William Hurt (1950-2022)

[flyonthewall2983]

He was good on Amazon’s Goliath, but also in his episode of that Stephen King series Nightmares & Dreamscapes where he plays a hitman under siege by deadly green army men toys.

Glenn Kenny’s piece on him is really good.

[domino harvey]

Other under the radar performances I enjoy is in Allen’s Alice and especially his role in Mr. Brooks as Kevin Costner’s devil on the shoulder. He’s so mundane in it where other actors might have played up the character’s wickedness.

Mr. Brooks is a fantastic suggestion. One of my favourite comedies of the last 15 years.

I actually rented this a few weeks ago and turned it off after like 15 minutes which I haven’t done in Idontknowhowlong (tho more because I had little free time and wasn’t feeling it rather than any kind of egregious turnoffs detected). Guess I’ll go back- I only rented it because Hurt was the next actor I wanted to be a completist with post-Amy Adam’s (no, I don’t learn my lessons), which I’m recommitting to right now

As I said in my capsule review here, I think it's a bad film too, but it's definitely entertaining enough to at least finish. The ending, uh, does not redeem it, though, so don't hold out hope if you do go back in

[domino harvey]

Also, I forgot Hurt was in Noise with Tim Robbins. I can only recommend it if you also have noise sensitivity, because as someone who does, it's the most dead-on depiction of it that I've ever seen (and also shows how those who don't have it don't understand the big deal). He was also part of the excellent ensemble in Too Big to Fail, which is a real underseen gem. For more titles not mentioned yet, I can recommend skipping Loved, Eyewitness, and Trial By Jury. Has anyone seen the Doctor?

[therewillbeblus]

Eyewitness and Gorky Park are bottom-barrel 80s Hurt, and I recall The Accidental Tourist being incredibly boring- a surprising letdown after the other Kasdan collabs

[John Cope]

Has anyone seen the Doctor?

Yes, it's superb as is his performance not surprisingly. I've been talking it up all day as possibly his most underrated (which is a surprise as was his lack of an Oscar nom for it at the time of its release).

[vsski]

I have seen both A Time of Destiny and The Doctor, but would describe both as rather formulaic Hollywood movies with predictable storylines. I did like Hurt in the Doctor as he does at times manage to convey the change of his character to becoming a more compassionate human being quite interestingly. A Time of Destiny is a revenge story about two brothers pitted against each other due to family history and misinterpretation of events. At the time I was rather underwhelmed and even Hurt couldn’t rescue it. Francesco Rabal in a Hollywood movie was the more astonishing part for me (of course driven by Gregory Nava as the director).
For my money I’d say, Time of Destiny is not needed even for completists, The Doctor should be watched for Hurt, even if at times it’s feels too much by the numbers.

[therewillbeblus]

I see he also narrated the audiobook for The Sun Also Rises- I can’t imagine ever wanting to listen to vs read Hemingway, but his voice seems like enough of a good fit for bringing nuance to what could be a rendition of stale monotony that I’m tempted to revisit the book that way

[Aunt Peg]

For my money I’d say, Time of Destiny is not needed even for completists, The Doctor should be watched for Hurt, even if at times it’s feels too much by the numbers.

Agree about Time of Destiny. However, The Doctor should also be watched for Elizabeth Perkins' performance which matches the brilliance of William Hurt in the film. A much under rated and under appreciated film - I think the subject matter simply cuts too close to the bone for a lot of people.

William Hurt was probably my favourite actor of the 1980s: Altered States, Body Heat, Eyewitness (wish the studio had kept the original title 'The Janitor Doesn't Dance'), Gorky Park, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Broadcast News, The Accidental Tourist & The Doctor. Tuck Everlasting is a favourite of mine too.

Not that the Oscars mean much but William Hurt should have been a two time winner (Kiss of the Spider Woman & The Doctor).

I was utterly shocked by the news of William Hurt's passing - it has very much haunted my day.

[colinr0380]

I certainly agree with John Cope and Aunt Peg about The Doctor too, with its novel approach of the doctor becoming a patient and feeling the weight of what that means as he is suddenly transferred into being the object submitting to having things done to him rather than the infallible figure with all the knowledge and power in a medical situation. As well as perhaps being a too uncomfortable (but arguably highly necessary) take on a situation that exposes that even doctors themselves are flawed and fallible - even scared by their own limitations and their own mortality by existing on the cutting edge of life and death - human beings without all the answers, that probably did not chime quite as well with the times that were about to arrive a couple of years later with the ER series where we could all sigh and swoon over dreamy George Clooney saving that young boy from the flooding storm drain on his downtime from saving patients at work!

