logo
‘I spent 12 hours a day for 16 months with Gene Hackman – but never met him': The Conversation's Walter Murch pays tribute

‘I spent 12 hours a day for 16 months with Gene Hackman – but never met him': The Conversation's Walter Murch pays tribute

The Guardian28-02-2025

I never formally met Gene Hackman. I glimpsed him once, in November 1972, when he bounded upstairs to the offices of American Zoetrope in San Francisco, but I didn't recognise him until he told the receptionist that he was here to see Mona Skager.
Francis Ford Coppola's film The Conversation was about to start shooting in two weeks, and Mona was Francis's associate producer. I was to be the film's editor. That brief and solitary glimpse of Gene in real life was counterbalanced by 16 months of daily screen contact with Harry Caul, the character brought to life by Hackman.
This was my first job as editor of a feature film, and I was in alternating states of excitement and terror. Previously, I had edited some commercials, a couple of short documentaries and one educational film. I had also done the sound design for The Rain People and The Godfather, Coppola's two previous feature films, as well as the sound design for George Lucas's feature THX 1138.
But editing The Conversation was a big turn up the spiral for me, which explained the excitement. The terror was induced by the fact that this was the next film by the director who had just transfixed the world with The Godfather. If The Conversation failed, for whatever reason, much of the blame would fall on the shoulders of this young and inexperienced editor.
The relationship between actors and film editors is a classic case of asymmetry: editors stare at actors 10 to 12 hours a day, sometimes more, and we microscopically study their every move, flinch, blink, gesture and inflection. We become actor-anthropologists, students of this strange tribe, and we inhale their rhythms which become second nature to us, and then translate them into the editing style and pacing of the film.
In a certain sense, we know this narrow spectrum of an actor better than anyone – perhaps in some cases better than the actors themselves. If we later meet them in person, this asymmetry really makes itself felt; they frequently have no idea who we are, other than appendages of the director, but we have all that secret and microscopic knowledge: how they prefer to turn left rather than right, their characteristic way of hesitating before opening a door, how often they blink …
There were many times, often at 3am in the morning, when Harry would push a button on his tape recorder, stopping it, and so closely did I identify with him that I would be amazed to find my KEM editing machine still running, having not obeyed Harry's command.
During one session, another all-nighter, I finally noticed that very close to where I would decide to make a cut, Harry would blink. Was I controlling Harry, or was he controlling me? This confusion was ultimately resolved: the cut is a blink, and this realisation, triggered by Gene's performance, became one of the foundational ideas of my book on film editing, In the Blink of an Eye, first published in 1992.
So in a very real sense, the integrity of Hackman's performance provided the metronomic spine which supported and guided me, often without my knowing it, to find the correct pacing for each scene, and then the right structure of the collection of those scenes in the finished film. I shudder to think what would have happened if Harry had been performed by someone else.
So I was hit hard by the news of Gene's death for all kinds of reasons – I am a huge fan of his work across five decades of American cinema – but particularly because of the guidance and inspiration he gave me implicitly during the editing of The Conversation. I never had the opportunity to thank him personally for helping me to become the film-maker that I am today. So I do that now: 'Thank you, Gene.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Prince Harry and Meghan's single word that left late Queen fearing 'disaster'
Prince Harry and Meghan's single word that left late Queen fearing 'disaster'

Daily Mirror

time5 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Prince Harry and Meghan's single word that left late Queen fearing 'disaster'

