In May 2000, Gene Hackman, then aged 69, was playing in the film Under Suscpicionremake of Police custody, From Claude Miller, Denis Rossano receives his exclusive confidences on his profession, his career and the narcissistic world of Hollywood.
Gene Hackman in the Express of May 11, 2000.
© / L’Express
In the Express of May 11, 2000: Gene Hackman in police custody
The cop of French Connectionthe producer of Get ShortySuperman’s Lex Luthor never gives an interview. He makes an exception for L’Express and presents his next film, Under suspicion.
Gene Hackman is a wine that improves over time. 69 years since January, nearly 80 films, two Oscars (best actor in French Connection In 1971, best supporting role in Ruthless in 1992) and a handful of classics (Bonnie and Clyde, secret conversation, Reds…). A beautiful track record for an actor who speaks little, lives discreetly in light years from Hollywood, plays the flawless in each of his appearances and likes to slip into the troubled roles. Witness his character ofUnder suspicionremake of Police custodyfrom Claude Miller, where he interpreted a lawyer accused of the murder of young girls. The film is presented out of competition at the Cannes and Gene Hackman festival, before coming to the Croisette, gave us an interview. Surprise: he said gruff and suspicious turns out to be playful and talkative. And it’s not cinema.
L’Express: you are the source ofUnder suspicion. How did it go?
Gene Hackman: I saw Police custody Absolutely by chance when he came out in Los Angeles. I was so bewitched that I stayed at the next session. I lived with this film for many years, I absolutely wanted to make a remake. It was only when I met Morgan Freeman that things were set up. I showed him the film in cassette and he liked it enormously. He contributed a lot to the financial editing of the project, much more than me – I am not very good at this area.
What attracted you to this story?
The characters, of course. But also the conflict between the policeman (Morgan Freeman) and the lawyer. I was very interested in the complexity of their relationship and the fact that they come from very different backgrounds: the lawyer has money and privileges, the policeman is more a simple worker. The perception that the policeman has of this man whom he does not like and that he suspects fascinated me.
How did you work with Morgan Freeman?
He is an actor on which we can fully count. It is always present, always on the breach. It is a film with very dense dialogues, and every day we were shooting five or six pages without improvising, because we had repeated for two weeks. The film did not cost a lot of money – we were forced to hurry since we only had thirty -eight days of shooting. It was not easy, but we got there.
How do you choose your roles?
He has several reasons: the script, first, then the actors envisaged and the director. And, in the midst of all this, there is also the money that comes into play. Sometimes I accept an interesting role for a reduced cachet or to play with someone in particular. I recently shot two days in Mexico in a film with Brad Pitt [The Mexican, de Gore Verbinski, avec aussi Julia Roberts]. On several occasions, we had to work together, but things had not been done. There, I jumped at the opportunity.
How do you look at your career?
I consider myself a working actor – an actor who works. I think I was extremely lucky to have had the opportunity to play certain roles. I do not know if I consciously made intelligent choices, because they always seemed to me more practical than intelligent. This business is really determined by chance: you never know if the film will work, if it will become a classic, if we have made the right choice. Bonnie and Clyde, It was just a wonderful job, yes, but a simple job. I did not suspect that Arthur Penn was making a film that was going to change the way of making cinema at the time.
Is there one of your films that seem underestimated?
Yes, Epouvantailwith Al Pacino. I would have liked it to be better received by the general public. We worked hard and it was a big failure. It was when my career was booming and I was so disappointed by the welcome that, afterwards, I abandoned the idea of making little films. I decided to be just a working actor, to play what was offered to me. It took me a long time, several years, before I recovered looking for quality projects.
You have written a book that is not the usual autobiography of a star, but an adventure novel, The wake of the losing star. What led you to writing?
I am delighted to be able to talk about it. I had lunch with one of my friends [Daniel Lenihan]who lives like me in Santa Fe, and we started talking about books, these fabulous maritime adventure novels of our youth, like those of Stevenson, and to lament that there is no more. I then said to him: “I’m going to go home to write a chapter of a story of this kind, you will tell me what you think.” A week later, I brought him several pages. He liked it and we decided to continue. We developed a story: learning a 17 -year -old boy in 1805 that we follow for three years when he was engaged on a boat. Writing was a happy change in my career. Finally something to build alone without the gaze of 90 people waiting for me to make my show.
Are there any actors you want to shoot with?
Yes, a large number. There are many people I appreciate and I have already worked with most of them. I don’t live in Hollywood, so I never meet the new ones. I discover their work when I go to the movies. For example, I am very happy to shoot a comedy soon with Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt (Breakby David Mirkin). If we live long enough, we end up working with everyone in this business.
Why do you live far from Hollywood?
It is not really that it is a boring city, but I like to be distant from it. In Hollywood, everything revolves around cinema: conversations, people we see, everyday life. It is totally narcissistic. We end up forgetting why we do this job.
Will you go to Cannes to present Under suspicion ?
Yes, two days. It should be fun, I’m happy to go. I’m just a little afraid to see how you, the French, go react to the American remake of one of your classics. Critics will cry out for sacrilege! We’ll see …
.