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Remembering Gene Hackman: A Reluctant Star Who Redefined Toughness in Film"
The Guardian
7.6
TruthLens AI Summary
Gene Hackman, who passed away at the age of 95, was a unique figure in Hollywood, known for his refusal to conform to the typical expectations of movie stardom. After a successful career marked by powerful performances in films such as 'Unforgiven' and 'The Conversation', Hackman chose to retreat from the limelight, relocating to New Mexico with his wife and their dog. Unlike many of his contemporaries, who sought to maintain their public personas and remain in the industry, Hackman was unyielding and hard-nosed, qualities that were evident in his performances. His characters often embodied a raw, unfiltered essence that resonated with audiences. While actors like Clint Eastwood and Jack Nicholson continued to work into their later years, Hackman's decision to step away from acting speaks to his distinct perspective on fame and the pressures that accompany it.
Hackman's legacy is intertwined with a generation of actors who emerged during a transitional period in cinema, moving away from the classic stars of Hollywood's golden age. The article reflects on the changing landscape of the film industry, where the demands of stardom have evolved, often burdening actors with unrealistic expectations. Hackman's ability to embrace unlikability in his roles is highlighted as a rare trait among actors, who typically aim to be adored by audiences. His performances in films like 'The French Connection' and 'Crimson Tide' showcased his talent for portraying complex characters who were often unlikable yet compelling. This willingness to be disliked allowed him to explore darker themes in his work, making him a formidable presence on screen. Hackman's career serves as a reminder of the authenticity that can emerge when actors prioritize their craft over public adoration, leaving a lasting impact on the film industry and inspiring future generations of actors to embrace their true selves.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article reflects on the life and career of Gene Hackman, emphasizing his unique approach to fame and acting. By highlighting Hackman's departure from Hollywood and his preference for solitude, the piece paints a picture of an artist who values authenticity over popularity. The discussion surrounding Hackman and his contemporaries evokes nostalgia for an era of tough, no-nonsense actors who were lauded for their grit and talent rather than their public personas.
Exploration of Celebrity and Authenticity
The narrative suggests a broader commentary on the nature of celebrity in contemporary culture. Hackman’s decision to retreat from the limelight contrast sharply with many current actors who seem to thrive on public adoration and social media presence. This could be interpreted as a critique of modern fame, which often prioritizes marketability over genuine artistry.
Generational Shift in Acting
By comparing Hackman and his peers to earlier icons of film, the article underscores a generational shift in the film industry. The mention of legendary actors like Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart serves to illustrate a dying breed of actors who embodied a certain toughness and realism. This generational context provides a lens through which readers can evaluate the evolution of acting styles and public expectations of actors over time.
Public Sentiment and Nostalgia
The piece taps into public sentiment and nostalgia for the "golden age" of Hollywood. By contrasting the hard-edged portrayals of Hackman with the softer, more marketable personas of today’s stars, the article resonates with readers who long for deeper narratives in film and a return to more authentic portrayals of human experience.
Potential Manipulative Aspects
While the article does not overtly manipulate, it does evoke a sense of loss associated with the changing landscape of cinema. The framing of Hackman’s character and career choices elicits sympathy and admiration, which could subtly influence public perception of current stars who may not exhibit the same depth or authenticity. This suggests a manipulation of emotions rather than facts. The reliability of this article seems strong, as it draws on historical context and personal anecdotes rather than sensationalism. The writer’s tone is reflective and respectful, aiming to honor Hackman’s legacy while critiquing the current state of the film industry. Overall, the piece encourages readers to consider the implications of celebrity culture and the value of authenticity in art.