Sixteen yearsâ worth of professional acting experience has given John Hawkes the unique distinction of being âthat guy.â You know, the talented actor whoâs co-starred in several of your favorite movies, as well as films that youâve stumbled across on cable, but who has yet to become a traditional leading man. And thatâs a compliment.
First catching astute filmgoersâ eyes in the opening sequence of 1996âs George Clooney/Quentin Tarantino horror mash-up From Dusk Till Dawn, Hawkes has jacked scenes in flicks such as Identity, Miami Vice, andAmerican Gangster; heâs also bettered must-see TV shows like Deadwood, Lost, and Eastbound & Down. Clearly, dude works his ass off, but since earning his first Academy Award nomination for last yearâs indie darling Winterâs Bone, the Texas native, by way of Minnesota, has seen his Hollywood stock rise considerably.
Driven more by art than commerce, Hawkes hasnât abandoned the independent world, though. His latest small-scale flick, Martha Marcy May Marlene (which opened in limited release yesterday), is an even stronger piece of dark, psychological minimalism than Winterâs Bone. Itâs also set to change Hawkesâ reputation to âthat guy who creeped me the hell out.â In the mind-screwing debut from writer-director Sean Durkin, Hawkes plays the soft-spoken but cunningly malevolent cult leader responsible for damaging the psyche of Martha (breakout star Elizabeth Olsen). Without raising his voice or flashing any evil eyes, Hawkesâ performance is an unsettling stunnerâheâs reason enough alone to make us want to avoid cults forever.
Complex recently chatted with the Oscar nominee to explore the subtle power of Martha Marcy May Marlene, why heâs always asked to play serial killer types, and his rationale behind favoring indies over majors.
Interview by Matt Barone (@MBarone)
Complex: Iâve seen Martha Marcy May Marlene two times now, and itâs even more impressive the second time around. Itâs so layered with subtle touches and small details that you donât even pick up on the first time. Have you had the opportunity to see it more than once yet?
John Hawkes: Yeah, I got to see it for the second time when we screened it at the New York Film Festival. The first time was when it premiered at Sundance earlier this year, and, to be honest, when you go to Sundance and see a film that youâre in for the very first time, itâs pretty surreal to begin withâitâs always surreal, 20 or so years in, to watch something that youâre a part of. With this one in particular, the film having a surreal quality to begin with, yeah, the second time I was able to pick up on more things and appreciate it even more. Itâs intense, thatâs for sure.
When you first read the script, did it read the same wayâso multilayered and intense?
Yeah, it kind of did. Itâs never quite the same as when the music and the photography and editing and the craft-work have all been added in, as well as seeing it with an audienceâall of that makes it quite different from reading a script. But it had a similar impact, in that itâs such an amazingly elusive and ethereal and kind of dreamlike existence; itâs a world that you go to while reading it and certainly when you watch it, as well.
Whatâs so interesting about your character, Patrick, is that, yes, heâs this evil cult leader, but heâs also a very average-looking guy. A guy youâd see on the street and think nothing of him. Usually, in movies about cults, the leaders are much more grandiose in style and personality. Was that how he read in the script, or is that more in how you interpreted the character?
I think it may have partly been there in the script, because Sean Durkin is a great writer and storyteller, even more so impressive when you realize that he wrote this with a huge lack of experience, being that it was his first feature. Thatâs there a bit, but it was important for me to avoid what weâve seen over and over, and what weâve come to kind of see as the clichĂ© cult leader.
I wasnât interested in being in that movie, being part of something that called for that. Before we started making the film, I spoke to Sean about it, and both agreed that, from a story standpoint, it was important that Patrick be credible, and not an obvious charlatan. That way, we can, as an audience, find MarthaâLizzy Olsenâs characterâa more interesting person. If Patrick is so over-the-top and obvious, I think that would take away from her a bit, and we wouldnât want to really follow a person whoâs fallen for such an easy make. One thing I love about her performance is that she fights âvictim statusâ throughout, and sheâs kind of trying to solve her problem, which is much more interesting than someone whoâs rolling in self-pity.
It worked out well, I think, our attempt to find dimension and depth in Patrick, and to make him believableâsomeone who you canât put your finger on immediately.