[Mr Sausage]

Other under the radar performances I enjoy is in Allen’s Alice and especially his role in Mr. Brooks as Kevin Costner’s devil on the shoulder. He’s so mundane in it where other actors might have played up the character’s wickedness.

Mr. Brooks is a fantastic suggestion. One of my favourite comedies of the last 15 years.

I actually rented this a few weeks ago and turned it off after like 15 minutes which I haven’t done in Idontknowhowlong (tho more because I had little free time and wasn’t feeling it rather than any kind of egregious turnoffs detected). Guess I’ll go back- I only rented it because Hurt was the next actor I wanted to be a completist with post-Amy Adam’s (no, I don’t learn my lessons), which I’m recommitting to right now

I watched Mr. Brooks based on all these suggestions. It was fine. William Hurt is easily the best thing in it--he avoids all the cliches a role like his invites in favour of something more disquieting. I wish there'd been more scenes with him and Costner and less time spent on the two(!) Demi Moore subplots.

[Stefan]

His Ned Racine in "Body Heat" is the definite male-victim-to-noir-femme-fatale performance of OUR times (post "Touch of Evil"). He will always be remembered for that. RIP, William Hurt.

[ballmouse]

His Ned Racine in "Body Heat" is the definite male-victim-to-noir-femme-fatale performance of OUR times (post "Touch of Evil"). He will always be remembered for that. RIP, William Hurt.

Definitely. I remember thinking "this actor is going to be typecast into the 80's sleazy co-respondent role forever now" because he acted it perfectly.

[colinr0380]

I don't know if I would agree about definitive (The Last Seduction and Romeo Is Bleeding come immediately to mind. Plus the remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice from the same year as Body Heat), but it certainly deserves to be in the mix as a key film in the resurgence of noir as the "neo-noir" genre in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s (before they turned more nakedly into "erotic thrillers" with Basic Instinct).

[therewillbeblus]

His Ned Racine in "Body Heat" is the definite male-victim-to-noir-femme-fatale performance of OUR times (post "Touch of Evil")

My first reaction reading this was 'what version of Touch of Evil did y'all see?' but I think you just meant neo-noir

[hearthesilence]

I didn't realize he already announced several years ago that he had prostate cancer that spread to his bones.

[Stefan]

His Ned Racine in "Body Heat" is the definite male-victim-to-noir-femme-fatale performance of OUR times (post "Touch of Evil")

My first reaction reading this was 'what version of Touch of Evil did y'all see?' but I think you just meant neo-noir

Quite right. Too often one confuses actual films with their canonical appraisals. It's like equating "the end of the classical western" with "Liberty Valance" again and yet again.

[Stefan]

Regarding "Body Heat" once again: Of course, it is absolutely unthinkable to think of Hurt and disregarding the most strinking neo-noir femme fatale in their stunning prime, Kathleen Turner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynzlZVl ... KunstVideo Glory, glory, glory, how cool the two of them were back then (= executed the perfectly written lines with their natural yet professional performance) and how terrific they looked. Those were the days, really, and Hurt's decease reminds you of them. If only Kasdan - a gigantic promise that has not been redeemed - could have clung to that level.

[therewillbeblus]

What I like so much about Body Heat, aside from its sense of atmosphere (that heat!) and the fun idiosyncratic supporting parts (particularly Danson and Rourke), is that Kasdan takes the femme fatale aspect of a genre so well-known and acknowledges that sheer stupidity of the noir protagonist when completely blinded by this 'allure' by boiling it down to the superficial 'lust disguised as love' that it is. The more I watch the film, the more I'm in awe at how inept Hurt is every step of the way, with so much sloppy disconnection between the stage he's at with Turner and his actions. The progression doesn't even manage to follow a comprehensible internal logic, and in the process Kasdan validates the power of the male sex drive and condemns it at once, just as he does reflexively with the noir genre's sincere applications of these ideas. I can totally understand why the film's haters hate it for some of the same reasons I love it.

[therewillbeblus]

Mr. Brooks is a fantastic suggestion. One of my favourite comedies of the last 15 years.

