You can probably put together the details and it wouldn't surprise me if it inspired a film down the line - it already recalls several macabre works outside of films - but basically his wife died and Hackman was too lost to Alzheimer's to realize she was gone and kept going about his daily life until he finally suffered a heart attack. An extremely sad way to finish one's life.
FWIW, I had to study a hantavirus outbreak in school once - an interesting case that became a television documentary by I believe Bill Kurtis - but it was also in New Mexico, and it exposed some racial divides in the town because initially the only people dying were all Navajo, leading some to suspect it was related to their ethnicity before authorities diagnosed the cause.
EDIT: Found a listing by TCM.
Gene Hackman (1930-2025)
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025)
Can you expound upon this? If it was mostly Navajo getting sick, what was the real reason or the story behind it?hearthesilence wrote: Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:26 am but it was also in New Mexico, and it exposed some racial divides in the town because initially the only people dying were all Navajo, leading some to suspect it was related to their ethnicity before authorities diagnosed the cause.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025)
When the initial cases were Navajo children (and IIRC it may have been only two, both fatal), the Navajo community suddenly found themselves ostracized, with nobody wishing to make contact with them and even suggesting they were bringing disease into the community. It's not an unusual response to outbreaks of new or mysterious diseases - think about AIDS being the "gay plague," COVID being attributed to Asians, or even now with the measles outbreak in Texas and how many morons immediately blamed illegal aliens who weren't vaccinated. It completely ignores the mode of infection. In this case, if it's via mice droppings, it's whoever is unfortunately exposed and whoever has to clean it up, unaware of the danger they're in. Nothing to do with the fact that the first victims were Navajo.aox wrote: Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:07 pmCan you expound upon this? If it was mostly Navajo getting sick, what was the real reason or the story behind it?hearthesilence wrote: Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:26 am but it was also in New Mexico, and it exposed some racial divides in the town because initially the only people dying were all Navajo, leading some to suspect it was related to their ethnicity before authorities diagnosed the cause.
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025)
Of course not. Disease doesn't care about such things.hearthesilence wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:59 am Nothing to do with the fact that the first victims were Navajo.
Thanks for the write-up/response.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Gene Hackman (1930-2025)
I revisited Bonnie and Clyde, albeit via Blu-ray as I couldn't make Lincoln Center's screenings of a 35mm print. FWIW, I was surprised to find out that the Blu-ray is sourced from a 4K restoration even though it's 15 years old now, apparently one of the first instances of a 4K restoration done on a studio film. The Blu-ray could be better as it was encoded with a low bit-rate, but it still looks pretty good. (I was shocked to find my copy showing bad signs of layer separation around the edges but it still played all the way through.)
Anyway, when you keep in mind that this was likely the first time many moviegoers ever heard of Hackman and saw him act, his talents as a natural actor really stand out. I think he gives the best performance in the cast, and even though he's a little more nuanced and naturalistic than the others, he still fits in and plays off the others organically. His mannerisms, what you see on his face (and what you can sense underneath the surface) is just great, and you can see how he might've come off as a great discovery. His first big close-up when he's calming is wife is amazing - without even trying he just commands your attention.
(He did appear with Beatty in Lilith several years earlier, and despite its lack of commercial and critical success, it had its defenders, so it's likely some people would've remembered him from that.)
Anyway, when you keep in mind that this was likely the first time many moviegoers ever heard of Hackman and saw him act, his talents as a natural actor really stand out. I think he gives the best performance in the cast, and even though he's a little more nuanced and naturalistic than the others, he still fits in and plays off the others organically. His mannerisms, what you see on his face (and what you can sense underneath the surface) is just great, and you can see how he might've come off as a great discovery. His first big close-up when he's calming is wife is amazing - without even trying he just commands your attention.
(He did appear with Beatty in Lilith several years earlier, and despite its lack of commercial and critical success, it had its defenders, so it's likely some people would've remembered him from that.)