In Memoriam

You're like me

By May 31, 2010No Comments
[Bumped and updated.] 

You're like me

It was pretty widely known that Dennis Hopper had been ter­min­ally ill for some time; and for all that, I don’t doubt there are those who are prone to spec­u­late that his passing over this par­tic­u­lar week­end was a final mani­fest­a­tion of his imp of the per­verse, for­cing blog­gers and journ­al­ists and oth­er media sorts who no doubt had oth­er plans for their time out of their leis­ure and back to their work sta­tions for at least a little while. I don’t truck in that sort of thing, so you won’t find me mak­ing any spec­u­la­tions of the sort. 

I wrote an offi­cial Hopper-type obit for MSN Movies some months ago, and I ima­gine the act­or’s death has taken the folks over there some­what unawares, or maybe they just felt my piece was­n’t up to snuff; the Associated Press obit is all that’s up there at the moment. I’ll update with a link to the piece when it goes up. (Update, 6/1/10: And here it is.) In the mean­time; well, of course every­body’s going to talk about Blue Velvet, but boy, there are so many oth­ers, and the Hopper per­form­ance I find more res­on­ant every years—“A little older, a little more con­fused,” man, ain’t that the truth!—is his Tom Ripley in Wim Wenders’ The American Friend. What a stroke of geni­us, to play Highsmith’s mas­ter sociopath as genu­inely, thor­oughly, poignantly, sad…to his very bone. But not pathet­ic or pathet­ique; still utterly leth­al. The look in his eye after Bruno Ganz’s Jonathan Zimmermann brushes him off with an “I’ve heard of you,” and how that off­hand remark seals poor Zimmermann’s fate…that’s both film act­ing at its best,  and most nuanced, and dir­ect­ori­al sensibility/sensitivity that knows just how to use such per­form­ing genius.

The one prob­lem with his being so fully iden­ti­fied with the Velvet mad­man Frank Booth is that the notori­ety of the asso­ci­ation did­n’t yield Hopper many sub­sequent roles in which he could be ter­ribly subtle. Say what you will about Isabel Coixet’s Elegy, but it was cer­tainly one of the latter-day films in which Hopper was­n’t being asked to play a car­toon, and he was clearly happy for the oppor­tun­ity to stretch a bit. Other such oppor­tun­it­ies came with films such as Alison McLean’s 1999 Jesus’ Son and my friends Brian Koppelman and David Levien’s 2001 Knockaround Guys. And let’s face it, some of the car­toons were a hell of a lot of fun; see Romero’s 2005 Land of the Dead. That aged baby boomer he played in those fin­an­cial plan­ning com­mer­cials, though; that dude I was­n’t too nuts about. 

He lived a Hollywood career that really does earn the des­ig­na­tion “legendary:” from old school to new school to what-the-fuck-school and back again. The crazy so-and-so went through a bazil­lion per­muta­tions of not com­prom­ising; if any­one ever earned a “Rest in Peace,” he has.

UPDATE: My friend Joseph Failla recalls the early days of the reviv­al of Hopper con­scious­ness among met­ro­pol­it­an cinephiles:

I happened to find the actu­al Film Forum sched­ule from Dec ’87 to Mar ’88 which included their trib­ute to Dennis Hopper titled, OUT OF THE SIXTIES, which ran for three weeks in March (4−24) and that we atten­ded. It included the New York première of DENNIS HOPPER: SOME KIND OF GENIUS, a 1987 doc­u­ment­ary by Paul Joyce, basic­ally a can­did con­ver­sa­tion with Hopper about “his Shakespearean train­ing, his early idols, the act­ing tech­nique he learned from James Dean and his his­tory of con­flict with the Hollywood estab­lish­ment”. This is where we heard about Hopper’s con­front­a­tion with Henry Hathaway dur­ing the mak­ing of KATIE ELDER in which he suffered a break­down. GENIUS was shown at least once a day through­out the series.

