Rock Hudson: La double vie d'une star

and, maybe, it could not be more. because it is only expression of good intentions. honest. unconvincing. and this is the basic sin for a biopic who has the desire to reflect details of a life and career who remains, after his death, impressive. the status of essay is result of the short time after the rest of Hudson. and, maybe, the bad thing is the feeling to be more a picture of a man, with his secret life, with his sentimental adventures - presented as dramatic sketches- , the result being a general image of a gay actor and its impact with the public image.it is unfair to define it as a bad film. and useful to see it as decent essay.

There are two things to consider here: the script's accuracy and the drama's effectiveness.

Since this is a bio, factual accuracy is important. However, the only authorities of what really took place are the real life subjects. In cases where only two people were involved in a situation--the late actor and second party--chances for proving historical accuracy are decidedly diminished.

The only guide one can have is what's been garnered from other sources: press articles, film documentaries, various bio books, and the like. There were so many "cover ups" to the Hudson career, that it's tough to tell where truth ends and urban legend begins.

Writer Dennis Turner obviously consulted court transcripts and legal documents among his sources, but who really knows what happened? William R. Moses' Marc Christian is played throughout like a sweet, innocent college junior; there's no hint there of anything but the purest of motives to his relationship.

Andrew Robinson's Agent Henry Willson is not shown devising the "marriage of convenience" to Phyllis Gates. Nor is Thomas Ian Griffith's Rock ever seen making love to his various partners beyond innocent embraces--not even a mutual kiss.

There's something irritatingly irresponsible about all of this, and John Nicoletta's overly cautious direction doesn't help.

Released just five years after the actor's death in 1985, it's a good guess the writing began shortly thereafter to capitalize on its subject.

Dramatically, there's not much more that emerges than tentative and superficial, with a cast trying its best to inject emotion into the enactment. Another film on Hudson is welcome--one with less sanitization and compromise and more sincerity and viewpoint.

This is the drama of a film studio looking to make endless millions out of its top male star, just as long as word doesn't get out that he's gay. It's certainly a measure of Rock Hudson's fame that they were willing to throw two other stars to the wolves in a desperate deal with a gossip columnist to keep the lid on it all.

The main mover and shaker is Rock's agent, Henry Willson, played by a well-cast Andrew Robinson, whose office was known to be a nest of scheming gays, including Willson, whose lesbian secretary Phyllis was ordered to marry Rock, purely to damp-down the rumours. That part of the story is left out, however, since the film is based on Phyllis's own memoirs, written soon after Rock's death from AIDS. Instead the three-year marriage is presented as a non-stop honeymoon with the love-birds canoodling in a dozen romantic locations, and brought to an end only when he attacks her in a drunken rage. (Check the only interview she ever gave, with Larry King. You'll see something very unlike the wholesome Daphne Ashbrook who plays her here.)

Otherwise the casting is unremarkable, as is the narrative, especially some quite unnecessary newsreel footage to signal that we're moving from the discreet Fifties into the disquieting Sixties.

This is where I totally disagree with the other users. Thomas Ian Griffith was TOTALLY miscast as the dynamic, masculine Rock Hudson. Griffith gives such a milquetoast performance that it's not exactly a shock that his "Rock" is gay. Absolutely unbelievable in the role. Distracts from whether the script, direction and other actors are any good. Don't bother digging this up.

It would have been interesting to see more about his movie career and non -sex personal life. Nevertheless it was an interesting movie and the cast performed well. Marc Christian was painted in a more favorable light than the press did at the time of Hudson's death and the lawsuit. George Nader, who received most of his estate according to some accounts, was not in the movie at all.