Gene Hackman vs. Robert Duvall

They've already been in 2 films together - The Conversation and Geronimo.

There was a time when I thought Duvall was in the same league as Hackman, but I think his acting can be a little fussy and mannered at times.

The critic Pauline Kael made an interesting, if negative, observation about his acting in her review of True Confessions...


"People may mistake Duvall's control for greatness, but he never gets to the point where technique is subsumed and instinct takes over."


Despite this comment I think Duvall is capable of greatness, it's just that you're comparing him to Hackman who is arguably the best film actor there's ever been.

I could write a really long post on this, but for me Hackman is the more riveting presence and can carry a film and take it by the throat in a way that Duvall can't.

Duvall is a supporting player to his bones, whereas Hackman is equally effective in both lead and supporting parts.

Another interesting comment from Pauline Kael on Duvall...


"He is one of those actors who are stars when they play character parts but character actors when they play star parts. Some element of excitement seems to be missing - we don't have star empathy with him."


Both actors are capable of incredible subtlety, and although Duvall can turn on the power too, I don't think he can match Hackman in this department.

Hackman has also shown greater flair for comedy, which many consider harder to do than drama.

In summary it's got to be Hackman for me, although Duvall is certainly up there among America's finest character actors.

Interesting thoughts and I appreciate a lot of what you stated. I agree Duvall has a less intense presence then Hackman but I think he took scenes by the scruff of the neck in Apocalypse Now and his timing was terrific. Duvall shone in a recent, underappreciated gem that blended comedy and heartfelt drama in Secondhand Lions and showed off his comedic chops there nicely. I haven't seen The Royal Tenenbaums but I'm sure it will showcase Gene's comedic talents best. Perhaps Hackman can overact on occasion where as Duvall can underplay? Anyway they are both in my top favourites but yeah this has been interesting.

Your point about Duvall taking scenes by the scruff of the neck in 'Apocalypse Now' is correct, but only serves to confirm Pauline Kael's observation that he's one of those actors who are stars when they play character parts, but character actors when they play star parts.

I must also disagree with your point about Hackman being guilty of overacting. I think you're way off base with that.

To my eye he was always convincing no matter what register he was playing in, and overacting is never, repeat never, convincing.

Hackman could invest his acting with a riveting power and energy, just like James Cagney, which always seemed readily available to him when a scene demanded it.

I suppose this quality could be mistaken for showboating / playing to the galleries by less-discerning viewers, but there was never anything forced or contrived about it with Hackman, and overacting is almost always one of these things.

(Brief note: I once read a review of The French Connection where a critic implied that Hackman's portrayal of Popeye Doyle was 'too loud'. For the record, the real-life cop the character was based on, Eddie Egan, was described by his own partner as the most flamboyant, outlandish person he'd ever met. It would therefore have been completely inappropriate for Hackman to give a subdued performance in the film.)

The critic David Denby puts it best...

"Hackman is a powerful yet unemphatic performer, with such an intimate, easy and unforced relation to whatever situation he’s in that you simply accept everything he does as an expression of his entire being."

For me, this quote nails his greatness - he's so at ease on screen that he often just seems like a force of nature.

It goes without saying that he's had countless moments where he's shown incredible subtlety and lightness of touch...

See his entire performance in The Conversation, widely acknowledged as one of the most subtle, internalised performances in all of cinema.

Also, re-watch Mississippi Burning and see the lovely, tender shades of regret in his scenes with Frances McDormand, the moving reminiscence about his father's casual racism in the motel scene with Willem Dafoe, and the wonderful naturalism and subtlety in his exchanges with the locals.

There are many other films and many more examples of superbly judged underplaying by Hackman.

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect he had mastered the art of nuanced screen acting before you were even born or in short trousers.

P.S. I forgot to mention, I've seen Duvall overact several times due to him not always managing to conceal his technique - he sometimes seems as though he's trying a little too hard to inflect his voice in interesting ways, and the small physical gestures he makes can sometimes look rehearsed rather than spontaneous.

You never get this problem with Hackman.

I am 18 so yes you're ruminations probably have more credibility than mine. I've seen Mississippi Burning and his performance is outstanding. His turns in Unforgiven and The French Connection equally memorable. I look forward to The Conversation.

Those are great points brought up by Kael. It's no knock on Duvall to blame him for not being something he is not, though. He's a great actor, but hasn't done the range of roles that Hackman has done. Heck, Hackman even made Lex Luthor a very memorable character, lol.


Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

Love both but im going to go with Hackman. I feel he is more versatile and effortless as an actor. You could argue that Duvall has had the more impressive lead performances such as The Apostle and Tender Mercies, but I think Hackman has more consistency, not many actors can elevate weak material the way Hackman can. You could give him a bunch of stupid lines and dialogue, but in Hackman's hands they dont come across that way, thats a rare talent. nimrod also perfectly summed up why I prefer Hackman

I actully feel Duvall is more versatile.

He can be the epitome of machismo (Apocalypse Now, The Great Santini) to good-natured ([/i]Lonesome Dove[/i]) to pensive and withdrawn (Tomorrow, Tender Mercies, even Minature The Twilight Zone Episode) - He does it all efortlessly.

I even think his range of films is more broad than Hanckman's. He's done everything from westerns to dystopic science fiction to lower budget character studies.

Hackman's also a favorite of mine (and his range is pretty eclectic as well). I suppose it's a matter of preference.


Freak you, Sam Rothstein! Freak you!

Re your comment:

He can be the epitome of machismo (Apocalypse Now, The Great Santini) to good-natured ([/i]Lonesome Dove[/i]) to pensive and withdrawn (Tomorrow, Tender Mercies, even Minature The Twilight Zone Episode) - He does it all efortlessly.

With respect, that doesn't really demonstrate greater range than Hackman...

for the epitome of machismo I give you The French Connection 1 and 2 and Crimson Tide, for good natured there's Bonnie and Clyde and The Gypsy Moths and for pensive and withdrawn try I never sang for my father, The Conversation and Night Moves. All done effortlessly.

But where he totally aces Duvall is comedy. He can play either subtle or broad really well, and Duvall hasn't demonstrated much gift for this in his career.

You may argue that he just hasn't done much comedy, but then one has to ask why not if he's so incredibly versatile???