The line up was as follows…

March 4–5 Fri/Sat

EASY RIDER and a new 35 mm print of THE TRIP

March 6–7 Sun/Mon

THE LAST MOVIE (print cour­tesy Dennis Hopper) and THE AMERICAN DREAMER

March 8–9 Tues/Weds

KEY WITNESS [I do love that the Film Forum dug up this Phil Karlson gem—G.K.] and THE SONS OF KATIE ELDER

March 10–11 Thurs/Fri

THE AMERICAN FRIEND and REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE

March 12,13,14 Sat/Sun/Mon

OUT OF THE BLUE and BLUE VELVET

March 15 Tues

TRACKS and RIVER’S EDGE

March 16–17 Weds/Thurs

NIGHT TIDE, QUEEN OF BLOOD and HIGH AIR (a Screen Director’s Playhouse tele­vi­sion epis­ode from 1955)

…and for one week, March 18–24, the New York première of Altman’s  O.C. AND STIGGS

I believe someone remarked as the lights came up at the end of THE LAST MOVIE, “Nice try, Dennis!” At the time most folks still held the film in com­plete con­tempt but very pos­sibly, if there was to be any kind of turn­around on LAST MOVIE’s repu­ta­tion, this ret­ro­spect­ive was as good a place as any to start, if only because no one had been able to see the darn thing in years. Hopper was enjoy­ing a renewed pop­ular­ity as BLUE VELVET was then a strong mid­night attrac­tion, and pair­ing it with his own OUT OF THE BLUE made for a very fit­ting, if extremely uncom­fort­able, double bill.

No Comments

  • Cam Moneo says:

    I’ve been very blue all day about Hopper’s passing. He was an amaz­ing act­or, a fre­quently bril­liant dir­ect­or, a fine paint­er and pho­to­graph­er – a con­sum­mate artist.
    I recently read Elena Rodriguez’s bio­graphy of him. So many crazy stor­ies. One choice anec­dote: While liv­ing in Taos, New Mexico dur­ing the edit­ing of The Last Movie, Hopper estab­lished a com­mune there pop­u­lated with assor­ted friends and fol­low­ers. This drew the ire of loc­als who ter­ror­ized the “hip­pie scum,” even rap­ing the women accord­ing to Hopper–all with the com­pli­city of the loc­al police. Deciding some­thing must be done, Hopper and his broth­er David bought up all the guns in the city; strap­ping them­selves with a few pis­tols hid­den under ponchos, they then stormed into a high school assembly and announced to the crowd that they were “macho” mother­fuck­ers and not to be messed with–brandishing their hid­den weapons from under their ponchos to prove it. Apparently, the loc­als did­n’t screw with them after that.
    Then there was the time in the early eighties when Hopper, strung out on speed­balls and alco­hol, pulled a knife on one of the “heads of the Texas Mafia” in a park­ing lot in Houston, demand­ing to know if the Mafia had put a con­tract out on him (why he thought this is any­body’s guess). It will be said a thou­sand times in the next few days, but it was really some­thing of a mir­acle that Hopper sur­vived to see sobriety.
    Then there were his films. For his career in the 70s and 80s, I’m con­vinced that he’s a geni­us. Out of the Blue is an out-and-out mas­ter­piece, proof of his remark­ably poet­ic tal­ents as a dir­ect­or. On the oth­er hand, I did watch parts of Easy Rider today and was struck more than ever by its rather lame and obvi­ous sym­bol­ism (like Fonda throw­ing away his watch before they depart on their bikes). It is an undeni­ably beau­ti­ful film, how­ever, and one I still find very moving.
    Anyway, I could go on. Thanks for the post Glenn, and thanks for singling out his super­lat­ive per­form­ance in The American Friend. Truly one of Hopper’s best.

  • Glen! I’m thrilled you decided to high­light his role in The American Friend. I’ve been think­ing all day how under­ap­pre­ci­ated or at least under­seen his role in that film is (not to speak of the film itself, one of my favor­ite from Wender). It’s prob­ably the most fully embod­ied and beau­ti­ful por­tray­als Hopper ever put to screen.

  • Tim Lucas says:

    The bit of Fonda throw­ing away his watch in EASY RIDER is an hom­mage to Roger Corman, who almost pro­duced it. In one of his movies, a prot­ag­on­ist does the same thing at the out­set. I’m blank­ing on it, but it may be Jack Nicholson in THE TERROR who casts away his pock­et watch.

  • A totally screwed-up and often hor­rendous human, and a fas­cin­at­ing actor.
    BTW, I remem­ber hear­ing from a friend-of-a-friend 30-odd years ago about Hopper show­ing up on “Apocalypse Now” not only not know­ing his lines, but being com­pletely incap­able of learn­ing any.
    “Just think of T.S. Eliot,” advised Coppola.
    Which might explain why, for no par­tic­u­lar reas­on, Hopper’s intro­duc­tion is accom­pan­ied by a blur­ted “I should have been a pair of ragged claws, man…” or some­thing like that.
    Such an inter­est­ing per­former. I still mar­vel over the sub­text of “Giant,” which prof­fers him as the pro­geny of Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor…

  • Cam Moneo says:

    Tim, in that case the watch-throwing bit is both a lame sym­bol and a very cool hom­mage. Thanks for that bit of info!

