In Memoriam

Philip Seymour Hoffman, 1967-2014

By February 2, 2014No Comments

PSH

Above, in Magnolia, Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999. 

This one hurts par­tic­u­larly badly for a vari­ety of reas­ons. My thoughts and pray­ers are with him, his fam­ily, and his fam­ily of col­lab­or­at­ors, who I know cher­ished him, and will cher­ish him, always.

No Comments

  • Oliver_C says:

    A genu­ine shock. I have sur­pris­ingly clear memor­ies of Première magazine’s 1999(?) inter­view with him, pho­to­graphed with con­dens­a­tion on his glasses.

  • Chris L. says:

    Words fail. I vaguely remembered a report about rehab a year or two ago, but did­n’t fathom he was in this much danger. As someone on CNN was say­ing, his devoted fans were not the gossip-seeking sort and knew little of his per­son­al life. The work was what coun­ted. And he made every line, pause and ges­ture count in every role.
    God bless him.

  • Betttencourt says:

    Devastating. What a truly extraordin­ary tal­ent. Hard to think of anoth­er act­or of our time as effort­less, with so much range. It’s good I don’t have The Master on disc yet, or I’d put on the “Slow Road to China” scene and start sobbing.

  • Betttencourt says:

    Slow BOAT to China.” But I’m sure you already knew that.

  • thebenc says:

    I know what you mean.
    Without dimin­ish­ing any oth­er death, as all sense­less losses of life are equal in heart­break, I don’t think I’ve ever felt more shock and sad­ness than I do today. This is the hard­est I’ve ever taken a celebrity’s passing. That he only ever let the speak for itself, as Chris L. said above, and that it felt like there was so much yet to come. That his pres­ence was a sure a blue-chip sign of a film’s qual­ity as could be. They all have some­thing to do with it, I’m sure. But deep down, it’s really that, even when play­ing the scum­mi­est of char­ac­ters, you just fuck­ing loved him. You loved him.
    He was a great act­or, and he dug deep, and had incred­ible range, yeah yeah yeah, all of that is true, but sec­ond­ary to the fact that his tal­ent inspired awe and his pres­ence inspired love. To cite A.O. Scott’s won­der­ful Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead review, Hoffman’s every per­form­ance was burst­ing with human­ism. “The screen may be full of losers, liars, killers and thieves, but behind the cam­era is a mensch.”

  • Kurzleg says:

    My first recol­lec­tion of being excited by PSH’s appear­ance in a film was, of all things, “The Big Lebowski.” Upon see­ing him in that film, I laughed but also remem­ber think­ing that “Lebowski” was going to be even bet­ter than expec­ted. I’m not sure why I thought that because he did­n’t really star in any films up to that point. Looking at IMDB, I sus­pect it was his brief turn in “Hard Eight” that was in my mind at the time. Returning to that film a few months ago, his per­form­ance feels like a cameo even though he had­n’t done much up to that point. (And a pretty good cameo it was, as he cap­tured both the macho young gam­bler bravado AND the dis­ap­point­ment of a rel­at­ive newby gam­bler at let­ting down what was, in his mind, a classy veteran.)
    But maybe it was the col­lec­ted works up to that point that informed my impres­sion that PSH’s pres­ence in a film could do noth­ing but enhance it. Certainly “Scent of a Woman” was a minor roll, but even in that he could imbue decidedly cow­ardly beha­vi­or with under­stand­able, if not defens­ible, human­ity. (Contrast his per­form­ance with that of Chris O’Donnell’s.) I only vaguely remem­ber him in “Nobody’s Fool,” but it seemed like he took that char­ac­ter and turned him into a real per­son suf­fer­ing minor injustices at the hands of Paul Newman’s char­ac­ter while just try­ing to live his life. In oth­er words, it was­n’t a cari­ca­ture of some sad sap punch­ing bag who had it com­ing but rather a real per­son being forced to deal with an adult child’s tantrums.
    This is all just dim recol­lec­tion, and though it may just be a case of speak­ing well of the dead, I think his more recent acclaimed work sug­gests that what he brought to the table was always on dis­play but only gradu­ally lever­aged to cine­mat­ic advant­age. That speaks well of his tal­ent and com­mit­ment – even early on – to iden­ti­fi­able char­ac­ter­iz­a­tions. You may not have liked the char­ac­ters, but they were recog­niz­able as human beings as opposed to chess pieces in the plot of a film.