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle never intended to leave royal life altogether, but one word in their sensational statement lead to an ultimatum from the Palace, according to insiders Prince Harry and Meghan Markle completely quitting their royal roles came down to the use of a single word, according to an insider. Now five years on from them sensationally stepping back as full-time working royals, the Sussexes appear to have left their former lives well and truly behind them. The pair have both been focusing on their commercial endeavours with Meghan sharing more and more of her life behind the scenes on Instagram, including a recent video of her twerking alongside Harry as they awaited the birth of their daughter Princess Lilibet. However, when they first announced their intention for change more than five years ago, it seemed that they did not want to quit royal life completely, instead saying that they intended to "carve out a progressive new role within this institution". ‌ ‌ But it appears a throwaway, single word in that very statement paved the way for an ultimatum that there would be no half-in, half-out arrangement for them. In the statement announcing their stepping back, the Sussexes said at the time: "We will continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties." And according to the Daily Mail, the word 'collaborate' is what raised eyebrows, with a source telling the publication: "No-one 'collaborates' with the Queen. This is not one of those 'Kate Moss Top Shop tie-ups'." And with the Sussexes, most notably Meghan, forging a very different path compared to the one she had in the Royal Family, the insider added: "This is exactly why Queen Elizabeth knew this whole half-in, half-out version of royalty they were lobbying for was never, ever going to work. "Harry and Meghan were a law unto themselves from the start, pushing and pushing the envelope to their own professional and financial advantage. Her Late Majesty was nobody's fool and knew that the chances were, it would all end in disaster." In the dancing clip from last week, a heavily pregnant Meghan twerks to the Starrkeisha song Baby Momma, lifting her skirt above her knees, raising her hands in the air and wiggling low with her hands on her hips and legs. Meghan shared the clip on Lilibet's fourth birthday, saying: "Four years ago today, this also happened. ‌ "Both of our children were a week past their due dates… so when spicy food, all that walking, and acupuncture didn't work – there was only one thing left to do!" And for royal expert Jennie Bond, she believes it is an "astonishing video on any level" and reveals what the King would have thought of it. The former BBC royal correspondent told the Mirror: "The hours before you give birth are some of the most personal, intimate and private in the lives of any couple. "And women are perfectly entitled to do whatever they feel like to get through the waiting, and the pain. Giving birth is a serious business, and anything to lighten the mood is welcome. ‌ "However - to share those scenes with the world is utterly bizarre and, in my view, takes away all the magic of the moment. I cannot imagine why she chose to release it. Maybe show it one day to your nearest and dearest— but to anyone and everyone who wants to click on it? ‌ "If the King has watched it, which I doubt, though he can't have missed the headlines I'm sure he would be horrified. Royalty has to carry with it some measure of dignity." But she added: "Having said all that, there's no doubt that videos like this connect in a very real way to young people. And perhaps that's what Meghan is trying to do. "My own daughter thought the video humanised both Meghan and Harry and was light-hearted and hugely relatable. It reminded her of her own pregnancies and labour and she thought it was rather charming."

Love Island's Sophie's horrific injury photos after freak accident caused burn
Love Island's Sophie's horrific injury photos after freak accident caused burn

Daily Mirror

time5 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Love Island's Sophie's horrific injury photos after freak accident caused burn

Sophie on Love Island has explained how she had been engulfed in flames after an air-con unit blew a fireball back into her face and chest mid-performance Sophie has been open about her horrific injury following a freak accident. In 2018, Sophie was involved in a terrifying event when she had flames blow into her face during a performance in Chicago. The author and motivational speaker spoke about what happened during the first episode of the show. Speaking to Harry on the show, she said: "I've only had one boyfriend. When I was 22 I was in a fire accident. It made me the woman that I am. It made me learn so much about life and interactions with people and how to be better. ‌ "I believe to date people, you also need to be in a good place in yourself. That's why in my early 20s, I think I wasn't ready to date because I didn't feel good in myself. I had a lot of self work to do, I had a lot of building my own confidence." ‌ Sophie recalled how she had been engulfed in flames after an air-con unit blew a fireball back into her face and chest mid-performance. She said she had "blacked out for a little bit" and she was in terrible pain. "The air-con was too strong so when I blew the fire out, it blew back to me. It set me on fire. I just remember being in so much pain, I blacked out for a little bit… As soon as I got into the ambulance, I was in bits," she previously said. She had explained how she spent a month in intensive care in the United States, where she had machines to help her as she could no longer breathe on her own, eat, or even see properly. "That was a scary, scary time. On day two, I looked in the mirror and just cried," she said. Sophie had a facial tumour that was caused by the burns, which was operated on. She explained how keloid scars began growing on her chin and her face. ‌ She said: "They developed two months after the accident and they will be with me for life. It's just a case of taming and getting it flattening with steroid injections or laser. "At first the keloids knocked my confidence because I didn't know what it was. Up until then the scar was just flat. I thought 'great, my skin's healed itself, it's going to be OK', and then all of a sudden the skin started raising, it kept growing and growing." Sophie has learned to accept herself and urges people to ask rather than stare about what happened. "I just have to accept myself for me. I think sometimes people stare because they don't know how to ask. It's not intentionally rude, I think they're just curious and don't know what to say," she said of her feelings towards her scarring, "I never mind if people ask about my scars, then I can educate more people about what happened."