  • lipranzer says:

    We put on OUT OF THE BLUE at the store today. I’ll have to check that one out someday; looks very unusual.
    I’m not a fan of ELEGY, but I agree with you Glenn about Hopper in it; he’s the best thing about it, and the only one who tries to play his char­ac­ter as more than a sym­bol (course, he was famil­i­ar with the story, hav­ing played Ben Kingsley’s role in Bruno Barreto’s sin­cere but mis­guided CARRIED AWAY). As far as more subtle per­form­ances go, I also liked him in his small role in BASQUIAT, and as for the fun over-the-top movies, people will of course bring up things like TRUE ROMANCE, but what about his vil­lain turn in RED ROCK WEST? And while Marlon Brando deservedly received a lot of praise for his tongue-in-cheek riff on Don Corleone in THE FRESHMAN, Hopper actu­ally got their first in FLASHBACK, play­ing a former 60’s rad­ic­al on the run from the FBI. It’s one of the more under­rated com­ed­ies of the 90’s. R.I.P.

  • I was nev­er an OUT OF THE BLUE fan (oy, that end­ing!). But THE LAST MOVIE is a god­damn mas­ter­piece, and it breaks my heart that he died before Criterion could issue it with J. Hoberman’s ter­rif­ic essay, and all the crit­ics could finally notice that it’s one of the only Godard-influenced American films to achieve actu­al greatness.

  • brad says:

    I happened to dvr Mad Dog Morgan off IFC many weeks ago, had star­ted to watch it and turned it off because the qual­ity was so bad, but am glad I saved it for today’s sad occa­sion to pay a bit of homage to the Great Mr. Hopper. I had nev­er seen it – nev­er even heard of it frankly – and it is a pretty damned great movie, with Hopper in his ele­ment, sport­ing a remark­ably good Irish Brogue no less, and join­ing forces with the always impress­ive David Gulpilil as 19th cen­tury high­way cons in the Land of OZ. It really was a fit­ting toast to Hopper in all his dys­func­tion­al and unpre­dict­able glory, while rep­res­ent­ing his incred­ible diversity des­pite the one-note repu­ta­tion garnered by Blue Velvet, Paris Trout, etc. He was so much more than a psy­cho. With any luck, his passing will get some of his less known work like Mad Dog Morgan some long overdo atten­tion – and in the case of this par­tic­u­lar film, a watch­able DVD. Apparently it’s a 1.66 crop of a zoomed Pan and Scan ver­sion of the ori­gin­al 2.35 present­a­tion. A travesty.
    R.I.P. Dennis.…you will most def­in­itely be missed.

  • Jimmy says:

    He’ll nev­er bring The Beatles back to Hamburg”
    Dennis Hopper, God bless you. Rest in peace.

  • lazarus says:

    I’m glad a couple people have men­tioned Out of the Blue already, I don’t think its influ­ence (how­ever subtle) has received nearly enough atten­tion or cred­it. You can see so much of it in films from the mid-80’s to the mid-90’s, and things like River’s Edge or the work of Larry Clark comes off pretty weak by com­par­is­on. Fantastic shit. And of course, Linda Manz.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    And his bass-playing with Soft Machine: truly out of sight.
    Boy, am I glad FuzzyNutsack is finally be able to hip the rest of the world to THE LAST MOVIE.

  • I see that a longish com­ment seems to have been eaten (per­haps I trans­posed a digit while typ­ing the “y4ntym”), so in case it does­n’t reappear … in sub­stance, I recom­men­ded the Australian DVD of MAD DOG MORGAN to Brad and every­body else, as it is uncut and in the prop­er aspect ratio, and reveals the film as the revisionist-western mas­ter­piece it is. Hopper is on fire, and his tech­nic­al mas­tery of an Irish accent is not some­thing I expec­ted. Even though Hopper’s is a pretty con­trolled per­form­ance, Philippe Mora offers in the DVD extras plenty of dead­pan anec­dotes involving Hopper’s on-set insan­ity, which among oth­er things made the Australian author­it­ies rather eager to see him leave the country.
    I also dig OUT OF THE BLUE, includ­ing the end­ing, which seems like a sin­cere (if clumsy) effort at a sort of punk/anarchist atti­tude that’s rare in American films, even of that era. I’d like to know how much of it is actu­ally Hopper’s, since he replaced the ori­gin­al dir­ect­or (a Canadian who nev­er dir­ec­ted anoth­er fea­ture, if memory serves).
    Other great Hopper per­form­ances: in Jaglom’s TRACKS and the above-mentioned CARRIED AWAY.

