How Did This Get Made: Hackers (An Oral History)
By Blake Harris/Nov. 30, 2015 10:30 am EST
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links. Hackers + Revolution + Rollerblades = How Did This Get Made? On September 15, 1995, MGM released a stylish, cyberspace thriller called Hackers. Two weeks later—following mixed reviews and poor box office numbers—the film was gone from theaters. Yet despite inauspicious start, Hackers has grown to become one of the most beloved films of the 90s. This is a story about the making of that movie and the ambitious filmmakers who, over time, have been vindicated by their hyperkinetic vision.
How Did This Get Made: Hackers (An Oral History)
By Blake Harris/Nov. 30, 2015 10:30 am EST
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links. Hackers + Revolution + Rollerblades = How Did This Get Made? On September 15, 1995, MGM released a stylish, cyberspace thriller called Hackers. Two weeks later—following mixed reviews and poor box office numbers—the film was gone from theaters. Yet despite inauspicious start, Hackers has grown to become one of the most beloved films of the 90s. This is a story about the making of that movie and the ambitious filmmakers who, over time, have been vindicated by their hyperkinetic vision.
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
On September 15, 1995, MGM released a stylish, cyberspace thriller called Hackers. Two weeks later—following mixed reviews and poor box office numbers—the film was gone from theaters. Yet despite inauspicious start, Hackers has grown to become one of the most beloved films of the 90s. This is a story about the making of that movie and the ambitious filmmakers who, over time, have been vindicated by their hyperkinetic vision.
Hackers Oral History
How Did This Get Made is a companion to the podcast How Did This Get Made with Paul Scheer, Jason Mantzoukas and June Diane Raphael. This regular feature is written by Blake J. Harris, who you might know as the writer of the book Console Wars, soon to be a motion picture produced by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. You can listen to the Hackers edition of the HDTGM podcast here. Synopsis: After moving to New York, hacker Dade Murphy (aka “Crash Override”) and his newfound posse of pals discover a plot to unleash a deadly digital threat—the so-called Da Vinci virus—and must use their computer skills to thwart the evil scheme.Tagline: Their Only Crime was Curiosity
In the latter half of 1995, at the dawn of the digital age, two films came out that dealt heavily with the notion of cyberspace: The Net (starring Speed-survivor Sandra Bullock) and Hackers (starring a then-unknown British actor). The Net grossed over $50 million domestically, while Hackers took in less than $10 million. Yet of the two, Hackers is the one that has withstood the test of time. Why, exactly, did this happen? And, more importantly, what can it tell us about the qualities that may help a movie age well?
Here’s what happened, as told by those who made it happen…
Featuring:
Photos thanks to Mark Tillie.
Iain Softley: I think that [the MGM hacking] was really a fringe activity. In general, we received an affectionate response from that community. But to answer your question about why Hackers didn’t receive the critical reception as Backbeat, I think that’s because it wasn’t talking about stuff that many people were familiar with. And also it sort of had this slight fairy tale aspect—but tongue-and-cheek at the same time—and who it really connected with were teenagers. And those weren’t the people writing the reviews.But they are now, or at least they’re the ones whose continued passion for the film has given the film new life in recent years. So beloved is the movie—at least by a percentage of the population that elevates it above “cult” status—that in honor of its 20th (earlier this year) screenings were held at dozens of cinemas both nationwide and around the globe. Its director, of course, could not attend all of the screenings, but did appear at one in Brooklyn—at the Nitehawk Cinema—along with Jonny Lee Miller and several other members of the production. Iain Softley: What was it like to watch it for the 20th anniversary? Well, it was obviously great to watch it with audiences who turned up because they loved it. They’d seen it a number of times and were very enthusiastic about it, but also the thing that really struck me was the power of the performances; and what that managed to convey on an emotional level. The camaraderie.Jeff Kleeman: Absolutely. And whatever is wrong or right or good or bad about the movie, I think all of us still love it and cherish the experience of making it. Because we were making it for all the reasons we had gotten into making movies in the first place. To do something that felt adventurous. That felt relevant. That felt of the times, but to approach it in the most artistically honest way we could and not make the conventional choices in terms of casting or wardrobes or shooting or storytelling, but to just make what we felt—rightly or wrongly—were the most interesting choices. And it’s a rarity to get to do that on a studio level. And I would like to believe that however you feel about the movie overall, you can still feel that energy when you watch it.Mark Abene: I’m glad that people find the movie infinitely watchable and quotable. It was more than we ever could have hoped for. But the thing that I find most ironic is that the criticism I’d always hear from people back then—and sometimes even to this day—is that the characters were not believable as actual real people. Well, the characters were based on us! How real do you need that to be? Rafael modeled the characters as amalgams of all us that we he met. And he was pretty much spot on.