Harry Potter fans spot major casting problem – but there's a simple answer
Harry Potter fans spot major casting problem – but there's a simple answer

Metro

time7 hours ago

  • Metro

Harry Potter fans spot major casting problem – but there's a simple answer

Keen-eyed muggles have spotted a problem with the cast of the upcoming Harry Potter TV show, but is there really an issue? Over the last few weeks, HBO has been slowly announcing who will be playing who in the small-screen adaptation of the Boy Who Lived's adventures. So far, we've learned that some of the biggest names in Hollywood are set to appear – including John Lithgow, Paapa Essiedu, Janet McTeer, and Nick Frost – while newcomers Dominic McLaughlin, Arabella Stanton, and Alastair Stout will be playing Harry, Hermione, and Ron, respectively. On June 9, another owl (okay, it was a press release) arrived announcing several new actors who'll be joining the show. Katherine Parkinson will be taking on the role of Molly Weasley, Johnny Flynn will be donning Lucius Malfoy's blonde wig, while Lox Pratt will play his son Draco. Of all those announced, though, it was Bel Powley and Daniel Rigby – who are playing Harry's aunt and uncle, Petunia and Vernon Dursley – who caught fans' attention. A number of people online thought that the pair were too young to play the Harry's last living relatives. @RageCrusader asked on X, 'Aren't they a bit young for the roles?', @turquoisepogos concurred posting, ' Why so young choice?' @relientkenny meanwhile wrote, 'This is insane. They're both only in their 30s' and @DavidJosephLaw2 added, 'I'm assuming they'll have makeup on cos they look too young'. It was @RickPayne88, however, who was perhaps the most dramatic about the latest casting news, posting: 'Whoever is the casting director needs to be fired wtf are these casts'. This sentiment wasn't exclusive to X either. On Reddit, UltraYZU admitted 'They seem much younger and quite more attractive than I imagined when reading.' In fact, a number of people seemed confused as to why producers had cast such young actors as the Dursleys. Here's the thing, though: Bel and Daniel are exactly the right ages to play Petunia and Vernon. You see, while the movies portrayed the Dursleys as a middle-aged couple, they're a lot younger in the books. How do we know that? Well, you don't need to be as good as a goblin at arithmetic to work that out, but let me spell (pun unintended) it out for you. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video While Petunia's age in the books is never stated, we know that she's close in age to her sister Lily, who was just 21 when Voldemort murdered her. That would mean that when the story began, ten years after the Potter's murder, Petunia could only have been in her early thirties at most. Bel, at 33 years old, is the perfect age to play Harry's aunt. Similarly, we're never explicitly told how old Vernon is in the books, fans estimate he's only a few years older than his wife, with most estimating he's about 37 in The Philosopher's Stone. At 42 years old, Daniel is actually older than Vernon was when we met him in the first book. More Trending Of course, it's easy to understand why some fans are confused about the Dursley's ages. In the Harry Potter movies, the decision was made to age up the adult cast. This was done primarily because the 55-year-old Alan Rickman had been cast as Snape, who's supposed to be in his thirties, and therefore, the actors playing his classmates had to be a similar age to keep things looking consistent. View More » The Harry Potter TV show is set for release in 2026 Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: The completely free streaming service that's 'like DIY Netflix' with 25,000,000 users MORE: Netflix fans say 'wrestling is saved' after shock WWE championship win MORE: Netflix on verge of dropping all 8 episodes of dark TV drama 'compared to Ozark'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store