  • Tom Russell says:

    Boy, am I glad FuzzyNutsack is finally be able to hip the rest of the world to THE LAST MOVIE.”
    Boy, am I glad that Chuck Stephens is here to act like an asshat.
    Seriously, dude, what’s your prob­lem? He’s express­ing an opin­ion about a film– a film that, yes, *is* not ter­ribly well-regarded, a film that was very per­son­al to the recently-departed act­or that Glenn’s post and the ensu­ing com­ments thread are try­ing in some way to hon­our– and some­how, that war­rants that level of snark?

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    And now I’m so glad that Tom Russell is here because the Nutsack needs a nanny.
    My prob­lem is only that Nutsack is so eager to go mano-a-“all the crit­ics” on THE LAST MOVIE, as if he and he alone had just dis­covered the film, forged an aston­ish­ing new appre­ci­ation of it, and in his dreams of fuzzy glory has taken over Criterion’s releas­ing sched­ule and pack­age edit­ing to pro­mote it to his own sat­is­fac­tion and vin­dic­a­tion. And to think, all it took was Dennis Hopper’s death for Nutsack to climb up on his tiny moun­tain of per­son­al soil and crow about his clear-eyed vis­ion of cinema.
    He was­n’t cel­eb­rat­ing Hopper (p.s. OUT OF THE BLUE sucks because Nutsack does­n’t get it): he was mak­ing yet anoth­er drool­ing stab at his own vain­glory, and fail­ing hilariously…even as you rush to his aid with a fresh drool-cup in hand.
    Surprise, some of “all the crit­ics” actu­ally have seen a few films, and don’t need the death of a major film­maker to come out trum­pet­ing about it.

  • Oh geez no—no, I most cer­tainly did­n’t dis­cov­er it all alone. I only dis­covered THE LAST MOVIE when J. Hoberman’s ter­rif­ic exegis­is opened my eyes, so no claims to my own bril­liance here.
    As for its desired rerelease: THE LAST MOVIE is pretty well-established as a hugely import­ant, per­son­al film for Hopper (as you can see in AMERICAN DREAMER). And it was such a flop it more or less des­troyed him for a decade—he obvi­ously had addic­tion issues before that, but it seems like the dis­astrous recep­tion of his an ambi­tious film was a factor. But its recent run at the Anthology Film Archives was pretty suc­cess­ful, and I just think it’s a shame that Hopper died before it could be more widely rediscovered—would have been very sat­is­fy­ing for him, I imagine.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    Thank you Fuzz: had you said it that way in the first place, I would­n’t have piped up, and Tom R would­n’t have his Pampers in a twist about it right now.
    The last time I saw THE LAST MOVIE pro­jec­ted was at FILM FORUM back in the 80s, just pri­or to the occa­sion for which JH wrote that essay. I believe the print used then was Hopper’s own, so he was aware of the respect and acclaim it had in cer­tain circles.
    (THE LAST MOVIE was double-billed at that engage­ment with AMERICAN DREAMER, in the same crummy gone-pink print from which bootleg dupes still cir­cu­late today.)

  • Ray says:

    I dimly recall–and it’s very dim, being forty years back–Hopper com­ing to the U of Wisconsin-Madison and show­ing an early ver­sion of THE LAST MOVIE. I was­n’t able to see the film (prob­ably went to a class or some­thing silly like that instead), but I went to a con­ver­sa­tion he held with stu­dents after­ward. Some of them were berat­ing him, I thought quite viciously, for his movie not being polit­ic­al enough, or polit­ic­al enough in the right way for them. I was very young and had­n’t seen the film (still haven’t), so I did­n’t really grasp the issue, but I remem­ber feel­ing bad for Hopper, espe­cially when I saw that he seemed to be genu­inely hurt by the com­ments. I wanted to say, Hey, don’t listen to these assholes! But of course I did­n’t. And I think he really did care what they thought.

