pdf

Fantastics
REBEL REBEL
tom
Fol
som
den
nis
hop
per
Fantastics
Interview by james nixon
photography by jason obrotka
dennis
hopper
an actor for
every
zeitgeist.
Though he played roles that ranged from un-horsey sensitive
son in George Steven’s glossy epic Giant to sinister psycho Frank
Booth in David Lynch’s cult-y classic Blue Velvet, Dennis Hopper
maintained a studied aura of outlaw that subtly shifted from era
to era. A malleable rebel stance that was always stylish if not
always fashionable.
It was perhaps this that allowed him to weather a career that
scaled impressive heights (if not quite lofty enough to satisfy his
artistic wants) and descended to a few fearsome lows. A career
spanning more than 50 years.
His ability to adapt to an era – beatnik to boho; druggie to indie
– was formidable. He did the 50s with James Dean; Pop’d early
with Warhol and was hip enough to document the hippie becoming history as writer, actor and director of Easy Rider.
Fantastics
Hopper, Natalie Wood & James Dean in 1955’s Rebel Without A Cause
Ever burnishing an eccentric, gifted, edgy, charming,
lunatic reputation was helpful in reviving a flagging career
more than once for Hopper. A small but noteworthy appearance in Apocalypse Now reestablished him in the late 70s
after earlier in the decade falling from grace attempting to
top Easy Rider with his notorious The Last Movie. Lynch’s Blue
Velvet solidified both his return in the 80s and a brand of crazy
he was forever afterwards able to apply to any number of
roles demanding it. If, after that, it sometimes was difficult
to separate manner from mannerism within Hopper’s performances the same might be said for his life.
Tom Folsom’s bio Hopper crafts a case both cool and
­compelling regarding its title subject’s exceptional ability to
curate a mythology of his own life. Familiar with the business of
badass-ery – Folsom previously authored the New York Times
bestseller The Mad Ones: Crazy Joe Gallo and the Revolution
at the Edge of the Underworld – his intoxicatingly amped up
narrative is as fiery, fun and fierce as Hopper’s self-managed
legend. And at times just as spooky. Folsom stops in to talk
about Hopper as actor, director, occasional madman and the
gift – and burden – of an oversize but awesome ­vision.
FANTASTICS: With all the bad boys in Hollywood’s
history to explore what drew you to Hopper as a
subject?
TOM FOLSOM: Hopper’s life had a particular literary
quality, a picaresque rogue on a quixotic journey to find
his American Dream. Most actors just aren’t that interesting outside their roles — even the bad boys can get a
bit dull and sour after a while, but Hopper lived his life like
a crazy movie. That’s the movie I wanted to get down
on the page.
Cool in the 50s. Bohemian in the early 60s. Hippie
non-conformist in the later part of the decade. His
ability to find and move through the milieu of the
moment was extraordinary.
How difficult is it to separate myth from reality?
The method took a while for me to crack. There’s two
ways to go about it. The responsible, proper, upright
crusading journalist method would’ve been to do a sort
of CNN “fact check” room on the page, with a yea or
nay checkbox on the veracity of Hopper’s tales. Did he
really lay Natalie Wood? True or false? That seemed very
arrogant and judgmental to me, completely missing
the point of Hopper’s life. He was so keenly attuned
to his own myth, I felt it important to let the reader get
swept up in that myth, while also clueing them to how
we’re dealing with narrator who could at times be a
fabulist. That’s the Don Quixote aspect that really exited
One of his pals asked him about his uncanny ability
me about Hopper.
to pop up in these various scenes. Hopper’s answer
Did that ability to mythologize benefit his career
was, “Man, I just followed the drugs.” He wasn’t Zelig, a
ultimately? Or affect it negatively?
passive witness to the zeitgeist. He wanted to be right in
Both. Hopper loved telling the story about how he was
there, starring in whatever “movie” was happening at
blackballed from Hollywood, forced to live in exile in the
the moment. I think it has to do with his being an actor.
outer dark beyond the studio. The persona set him up
Hopper was a fervent advocate of his own mythology.
as a rebel, gave him a larger than life image, and sent
Hopper confronts James Dean in 1956’s Giant
Fantastics
Hopper sits for a Warhol Screentest circa 1965
Fantastics
even the
bad boys
can get
a bit dull
and sour
after
a while...