I actually rented this a few weeks ago and turned it off after like 15 minutes which I haven’t done in Idontknowhowlong (tho more because I had little free time and wasn’t feeling it rather than any kind of egregious turnoffs detected). Guess I’ll go back- I only rented it because Hurt was the next actor I wanted to be a completist with post-Amy Adam’s (no, I don’t learn my lessons), which I’m recommitting to right now

I watched Mr. Brooks based on all these suggestions. It was fine. William Hurt is easily the best thing in it--he avoids all the cliches a role like his invites in favour of something more disquieting. I wish there'd been more scenes with him and Costner and less time spent on the two(!) Demi Moore subplots.

Finally finished it, and agree with domino and Sausage- it’s not “boring” per se, but it doesn’t even have the nerve to play into its own internal logic, whatever that may be. Hurt does his best, but he’s hardly in the film in any way that fleshes out his role to Coster. I’ve seen Hurt described as Brooks’ “id” but he’s far too shrewd in his logical approach and way too calm, so as an “imaginary friend” it’s hard to differentiate him from Costner’s own demeanor to create a rift or provide material for an interesting interplay. They’re basically the same character and on the same page when placed together, which 90% of the time is when engaging down the road of murder, with Hurt having a slightly different idea of what to do sometimes, or giving a gentle push here and there without much conflict. It’s a very boring role, despite the best of the non-boring material more forgettable, so ironically the best part still. The Demi Moore subplot(s) were silly, and stupidly executed, though I laughed at the idea that a celebrity detective exists and would be worth millions of dollars - even if her dad is some hotshot politician in a throwaway line of dialogue “explaining” this totally unnecessary plot contrivance. They could have played up the AA angle of addiction, but mentioning it a couple of times and showing Costner say the serenity prayer doesn’t provide any gravitas of empathy to his characters’ painful predicament, which I really don’t think would have been too hard to make room for in a film already comfortable with overstuffing itself. If anything, taking brief breaks for an arc of sensitivity would have been a welcome antidote to the rest of the shlock, and -even if it “failed”- would have fit cozily within the campy tone the film is going for throughout.

[hearthesilence]

I caught part of Broadcast News and Hurt is such an appealing leading man in the classic Hollywood sense, it's a shame he didn't have many more roles like this (though I'm certain it's a combination of choice and the fact that he already established himself as one of the most versatile stars at the time). You don't really need someone in the film warning us about him - his character definitely has a dark side that's deceptively benign and more unsettling for it, and his charisma makes the character seem all the more richer. It's an impressive accomplishment creating something so interesting out of a personality that's shallow by design, one that can be likable while giving you pause.

[therewillbeblus]

I've already shared my thoughts on why his character comes off best in many ways. I don't think there's a "dark side" so much as a dense realism permeating his character; inclusive of a very thoroughly validated aspect of him that, from a young age, had to try harder than others to become successful along a scale of intellect where his intrinsic deficits were a deck stacked against him, and a compromised one that wielded his advantageous qualities of looks to play the bootstraps game. His character has all the initial markings of a shallow person, as you say, but he defies these as we get to know him: he's the sapiosexual player amongst the principals, and the submissive one who has to holler against Hunter's dominant dismissiveness of his equitable worth to assert his humanity in their partnership- as she abandons him swiftly following their first romantic exchange to go to Brooks without his consent. He is constantly trying to beat the shallow image people peg him as- including the likes of Hunter and Brooks who box him up out of resentment- trying to learn more to become better and being rejected on a level playing field, and only given those opportunities when the systems that value his superficial assets force them into it on a work assignment! He plays into these games and moves with the ethical 'line', and so is not wholly innocent, but his acknowledgment of such doesn't negate the fair rulings against him either- as best expressed in the first bedroom scene with Hunter. However, to diagnose him as containing a "dark side" is to align with the resenters and the impulse pathology the film works hard to break (from the very first scene of the film!)

[hearthesilence]

I think it's strange to interpret seeing anything dark about him as reflecting resentment, but that may come down to how we're defining what's dark about him. The dark side - what's unsettling about Tom - is that he doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he's doing. It sounds glib on paper when he points out that crossing the line isn't hard when it gets moved all the time, but I think he was being completely honest without understanding the full implications of buying into that idea. It comes as deceptively benign because there's no ill intent, but it does bring to mind how terrible things can happen when people fail to realize the full moral implications of what they're doing. And that's not something I'd single out in Tom - there's a lot that's gone wrong with journalism in the past 30+ years that have come out of actions (mostly collective ones) that weren't done with genuine malice.