  • Adam R. says:

    Why does every single film blog com­ments sec­tion have to turn into insane dick meas­ur­ing about who was hip to X’s unher­al­ded mas­ter­piece first, and which clue­less critic/commenter will nev­er appre­ci­ate Y’s vis­ion? Mr. Stephens, we all bow to your girth, your ground-scraping mem­ber and your haughty swag­ger, but every time I’ve come across your name at the bot­tom of a com­ment on this blog, the above words have pos­it­ively vibrated with unearned snark. What the fuck is wrong with some of you people – why the end­less put­downs, the twit­ter­ing and sneer­ing, the me-first school of film crit cool? It’s like a par­ody of cinephil­ia, a cruelly inver­ted take on some­thing that should, fun­da­ment­ally, be guided by love and enthusiasm.

  • Graig says:

    I saw THE LAST MOVIE about two years ago in a really nice look­ing 35 mm print at the Cinefamily in LA. Hopper was on hand to answer ques­tions after the screen­ing, and he was quiet and soft spoken, almost shy. He seemed not to be able to relate to the film more at this point in his life. THE LAST MOVIE itself is eas­ily one of the hard­est sits I’ve ever had to endure, clearly the work of a man not oper­at­ing on any sort plane of func­tion­ing ration­al­ity. Sometimes in the past I had a tend­ency to roman­ti­cize artists with men­tal ill­ness or a drug addic­tion or what­not. THE LAST MOVIE cured me of that.
    Oh, I did get to chat with Hopper briefly as we both waited in line for the men’s. I shook his hand and told him how much I admired his work. He accep­ted my hand and was polite and respect­ful but that was it; he had been shak­ing a lot of hands that night.

  • Pete Segall says:

    Hopper showed up in one of the bet­ter hour-long Twilight Zones called, if my brain still works, “He’s Alive,” with Hopper play­ing a street corner neo-Nazi who finds a muse in the tit­u­lar He, Hitler. It’s inter­est­ing to see a very early riff on the unhin­ged­ness that Hopper would make a cot­tage industry out of, but what I remem­ber most about the epis­ode is the begin­ning of Rod Serling’s nar­ra­tion: “Portrait of a bush-league fuhrer…”

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    Adam R, I think I was pretty clear about my spe­cif­ic dis­gruntle­ment with what FB said, and he respon­ded to it.
    Exactly which aspect of “cinephil­ia” was your post meant to guild with “love and enthusiasm”?
    Sounded a whole lot like yet anoth­er: “Oh, that Stephens, he exem­pli­fies everything I hate about ‘film blog com­ments section(s)’, not that I have a single inter­est­ing or sub­stant­ive thing to add to the dis­cus­sion myself.”

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Just to chime in here on tone: I’m fairly happy with the fact that the com­ments threads on this blog are, more often than not, rel­at­ively civil. Yeah, there’s some bile and even some name-calling once in a while, but things rarely if ever get out of con­trol to the extent that you’d see elsewhere—on a lot of polit­ic­al blogs and, yes, on some movie-enthusiast sites/blogs.
    I know that Mr. Stephens can come off as kind of what some might call unduly feisty at times, and I’ve had pretty intense argu­ments with him in the past myself, but I’ve always found he’s always got a genu­inely sub­stant­ive point that some may find obscured by his demean­or. Cinephilia is about love and enthu­si­asm, sure, but it’s also about argu­ment. I’ve rarely seen an argu­ment get so heated here that I’ve had to “mod­er­ate” it too much, or come in and delete com­ments or what have you.
    That said, back to Hopper. One of my favor­ite parts of “The Last Movie” is when Julie Adams turns up, and for all the world her whole demean­or is pretty much “What the hell am I doing here?” To see the star­let who aroused the mam­mal in the Creature From The Black Lagoon in this par­tic­u­lar con­text is almost as unnerv­ing as see­ing Molly Ringwald in Godard’s “King Lear.”

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    Thanks Glenn, you’ve shriveled my snark-hose right down to furl-able size.
    How about a little love for the etern­ally under­rated Don Gordon, who plays mor­ti­fied Abbott to Hopper’s hop­head Costello in both THE LAST MOVIE and OUT OF THE BLUE?
    And speak­ing of OUT OF THE BLUE (detract­ors, look again: BLUE VELVET is unthink­able without it): not since GODZILLA has Raymond Burr been used to such, uhm, cinephil­ic effect!

