The one type of director Gene Hackman couldn’t stand: “They’re full of shit”
The relationship between a director and their actors is one of cinema’s most important, but there’s enough evidence to suggest that the two parties don’t have to get along to make a good movie. Gene Hackman was a powerful personality who wanted to do things his way, which didn’t always make things easy for the filmmakers he worked with.
Many of the industry’s greatest performers have been pegged as difficult characters, and Hackman was no different. Make no mistake, he was the consummate professional who was always on time, completely prepared, and willing to do whatever it took to create the best possible performance, but several directors suffered his wrath as a result.
Wes Anderson is the most famous example, with Hackman’s part in The Royal Tenenbaums being written for him to play. He signed on, did it, and won a Golden Globe for his efforts, but not without exhibiting some tyrannical behaviour that made life uncomfortable for the precocious auteur.
2004’s risible comedy Welcome to Mooseport has the distinction, or ignominy, of being Hackman’s final feature credit, but he wasn’t particularly enamoured with Donal Petrie, at one stage telling the director to shut the fuck up and get out of his way so he could perform his scenes.
Barry Sonnenfeld was told to his face by Hackman that the actor didn’t think he had a clue what he was doing behind the camera, only to be pleasantly surprised. The ideal scenario is that the actor and director work in perfect synchronicity, but any time the latter tried to reduce the former to nothing more than pieces on a chess board to be moved around, the two-time Academy Award winner drew the line.
“Directors who think we’re tools of their vision? As an actor, I say they’re full of shit, we’re not tools at all, we have something to contribute,” he told Film Comment. “And yet, some of the really good directors feel that way. Alfred Hitchcock: I don’t know if he feels personally that way about actors, but I know his way of working is as if an actor is there to be manipulated, to be told where to stand and what to say and get on with it.”
Hackman didn’t take the plunge into directing, but he knew he “wouldn’t enjoy that because I don’t think I have that kind of contribution to give as a director.” Hypothetically, he would base his directorial style on “the understanding of the way actors work,” drawing on his own personal experience.
Did Hitchcock really feel that way about actors? According to the ‘Master of Suspense‘, yes and no. Still, even though they never worked together, the filmmaker might have met his match if he had tried to treat Hackman like one of his ‘cattle’.
