Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:17 am
by TaranofPrydain
He was found dead in his home, as were his wife and pet dog. In spite of two deaths, the police are saying it isn't foul play. But what is it then? This is a very bleak end for one of Hollywood's best actors of all time....
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:01 am
by AndyDursin
Some kind of gas leak, carbon monoxide poisoning I'd imagine if the dog was gone too. It happens. Not much different than passing in one's sleep if that's what it was.
One of the greats...no doubt about it.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:58 am
by Eric W.
A merciful way to go out really. GOAT. RIP.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:02 am
by AndyDursin
I can't imagine it's anything but that if the dog went also.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:02 am
by Eric W.
AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:02 am
I can't imagine it's anything but that if the dog went also.
Well... does foul play include suicide concepts?
Since they ruled out foul play would that rule out any scenario like that, too? I hope so.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:11 am
by AndyDursin
She's like 65. That doesn't really sound like a mass suicide event, sounds like CO poisoning.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:42 am
by Paul MacLean
Where does one begin? He was one the greatest actors in movie history. He was hard to classify, adept in comedy, action, serious drama. He wasn't a polished, handsome "leading man" type and mostly played un-glamorous roles. A bonafide star, but one who seemed content with taking supporting parts as well, and certainly possessed the range and eclecticism of a character actor.
His oveure is so vast it is hard to sum-up. But to just consider a few of the roles and types of movies he appeared in...
The French Connection
The Conversation
The Poseidon Adventure
Superman
Young Frankenstein
Uncommon Valor
Hoosiers
Mississippi Burning
No Way Out
Unforgiven
Crimson Tide
As they say, "the list goes on..."
And it's just hilarious that he and Dustin Hoffman were considered "least likely to succeed" by the Pasadena Playhouse.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:43 am
by sprocket
So sad about the wife, to die so young.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 10:32 am
by Monterey Jack
I was expecting Hackman to die sooner than later due to his advanced age, but having his wife and dog go at the same time...
R.I.P. to the G.O.A.T.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:08 am
by AndyDursin
Another one to mention is Mike Nichols' THE BIRDCAGE, which he was terrific in also.
Hackman is, arguably, my favorite of all of those amazing actors of that generation. Maybe it's because I connected the most with his filmography and saw so many of his movies -- in fact there's scarcely any I haven't seen from his 70s-and-beyond heyday.
Paul, you touched upon it perfectly. Of all of those actors, what I liked so much about Hackman, beyond his personality on-screen, was that he wasn't a snob. I love Pacino in a lot of his work but he and a lot of other stars of that generation were very selective (making "message movies" a lot of the time) and/or had large gaps at times between performances. Hackman was willing to work, and work consistently, turning out lots of different types of roles. They weren't always Oscar contenders and there were times he was just trying to make money, but leading or supporting, he kept on plugging away and always seemed to care. That was the thing, how many Hackman performances could you say were lazy or disengaged? Sure, like Hoffman, Pacino, Nicholson, etc. you could say he had the same persona in a lot of his work, but he wasn't afraid to do blockbusters, or a smaller movie, and then mix them up, to a degree none of the others did.
I think what you describe Paul is very much accurate -- it was almost like he was a character actor, but he was also a leading man -- which kept his range of projects interesting. And the quality of work on balance in the 1980s was very high given how prolific he was in turning out films, not unlike Michael Caine.
Some good interviews I've seen this AM:
First appearance on Letterman from 1986:
From the BBC that same year:
Career-spanning interview on Larry King:
Costner remembering Hackman from what must've been the set of NO WAY OUT:
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:38 pm
by Monterey Jack
AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:08 amThat was the thing, how many Hackman performances could you say were lazy or disengaged? Sure, like Hoffman, Pacino, Nicholson, etc. you could say he had the same persona in a lot of his work, but he wasn't afraid to do blockbusters, or a smaller movie, and then mix them up, to a degree none of the others did.
I was sad when Hackman announced his retirement from acting over 20 years ago, but, in hindsight, we were spared from seeing him lower himself to the kind of direct-to-streaming junk former greats like De Niro and Pacino devolved into since the 2000s. He was one of those guys, like John Lithgow or Kurt Russell, who always seemed to "bring it" even if they were stuck in a piece of absolute junk, and never phoned it in ("Oh, Gene Hackman's in this, he's always good..."). And his range was second-to-none...few actors could scream "Motherf*ckeeeeeeeerrrrrr...!!!" with the same level of brio, but then he could play a meek, professorial role with an equal amount of lived-in skill. And he was always consistently working. It seemed like, up through the early 2000s, you couldn't go more than three or four months without something with Hackman in it hitting theaters (which led to the humorous "Caine/Hackman theory" in the 1994 movie PCU, which stipulated that, no matter what time of day, you could always find a movie on network TV or cable that featured either Michael Caine or Gene Hackman )
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:02 pm
by AndyDursin
What's interesting in one of those anecdotes is how he took time off after SUPERMAN because he didn't like his performance in it -- it was probably more a reaction to one of the leanest stretches of his career (mid to late 70s) where he was in some bad movies (DOMINO PRINCIPLE, MARCH OR DIE, LUCKY LADY) and/or sizable budget, just-for-the-money performances that mostly turned out poorly (FRENCH CONNECTION II, A BRIDGE TOO FAR, even SUPERMAN was a check-cashing venture).
The circumstances surrounding the deaths is now viewed as suspicious, which is unfortunate as it's shrouding a view of his legacy, but something doesn't check out (found dead in different rooms, some dogs were still alive, bodies were decomposing, etc.)
Did she OD and commit suicide? Was it staged to make it look like she did? Weird.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 3:17 pm
by Eric W.
I was hoping for the gas leak theory but wasn't really sold on it out in Santa Fe CA. I'm really sorry to see this. They are putting this together fast.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:50 pm
by sprocket
I am somewhat uncomfortable reading lines like "Further questions were raised on Thursday in a search warrant, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian...". Maybe I'm just over sensitive, but that seems a bit invasive.
I think I'll have to tuned this out for a few weeks until everything is definitive.
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025); Dead Under Disturbing Circumstances
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2025 10:39 am
by mkaroly
While I never watched every single movie he was in, he is the only actor I can think of where I can say that I never disliked him in any role he played. His acting always seemed "natural" to me - like he wasn't acting but was the person he was on the screen (if that makes sense). He was one of a kind - just an immensely talented and great actor. RIP and condolences to his family.