  • Panties in a Knot (yup, you nailed me!) says:

    I’m sorry, but occa­sion­al insights aside, Chuck Stephens is a hate let­ter to human­ity. Every time I stumble upon his comment-section snip­ing I feel like I’ve stepped in rhet­or­ic­al dog shit. I like many of the essays he’s writ­ten for Film Comment (stuff on early Apichatpong espe­cially) but this dude makes Armond White seem as sup­port­ive as a sum­mer camp coun­selor. If you don’t have any­thing nice to say, Chuck, then just shut up.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    Another cine­aste afraid of her own name, dis­ap­poin­ted by my lack of sup­port. Deary me.

  • Okay, this I gotta hear—how is BLUE VELVET unthink­able without OUT OF THE BLUE?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    OK, while the last thing I want is for this thread to turn into a debate on the rel­at­ive mer­its of C.S.‘s rhet­or­ic­al prac­tice, I have to admit that the phrase “makes Armond White seem as sup­port­ive as a sum­mer camp coun­selor” made me chortle. But say what you will about C.S.‘s lack of sup­port­ive­ness, unlike A.W. he’s scru­pu­lous about get­ting his facts straight. He’s also a cur­mudgeon as opposed to a lunatic.
    Again, though; mov­ing right along: Yes, Don Gordon, who also appears in “Out of the Blue,” is an exem­plary foil. The cast of “Last Movie” would be a not­able one in any context—other mem­bers include Sylvia Miles and Tomas Milian—but they’re a par­tic­u­lar kick to watch in such a res­ol­utely rad­ic­al context.

  • Panties in a Knot (yup, you nailed me!) says:

    My name is Amy Brand, I work in the prov­ost office of a Boston uni­ver­sity, and I approve this mes­sage: get a life, Chuck.
    FYI, I have no inten­tion of get­ting into a back-and-forth with you, so don’t expect me to reply to your next round of nas­ti­ness. No doubt you’ll prob­ably take my silence as proof that you’ve “won.” I hope those Pyrrhic vic­tor­ies may you feel a little less miserable.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    FB: I’d start with the image of Hopper stuff­ing Linda Manz’s blue night­gown into his mouth while sexu­ally ter­ror­iz­ing her, and start count­ing the cor­res­pond­ences from there. I haven’t seen OUT OF THE BLUE in many years, so I guess it’s time to unwrap the .99 cent copy I got at the gro­cery stuff last year and enjoy anew.

  • Does Hopper do any gown-munching in OotB? I don’t recall, although that final scene is so badly lit and indif­fer­ently shot that maybe it happened and I missed it. I had just taken the night­gown bit as more of Lynch’s fabric-fetish (which I don’t mean at all negatively—the obsess­ive care with which he plans his films’ drapery is part of their whole obsessive-compulsive gestalt), rather than a ref­er­ence (and find it hard to ima­gine Lynch ref­er­en­cing a movie made after about 1964 any­way). Still a ways from “unthink­able”.
    Honestly, I’d be really inter­ested to read a sol­id defense of OUT OF THE BLUE—given my love for THE LAST MOVIE, I’d be delighted to have a reas­on to regard OotB as some­thing oth­er than messily lit, sub-hackishly shot (so… many… medi­um mas­ters), and slop­pily scrip­ted (in con­trast to TLM, with its intric­ate con­nec­tions from first to last, everything in OotB seems to come out of nowhere and is nev­er brought up again, except for the “punk” dia­logue, which is just embarass­ing). Hell, maybe the cheapo DVD I have was such a ter­rible print that someone could post screen­caps prov­ing the real movie looks much better!

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    I just scanned to the (quite brightly lit) scene I was recall­ing: it’s not a night­gown, but a pair of dark blue/black panties Manz stuffs into “Daddy’s” mouth while be groans into her groin, then slaps his face. It’s at about the 1:26min mark. I will rewatch the film later this week, and per­haps say more then. In the mean­time, your beloved Hoberman (and mine) wrote a fant­ast­ic review of OOTB when it first opened in Manhattan; I doubt it’s online though.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    FB, I think I’d like to read *your* exten­ded take on OOTB, since, as you rightly point out, “everything in OotB seems to come out of nowhere” – appro­pri­ate, no, giv­en the film’s title? (I am not being facetious here in any way.)
    You might also cut Hopper some slack on OOTB’s pro­duc­tion val­ues: at that point in his career, he was lucky to be mak­ing a film at all, and doubt­less on a mer­ci­less budget and timeline, both while shoot­ing and edit­ing, factors entirely reversed from the pro­duc­tion cir­cum­stances of THE LAST MOVIE.

