Rock Hudson was the quintessential mid-century movie star, turning heads and breaking hearts as the camera lit up his sculpted face and rugged frame. The double life he led as a gay man—and his death from AIDS-related causes at age 59 in 1985—have sealed him in Hollywood lore, but he’s largely unknown to new generations of movie buffs.
For Stephen Kijak, the director of the documentary “Rock Hudson: All That Heaven Allowed,” which premieres Sunday at the Tribeca Festival (and streams June 28 on Max), the actor was a fascinating figure to explore, both like a typical midcentury movie. star and a gay icon.
Mr. Kijak, who has directed several LGBTQ-themed films, recently spoke from his home in Los Angeles about the legacy of and enduring fascination with a movie star who lived an almost open-air gay life and who, in a true act of openness, as one of the first celebrities – if not the first – to go public with his illness, changed the course of how the world responded to the AIDS epidemic. The conversation has been shortened and edited for clarity.
What is it about Rock Hudson that attracted you to make this movie?
This film came at just the right time and from a group of people I enjoy working with who brought me a subject that I was fascinated with. I didn’t know much about Rock Hudson, and I love being in that place. That journey of discovery is built into my process so that I can take my audience with me. It was initially called “The Accidental Activist,” which is 100 percent accurate, but a little limiting. I thought there was a bigger story there, even though that’s also an interesting element in his story: someone who has no intention of changing anything at all, but inadvertently becomes a cultural, political, and social catalyst in a way that I think most people have completely forgotten about it.
How did it go from being titled “The Accidental Activist” to “All That Heaven Allowed”?
There were so many more people in the course of the AIDS crisis who were real activists, who really moved the needle with strong, direct action. I thought “activist” and even “coincidental” might be a little rich. There’s so much more to his story: the Hollywood closet, the manufactured persona, the double life, the way the private existed strangely beneath the surface of the groomed facade. He had such an unbridled, horny gay sex life under everyone’s noses, but seemingly carefree. There wasn’t the kind of anxious, oh-I-wish-I-could-just-be-an-out-gay guy. It was a generation that I don’t think saw that as an option, or even something they would want.
What do you think people unfamiliar with Rock Hudson will get out of this movie?
He’s faded. Who were the big ’50s party tents everyone knows? It’s Marilyn Monroe. It’s James Dean. He’s probably remembered for his death from AIDS in the ’80s and that scandal of kissing Linda Evans on “Dynasty” when he was sick. Also, the manufactured star is not a concept completely foreign to our modern times. He’s a totally classic mid-century figure, from his upbringing, his trajectory, the looks, the style, the movies he made. And who doesn’t love a double story? The hall of mirrors, the split personality, the hidden life. There is always the question “why should young people be interested in this?” It wasn’t that long ago that it was really hard to be gay. Your life would be ruined in public. You were constantly afraid of being discovered.
Is there any idea of how a movie can hold onto something right now that it might not have had in the past?
There are people who don’t understand a subject and people who do. So how is the method of telling us going to pull them both in and give them something they didn’t expect or experienced before? There is a slight adjustment to the way we approached who we were going to interview on film. Who you see on camera is a small pile of gay men who were in his life, either lovers, playmates, a wingman, a co-star, a best friend – people he revealed himself to. What you get is an arc of gay men that takes you from pre-Stonewall, pre-gay liberation to the other side of the AIDS crisis. It’s Rock’s life that could have been through the lens of these guys.
Was that a specific decision?
Yes, and partly it was practical. We had to be very specific about the number of days we could shoot. Granted, there’s a part of me that wishes we could have rolled over Linda Evans when she burst into tears, but I think the smothering in her voice still works. And you see her and him in their “Dynasty” glory days.
Does this movie represent more than just Rock Hudson? Does it still represent the movie industry in regards to that “double life” idea?
Well, I’m not going to name names, but you know, there are a handful of Rock Hudsons out there right now who have to be even more careful considering everyone has a little camera in their phone. Confidential Magazine was one thing, but looking back now it seems so strange.
Do you think this movie documents something that people long to return to? Old Hollywood maybe?
When his movies were great, they were so great. Douglas Sirk’s films were so lavish and so layered. I could watch “All That Heaven Allows” a hundred times. Oh, and “Written on the Wind” with that crazy Dorothy Malone performance! Can I make a movie about her after this?