Did you draw inspiration from anyone you know, or any real-life cult figures?
The story was so rich on the page, and Iâm an over-preparer by natureâI love to over-think and to over-research, and then to forget it all once the camera rolls. This one, it was an unusual approach for me, which was to work by negation almost. Sean said, âThese are things that Iâm not interested in and I donât want in the character.â It really doesnât draw from any influence that I can think of.
Through my approach, it felt like Patrick was dropped from outer space and landed in the Catskills. I wasnât super-interested in his back-story, which is normally essential for me when I play a character. I certainly thought about it, but I did put all of that out of my mind once the camera started rollingâI just had to present with the other actors and play out the situation with them, without too much pre-planning or preconceived notions.
During the post-screening Q&A at the NY Film Festival, you mentioned that youâre always sent scripts with serial killer roles, or really dark and sinister characters. Has that been going on throughout your whole career?
None
You know, itâs funny, when I started out acting I was in Texas, and I was perceived as pretty normalâthe guy next door, I guess. When I moved to L.A., I noticed that I was being asked to play a lot of psychos, so I donât know what that says about Texas actors. [Laughs.] So that was normal there, but by the time I got out west they thought I was out of my mind! [Laughs.]
Even early on, I did a lot of comedy and played a lot of nerdy people, and then once I went to L.A., it was psychos who were funny and nerdy psychos. This character [in Martha Marcy May Marlene] was most interesting to me because I havenât really played a leader of men too often; Iâm usually relegatedâŠwell, not relegated, but Iâm usually playing sidekick roles and supporting parts.
Itâs just that character-y parts are more interesting to me than the lead, and thatâs not sour grapes; if the lead role is really well-written, then Iâd be interested, and in a good movie it is, but there are so many films that arenât particularly good but at least the characters are interesting on the side, as opposed to the young male lead and main female ingĂ©nue.
I only try to seek out great material and great people, and of course a great characterâbeyond that, the subject matter is less important to me. Style and genre is less important to me than just finding something that Iâm excited to be a part of and that I can believe in.
Has that amplified or changed at all after the reception, and Oscar nomination, for your performance in Winterâs Bone last year?
Yeah, itâs kind of almost dovetailed, or honed more to my ideal. The studio scripts that came after Winterâs Bone werenât even disappointing to meâI kind of expected them to be a lot of the same thing I was auditioning for and getting cast in 10 years previous. Now, they were offers. I wasnât really expecting them to throw James Bond roles my way, or anything in a huge franchise movieâthatâs just never gonna be my thing.
Iâm just interested in the best stories. I have nothing against studio movies; they just donât make too many mid-budget movies like they did when I was growing up. Now, it seems to really be about popcorn movies, which certainly have their place. Itâs about big franchise films with stuff blowing up today, or stuff for kids. So to find something challenging as an audience and as an actor is definitely what Iâm after. Thatâs why Iâve gravitated toward the independent film. Itâs really kind of picking up the slack of what the studio have left behind in favor of more lucrative type of films.
Absolutely. A film like Martha Marcy May Marlene doesnât seem like one that any bigger studio would ever touch. If they did, itâd turn into something like the remake of The Wicker Man.
I agree. I think there are wonderful directors working for studios, too; again, I donât dismiss studio movies out of hand, or say that my way is the right way. Itâs just the most interesting way to me. Itâs my objective opinion. I can't really imagine any Hollywood studio taking a look at this and thinking âblockbuster.â If theyâd have found it in some other form and made it, itâd be a much different film.
I must say, after the Academy Award nomination, while I was getting kind of retreads on parts Iâve played or on the sizes of roles Iâve done in the past, the independent film role offers for great parts really increased a great deal. The whole joy of the Academy Awards, and all of that awards stuff, is that it brought people to a movie I love, Winterâs Bone. I just love the idea that any hype and any press is hopefully going to get more people to see the movie. Thatâs most important.
The cool thing about how itâs worked out is that I get more offers for great roles in smaller movies, and thatâs what Iâve been doing. I enjoy the process and kind of lack of commercial interference and interruption that exists in the independent world.
Interview by Matt Barone (@MBarone)