  • Nu, I saw OOTB, thought “Well that was a dreary, stu­pid mess,” and am not all that inter­ested in revisiting—there’s way too many good movies to see in this world. If someone can con­vince me that there’s more there than I noticed, I’m cer­tainly open to it, but so far, the asser­tion that the use of a single image of a not-that-uncommon fet­ish renders BLUE VELVET “unthink­able” without it leaves me dubious.
    In the meantime—COLORS, anyone?

  • Stephen Bowie says:

    Just FYI, if it’s at all pos­sible, track down the OOP Anchor Bay DVD of OUT OF THE BLUE. Nice, widescreen trans­fer plus Hopper commentary.

  • Chris O. says:

    The Altman oral his­tory barely men­tioned O.C. AND STIGGS. I’d nearly for­got­ten Hopper & Altman worked togeth­er. Anyone have any behind-the-scenes anec­dotes on that one?

  • I LOVE O.C. And Stiggs, though I love the ori­gin­al National Lampoon stor­ies on which it was based even more. I do con­sider it to be Altman’s most under­rated film. But Hopper is just coast­ing on auto-pilot in that – far bet­ter, and il migli­or impro­viser there (and, giv­en his Second City train­ing, likely else­where) is Paul Dooley.
    I also, per a past post or two, def­in­itely love Out of the Blue. More than The Last Movie, in fact. However, as I’m now at work, I can­’t at present hash out the refined aes­thet­ic par­tic­u­lars that led me to this assess­ment while get­ting some cod­ing done sim­ul­tan­eously. Sorry, Chuck.
    FB men­tioned Colors, which I would not have done. But I will men­tion Backtrack, flaws and all, for its equi­val­ence of art, celebrity and crime. Far from Hopper’s best as act­or or dir­ect­or, but it does fea­ture a fine, com­mit­ted, un-ironic per­form­ance from Jodie Foster and bana­nas cameos like Bob Dylan as a chainsaw-wielding sculptor!

  • christian says:

    BACKTRACK also fea­tures Vincent Price, so that’s a day I woulda loved to have been on the set.
    THE LAST MOVIE is the kind of mad movie I adore, and don’t tire of it simply because it’s so bizarre yet there’s a power­ful theme at work about the nature of film and real­ity. Would love to see more of the miles of foot­age they shot…
    As fer Julie Adams, I love her in the LAST MOVIE – she’s still gor­geous and in an old PSYCHOTRONIC (RIP) inter­view said she had a great time mak­ing it. To quote DAZED AND CONFUSED, she was a hip, hip lady.

  • Chuck Stephens says:

    Fuzz, since you seem to have thor­oughly intern­al­ized Dorothy Parker’s thoughts on hor­ti­cul­ture, I will indeed take you by the hand and sit you down at the table: here are but two telling excerpts from J. Hoberman’s 1988 essay on OUT OF THE BLUE (pub­lished in the Walker Film Center’s Hopper festschrift):
    “OOTB is Hopper’s most bru­tal and accom­plished movie…Like all of Hopper’s fea­tures, it is extremely well-shot…”
    Sorry, but that’s as “sup­port­ive” as I can be.

  • Jeff McMahon says:

    Do every­body a favor and ratchet down ‘being an ass’ from 9 to 3 or less please.

  • Mike D says:

    Dennis Hopper says: “Armond White’s half an idi­ot, and that’s the good half.”

  • Griff says:

    The men­tion of Vincent Price’s (brief) pres­ence in the quirkily enter­tain­ing BACKTRACK reminded me that Hopper acted with Price in the ven­er­able star’s final screen appear­ance, shar­ing a nicely arch little lunch­eon scene at the begin­ning of Bruno Baretto’s 1992 cable movie THE HEART OF JUSTICE. The two men have an easy rap­port on-screen. They were friendly in real life; Hopper always cred­ited Price with help­ing him fur­ther his interest in art.