Fantastics
Tom Folsom
some very cool roles his way in left-of-center film projects, foreign and independent. It saved him from ending up like Tab Hunter, a studio creation, but his hellion
image also kept him from getting steady work or setting himself to be a bonafide
leading man. But I’m not sure that was ever in the cards anyway. Hopper was never
cut out to be Paul Newman. He just wasn’t bland enough, and was too freaky to hit
that sweet spot of Jack Nicholson, a charming rogue, or Johnny Depp, intense and
beautiful. Once you’ve revealed your true self playing Frank Booth, the psychopath
in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet and Hopper’s most personal role, you can’t really go
back into the closet. In the long run, Hopper knew how to make his far-out persona
work for him—take Speed and Waterworld. He was acting until the end of his life. It’s
amazing that he pulled it off.
Was Hopper cool? Or dangerous? A genius or just bizarre?
All of the above.
He liked to instigate strong reactions out of people. Was that driven by his
own needs do you think or rather his understanding of his public’s desire to
see him that way?
He was a provocateur. He liked getting in your face and testing you, seeing if he
could create some live theater. We’re dealing with a guy who traversed that line
between fantasy and reality, getting lost in his own roles, so that even those close to
him told me that in his craziest moments—like when he tried to kill someone with a
ketchup bottle, you couldn’t tell whether he was putting on an act. Was it the Dennis
Hopper one-man show? Or was he just nuts? I’m not sure Hopper could’ve told you.
Coming to Hollywood in the 50s he could well have stuck to a Tab Hunter-ish
good-looking kid style career. What drove him to want to be edgier than the
norm?
He wanted to be James Dean. Dennis’s first two Hollywood films were Rebel Without
a Cause and Giant, and I can only imagine what it must’ve been like for wide eyed
eighteen-year-old Hopper, fresh from the San Diego suburbs, to watch Dean do
explosive acting pyrotechnics that just weren’t being done in Hollywood studio films.
Once Dean died, and Hopper was poised to be the next James Dean, I think living
up to his legacy drove him a little nuts.
Fantastics
Left: Hopper with veteran director John Huston in a late 60s advertisement
Fantastics
Was it the
Dennis Hopper
one-man show?
Or was
he just nuts?
I’m not sure
Hopper
could’ve
told you...
Fantastics
Hopper and Peter Fonda see America first in 1969s Easy Rider
Fantastics
Did the ghost of James Dean’s legend haunt him as much as it seemed to or
was this affectation?
Peter Fonda; it wasn’t Hopper’s career that soared
after the movie, but Jack Nicholson’s.
It’s like a drug. Affectation becomes addiction, and Hopper nearly ODed on Dean.
Is it just a great period piece now? What does it say to
contemporary audiences?
I think it’s what got Elvis in the end, who was obsessed with James Dean’s rebel
When you consider the utter chaos of his post-Easy
Rider life how did this guy survive let alone continue a
career?
He was willful. He’s from Kansas stock. He grew up on an
­image. Dean was a powerful drug.
I wouldn’t reduce it to a period piece. It shows a life
egg farm at the tail end of the Dust Bowl. The guy knew
Despite his outsider persona he eventually connected with establishment
figures like director Henry Hathaway and John Wayne. How did he straddle
those opposing worlds?
lived to contemporary audiences, a grit you can’t get
how to survive; it was in his blood.
with film grain aftereffects in post. There’s a madness in
He loved and hated authority. He was also extremely charming. Guys like Wayne
wish we saw more of in movies today.
Perhaps his most memorable role is Frank Booth in
David Lynch’s Blue Velvet. Why did it so perfectly fit
his abilities?
couldn’t help but love Hopper, even if it was to have a token hippie to kick around
Because he really was Frank
Why do you think he wanted to?
His follow up to the huge success of Easy Rider was The
Last Movie – notorious bomb
or misunderstood masterpiece?
As much as he loved playing the counterculture icon, Hopper loved to play
I think the intent of The Last Mov-
per had recently gotten sober,
­cowboy, too. He’s from Dodge City, Kansas.
ie, to make The Great American
and was able to draw on his
His relationships with women were trouble prone.
Art Film, was more significant
Method training from Strasberg,
than the result. Actually I’ve
because drug use just wasn’t
grown to love the movie. Then
taking him to those acting
again, I’ve been in Hopper’s
heights anymore. He sum-
head for the past three years.
mons up some very personal
In a somewhat frantic life was there a point where madness seemed to really take
control of him?
mommy issues, and is finally
and tell to lay off the loco weed. He ingratiated himself with these tough-as-nails
Western cats.
