rennervision

I've been seeing bits and pieces of Enemy of the State on cable lately, and its bringing back a huge question that was in my mind when I saw it a few years back in the theater.

When I watched it the first time, the subject matter seemed reminiscent to the surveillance theme covered over 20 years earlier in The Conversation. Then when Gene Hackman's character appeared, it seemed to me he was playing the exact same character as he did in The Conversation - only with 20 more years of experience. His appearance, personality, etc. seemed right on.

I became even more convinced Mr. Hackman was playing the same character when a younger picture of him was shown during Enemy of the State. I swear it could have been a still photo of him playing his part in The Conversation, complete with his glasses.

Yeah, I know his character's name is different. In The Conversation he's Harry Caul. In Enemy of the State he's Edward Lyle. But he also is going by an alias of "Brill" in Enemy of the State. So Edward Lyle or Harry Caul could also be an assumed name.

Just curious if anyone else who has seen both movies thought this was the exact same character?

DonnachaOne

That is a pic of him from The Conversation, indeed. But there is no official link between the two films.

sherm42

I don't think they were the same character. His character in The Conversation was totally different. He was very shy and timid and withdrawn from the world. The character in Enemy of the State was much more outgoing and loud. Yes they had similar jobs and paranoia, but I felt a distinct difference.

Dr. DVD

They were different studios, so it wouldn't make sense for characters to overlap. I think that the studio kind of wanted smarter audience members to make the connection and just leave it up to them to decide. A similar thing happened in The Rock. While it is never truly revealed, it is almost inferred that Connery's character is James Bond. True, he never really had the name, but Bond would assume an alias and/or let someone else have his identity in such a situation where he was captured (at least Connery's Bond would).
Basically, no. Legalities prevent it. But, if you want it to be that way, there is nothing to really stop you from having it your way. Hackman's character in Conversation is shy, but I am sure 20+ years could change a man's personality.

rennervision

Dr. DVD - I like your interpretation of The Rock.

And I agree Hackman's character seemed more shy in The Conversation. But his character also went through a transition of sorts in that movie, and tried to get more involved with the "outside world" towards the end.

However, when he appeared in EOTS, he seemed even more withdrawn to me. Seemed like a logical progression in his personality after He also seemed to be going through some sort of inner pain that he was unwilling to share

Yeah - I realize different studios and such would mean EOTS would never be officially recognized as a sequel. But I just really wonder if, deep down, the creators of this movie had Hackman in mind all along, and secretly wrote his character as if they were writing about Harry Caul over 20 years later.

DonnachaOne

Renner, Dr. DVD... I love these interpretations. I heard The Rock and EotS character "theft/continuation" theories before, and while it's obvious that they're not official, I'm certain that they're intentional.

Even if it wasn't Connery in The Rock... the character is still that of a prime superspy with military training (Bond's a Commander, though) working for British Intelligence in the sixties.

Maybe a Bond Novel could incorporate him as a former Double-0...

Makes one wonder, also, if a lot of screenwriters dream up plots to incorporate their fantasy character situations. Coming soon: a neo-cold-war spy potboiler, with Alec Baldwin as head of CIA "Jack Reilly".