  • I’m amused that Chuck Stephens seems to think that throat-clearing adject­ives like “well shot” and “accom­plished” are “telling”. This explains a great deal about gen­er­ally abysmal writ­ing, wherein waves of spittle are deployed in the hopes of con­vin­cing people he’s not as vap­id as he sounds. Anyway, on to more inter­est­ing sub­jects than the guy who twit­ted about MEN IN BLACK 2’s “feli­cit­ous charms” (some sen­tences should earn people to a life­time of get­ting punched in the nuts)…
    Do any accounts exist of Hopper’s time with Altman on O.C. AND STIGGS? I’m very much in agree­ment with James that it’s under­rated (though A WEDDING remains my choice for most under­rated), but it does seem like Hopper isn’t all there (nor, really, is Altman, much as I enjoy the ride). Personal con­flicts between two guys too much alike, Hopper’s ongo­ing sub­stance issues, or just one of those things?

  • Also—ha any­one seen his “No One”, his appear­ance on Barbara Stanwyck Show show? The thought of Stanwyck and Hopper bat­ting lines off each oth­er sends a Matthews-like thrill up my leg.

  • Chris O. says:

    :Personal con­flicts between two guys too much alike, Hopper’s ongo­ing sub­stance issues, or just one of those things?
    That’s what I was won­der­ing. Two per­son­al­it­ies like that in the early 80s… iron­ic that it could’ve very well been a low-key shoot sans fun anecdotes.

  • It was “From Hell to Texas” where Hopper got in trouble with Hathaway, in 1958. Strangely enough, it was with Hathaway that Hopper made his return to main­stream Hollywood films, sev­en years later, with “Sons of Katie Elder”. I can­’t remem­ber where I saw Hopper tell the story. but para­phras­ing here, Hopper did his part exactly as Hathaway ordered. When Hopper asked Hathaway if he was act­ing bet­ter, Hathaway replied, “No, you’re act­ing smarter.”

  • Fuzz – The closest thing I have to dis­cus­sions of Hopper on the O.C. and Stiggs set is a dim memory of, of all people, Jane Curtin (who’s as poorly used in that film as Dooley is well. Used. Well-used.), who talked about work­ing with him in an inter­view on the old Letterman Late Night show. Pretty sure she was on to pitch some­thing else, but she men­tioned she had just fin­ished shoot­ing it, and remarked how Hopper was, she emphas­ized, “VERY INTERESTING to work with…”
    So. OK. Not much. Does the recent Altman bio dis­cuss O.C. much as all? Simply for the great, tele-present cameos by Nashville’s own chorus/candidate, Thomas Hal Phillips, it’s some­thing of a must for Altman com­plet­ists. Not to men­tion a lovely, sharp per­form­ance by a lovely, young Cynthia Nixon, superb King Sunny Ade con­cert foot­age, &c.. Utterly mon­strous + mind-roasting…or, at least, pretty good, and unques­tion­ably one of Altman’s funniest.

  • OC is argu­ably for com­plet­ists only—I love the return of Hal Phillip Walker, and the shuff­ling pace, but I may be in the tank for Altman.
    I do hope that his Barbara Stanwyck Show appear­ance gets reis­sued as well! As Keith Phipps’ excel­lent piece at The Onion points out, Hopper was inter­est­ingly poised between the old studio-system eth­os of “hit the mark, say the line, get out” and the New Hollywood excesses of The Method. Given that Stanwyck was so firmly on the former side, there might be some inter­est­ing sparks fly­ing (though that was still dur­ing his TV days, when he was basic­ally a hard­work­ing young professional).
    And say—how has every­one res­isted head­ing their blog entries with a still of Hopper pick­ing his nose in LAND OF THE DEAD? He has so many great moments in that movie, par­tic­u­larly the shoot­ing of the board mem­ber near the end, which is a little mas­ter­piece of com­ic tim­ing. No mat­ter how many times I see it, it still gets a chuckle.

  • Chris O. says:

    @James Keepnews: A page and a half to O.C. & STIGGS in the bio (includ­ing a line from Maslin’s review in which she called it a “lively, col­or­ful satire”). Not one word about Hopper. Basically, MGM did­n’t like Altman’s cut, but he was too depressed to fight them and the stu­dio fin­ished it.

  • Glenn – Your post reminded me of anoth­er inter­est­ing Hopper-starring indie that has­n’t been seen much since its 1973 release, KID BLUE, a “revi­sion­ist Western” dir­ec­ted by James Frawley and co-starring Warren Oates and Peter Boyle. Worthy of inclu­sion in any decent Hopper retrospective.