[therewillbeblus]

Sure, I don't mean to imply that he's not complicit in ethical lines being crossed, but rather that the film frames his participation as less of a clearly-defined problem in black and white terms by elaborately drawing the larger systems doing the moving and Tom's struggles acclimating to find his options for social mobility within its confines. Because I don't see this as a black and white issue, nor do I think the film favors certain characters' worldviews over others -and is taking great pains to validate all individualized beliefs born from specific contexts on equal fields- I have difficulty defining this as a "dark side" of Tom, except through the eyes of Hunter and Brooks, who we are absolutely meant to engage with. But we are also meant to engage with Tom's perspective with equality, and so any objective statement like Tom's "dark side" doesn't fit with how I see the film's stance. It's a mature film that honors the grey, and about mature characters who imperfectly navigate that grey space of life with convictions that appropriately waver at times and don't at others, based on their own social contexts and histories. So to ultimately end up prioritizing one over another and define a dark vs light side of things would undo a lot of the work constructed, including negate the power of Tom's childhood that significantly opens the film's narrative. However, on a subjective level, I understand where you're coming from in looking at morality of news in light and dark terms. I just don't think that extends to characterization in this film- or, from a humanistic position, outside the film in the real world either

[swo17]

Also, I forgot Hurt was in Noise with Tim Robbins. I can only recommend it if you also have noise sensitivity, because as someone who does, it's the most dead-on depiction of it that I've ever seen (and also shows how those who don't have it don't understand the big deal). He was also part of the excellent ensemble in Too Big to Fail, which is a real underseen gem.

Yes, Too Big to Fail is depressingly great. I also just watched Noise and Hurt's "that's unfair" bit is the best part of the movie

Spoiler

Don't say "that's unfair." Say "that's...not...beautiful." People like your boyfriend need everything beautiful, that's why they're so helpless

[therewillbeblus]

I certainly agree with John Cope and Aunt Peg about The Doctor too, with its novel approach of the doctor becoming a patient and feeling the weight of what that means as he is suddenly transferred into being the object submitting to having things done to him rather than the infallible figure with all the knowledge and power in a medical situation. As well as perhaps being a too uncomfortable (but arguably highly necessary) take on a situation that exposes that even doctors themselves are flawed and fallible - even scared by their own limitations and their own mortality by existing on the cutting edge of life and death - human beings without all the answers, that probably did not chime quite as well with the times that were about to arrive a couple of years later with the ER series where we could all sigh and swoon over dreamy George Clooney saving that young boy from the flooding storm drain on his downtime from saving patients at work!

I really enjoyed The Doctor as well, for reasons colin already outlined much more eloquently. The film gets a lot right about acute healthcare workplace environments: the staff’s joking approach around morbid subjects, the desensitization to patients’ conditions to cope with the intensity of the job, and the consequential subconscious dehumanization of them that often comes along with this hiveminded collective adoption in such working cultures. Hurt’s reversal of positioning from the treater to the treated demonstrates the discomforting truth of value in narcissistic experience, in how one (at least, in this case, treatment providers) sometimes needs to find themselves on the other side of a power differential to see the perspective of those patients and cultivate necessary empathy into their practice- at least once they become hardened to the work.

The film certainly operates along expected beats of an inspirational narrative, but Hurt is great and the film surprisingly doesn't halt at a few instances of goodnaturedness to flesh out its point before returning to the 'self'-focused core of the story. Instead, Hurt's home life and continual experience with unexpected nonlinear markers of his condition's progress, and personal development as defined by his response to these pieces of news, is held equitably with that distanced peripheral acknowledgment of the ways we can influence others' momentary experiences by simply getting on their level with a sincere humanist equality. The bar is not at saving lives, but making the world a better place by not allowing a person feeling isolated to feel alone in a given moment in time; power born from humility in accepting powerlessness and taking action from there. It's a very conventional movie on the surface, but one that pivots away from those introverted safety nets of self-focused back-patting empathy to allot its running time to these extroverted curiosities- an expansive trajectory in narrative form emulating thematic content that seemed to better fit the film's spiritual ethos.

I loved the climactic twist on a marital confrontation using the whistle, which goes on far longer than a normal scene of this nature- though not solely because one party cannot speak! The scene is intentionally using a quiet approach to conflict management as one individual corrals the other in a messy mixture of illumination, amends, and optimistic declarations for the future. I'm not sold on the utopian finish, where the application of one person's idea has the capacity to alter an entire organizational culture with such ease, but I admired its function that entertains the possibility that maybe it could, on some small level, change the doctors' emotional intelligence through disrupting their complacency, and that this small level is what really matters. As someone who's implemented similar protocols on an agency level in both large and minute ways, to various degrees of success, it's not entirely unrealistic I suppose. Anyways, the heart is what matters.