I think women were his accessories, his props. He knew the right one to match each
era, be it Michelle Phillips, the dream girl of the 1960s, or Daria Halprin, earth goddess of Zabriskie Point.
Is Easy Rider his only great film? Is it a great film?
Yes, it’s the only one of his films that reaches greatness, and I think it is great. Watch
the part where Billy and Captain America are riding out of New Orleans to their
doom to the tune of “It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding.” It’s apocalyptic. It’ll only get
better with age.
His treatment of Terry Southern after Easy Rider seemed harsh – not to mention his issues with Peter Fonda.
It was one of the worst parts of Hopper’s character, his actively trying to underplay Terry Southern’s role in writing Easy Rider, claiming that the only thing Terry
contributed was the title. This just isn’t true. I think it stems from Hopper’s attempt
to turn Easy Rider into his Citizen Kane — directed by, starring, and written by
Dennis Hopper. It probably drove him nuts how people equate Easy Rider with
the movie, especially in the Mardi Gras scenes, that I
Booth, which is what he told
David Lynch over the phone
when he wanted to get the
part. At this point in his life, Hop-
given a vehicle that lets him be
Hopper, just like he gave Jack
Nicholson the chance to be
I think he was going off the rails
in the mid-1970s, which isn’t saying that he wasn’t doing
good work. Check out Mad Dog Morgan, in which he
plays the Aussie ­bushranger. He’s pretty incredible. It’s
a warm-up to what we see him doing in Apocalypse
Now, which to me is extraordinary, my ­favorite Hopper
moment. He’s really dangerous up there onscreen.
Jack in Easy Rider. He’s reveling in his Hopper-ness, delivering lines that seem really
funny when you remember them but upon rewatching,
are terrifying.
What are his 3 best performances?
The classics. Apocalypse Now, Blue Velvet, Easy Rider.
Hopper on set of 1971s The Last Movie
Fantastics
He had a dangerous reputation. Why did
­Hollywood keep him around for so long?
Somehow I feel I have sat at a bar with Hopper, even
Hollywood needs its rebels. Even in a role like the
What was your biggest misconception regarding
crazy villain in Speed, Dennis brought something
Hopper before the book?
extra that was invaluable to making that film work,
ridiculous as it was. He’s really great in it! I’m sure he
loved doing it. Hollywood also loves a reformed bad
boy. So does America.
Was his career a success?
That his directing Easy Rider was somehow a fluke,
that it was the collaboration of a bunch of guys who
threw this thing together spontaneously and it just
happened. That’s a simplification. Somebody was at
the helm of that film, and all signs point to Hopper.
On Easy Rider alone, yes. It’s a titanic film. I’m still
Was there a point in your research where you
figuring out whether success means a lifetime of hits
thought, “wow this guy is just an asshole”?
or a single great one.
What in the end did he feel about it?
Sure. Especially in the Terry Southern situation. I didn’t
feel the need to defend his bad behavior. That’s a
He told Charlie Rose he felt his career was a failure,
trap too many biographers get into, which makes for
and while he may have felt that at the moment, I
a worthless book.
think there’s a woe-is-me element that Hopper liked
to play up, the grandiose Wellesian failure. I don’t
think he would’ve done things differently. I think he
dug being Hopper.
Previous to this your subjects have included
drug kingpin Nicky Barnes and big-time mobster
Crazy Joe Gallo. What commonalities did you
find between them and Hopper?
Sociopathic tendencies.
Fantastics
though I never met him.
Is Hopper a failed genius or someone who simply
never reached a potential that at first seemed
substantial?
I think Hopper was lucky to have gotten as much out
of life as he did. He really lived. He’s the only actor
who I thought had a life that matched his roles.
Where does Hopper ultimately fit into film?
Magnificent outsider? Cult hero?
Which of the 3 would you most like to sit in a bar
and chat with and why?
He’s the guy who decided to live his whole life like
Well, I have sat in a bar, or rather a restaurant, a few
­cautionary tale of living in two dimensions.
actually, and chatted with Nicky Barnes. He’s good
He inspired loathing and love in people. What
company. I’d liked to have hung out with Crazy Joe,
were the best parts of Hopper?
so long as he didn’t break my knees, just to hear
He had conviction in his visions, and he was extraor-
the lines of a gangster who loved playing gangster.
dinarily charismatic. He’s a movie star after all. n
a movie. That’s his contribution to moviedom. A