Beyond Fest celebrates William Petersen, who made two iconic ’80s crime classics in one year

by

Beyond Fest will showcase two classic, visually striking crime thrillers from the 1980s – William Friedkin’s “To Live and Die in L.A.” and Michael Mann’s “Manhunter” – at the Egyptian Theatre on Saturday. William Petersen, who had breakout roles in both films, will participate in a question-and-answer session after each screening.

One of my favorite movies is definitely “To Live and Die in L.A.” from 1985. It stars William Petersen as a Secret Service agent, Richard Chance, who’s tracking down a counterfeiting operation in Los Angeles. The guy he’s after, Rick Masters – played brilliantly by Willem Dafoe – is a seriously cool, but totally unscrupulous artist who uses his skills to forge money. The whole film just *feels* like 80s L.A., thanks to the amazing cinematography by Robby Müller and the fantastic music by Wang Chung. It’s a really gripping movie, and it’s famous for two incredible action sequences: a breathless foot chase through LAX and a totally wild car chase… going the wrong way on the freeway around Long Beach! It’s a classic.

In the 1986 film “Manhunter,” Petereson plays Will Graham, a retired FBI profiler who has a unique gift for getting inside the minds of serial killers. He’s pulled back into service when a baffling new case emerges. The movie is a thoughtful and atmospheric take on Thomas Harris’ 1981 novel “Red Dragon,” and features Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecktor – a slightly different spelling of the name – five years before Anthony Hopkins made the character famous in “The Silence of the Lambs.”

Earlier this week, 72-year-old Petersen discussed making two films back-to-back, a period that unexpectedly launched his career, including a significant role on the hit TV show “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.”

[The following interview contains spoilers.]

It feels right to screen Friedkin’s “To Live and Die in L.A.” and Mann’s “Manhunter” together, as both are now considered key examples of the crime thriller genre. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how these two films relate to each other.

The two films are closely linked for me – they were the first two movies I ever made. This was a pivotal moment for a lot of actors coming from the Chicago theater scene, as we were all starting to work in film. I didn’t even have an agent yet, so I handled the business side of things myself with the help of my manager from the theater, who eventually became my producing partner. We were all used to being stage actors, so navigating film deals was new territory. I remember when I was offered the role in “To Live and Die in L.A.,” I had to call my friend John Malkovich, who was already a bit more experienced with film after working on “The Killing Fields,” because I genuinely didn’t know what a fair salary would be – whether I should ask for a few hundred dollars a week or something much higher.

It would have been different if I’d started with a small, independent film and a new director. But I learned a tremendous amount from the two directors and projects I worked on that year – it was a fantastic learning experience. Plus, I could still go back to doing theater. I never actively pursued film work; the opportunities just came to me unexpectedly.

Movies

What began as a playful experiment has blossomed into a major event for dedicated movie lovers, now known for showcasing both hard-to-find gems and highly acclaimed films.

You’ve mentioned learning a lot while filming those two movies. Could you summarize what you gained from that experience?

Billy and Michael are completely different directors. Billy favored a fast-paced, spontaneous style – shooting quickly, improvising, and even bending the rules to get the shot. It felt very realistic, almost like we were filming a documentary. Michael, on the other hand, was meticulous and planned every detail carefully. Working with them both within a year of each other was a lot to take in, and it took me a while to understand everything I was learning because I’d never experienced such different approaches before.

“To Live and Die in L.A.” is such a high-energy film. What was the source of that incredible energy?

Friedkin specifically wanted a raw, realistic feel, reminiscent of “The French Connection.” He prioritized capturing energy and authentic reactions over precise staging. He told cinematographer Robby Müller – a hugely talented and kind person – not to worry about actors hitting their marks, but to simply find a way to film everything as it unfolded. Friedkin wanted the actors to genuinely *be* in the moment, and a lot of the scenes were developed through improvisation, both in how the actors moved and what they said.

In the movie, there’s a scene where a character repeatedly hits a metal briefcase against a wall until it bursts open. Was that part of the script, or did the actor improvise it?

We didn’t expect that scene to go on as long as it did. It was originally planned a certain way, with a prop case that was supposed to open. We started filming, and we just kept rolling. The director, Billy, didn’t call cut, and I didn’t stop acting until I heard him. He knew we were letting it play out. I was really going at the prop, which is why my co-star, John Pankow, kept yelling, asking what I was doing. We hadn’t fully rehearsed that level of interaction with it. Eventually, the prop broke, but luckily there was a phone book inside, which cushioned the impact.

Everything you see in the film is genuine – it actually happened. He never rehearsed any of it, he was just curious to see how things would unfold. I sometimes felt sorry for the other actors because they weren’t present for the entire process and didn’t know what I was going to do. For example, Pankow was terrified when I was driving, yelling from the backseat that I shouldn’t be doing it and that his life was at risk.

That car chase is iconic now! What led you to decide to do the driving yourself? It seemed like a risky, but interesting, choice.

When you’re young, you often feel confident and capable, and I was no different. I actually thought I could do my own stunts! I never imagined I’d become a movie actor, so when I did, I’d get frustrated if the director didn’t want me to perform certain scenes myself. I remember talking with our stunt coordinator, Buddy Joe Hooker, about what I could and couldn’t handle. There were definitely some things they wouldn’t let me attempt, but overall, I got to do a lot of my own stunts. I figured, why would I sit around in a trailer all day? I wasn’t used to the slow pace of filmmaking – all that hurrying up and then waiting around.

Once Billy knew I was willing to participate, he always included me. Buddy Joe was a fantastic person to work with, and Dick Ziker handled all the driving I couldn’t. The stunt team was amazing. Billy wouldn’t let me do the bridge jump, thankfully – that was Dar Robinson’s incredible stunt.

I hesitate to give away details from a movie that came out 40 years ago, but I’ve watched it many times, and I’m still surprised every time by your character’s death, especially how late in the film it happens. Were you shocked when you first read the script?

I really believed that ending was perfect – it was the core of the story. I specifically remember after filming, Billy came to talk, and we spent the whole afternoon on the beach. He told me the studio wanted to film an alternate ending, and I argued against it. I explained that the reason I was able to portray the character the way I did was *because* he stayed in jail. That consequence was what gave the story its moral weight – the idea that mistakes have repercussions. The character had gone too far, and it didn’t feel believable to suddenly have everyone walk away unscathed, acting like nothing had happened.

What really made that movie special, in my opinion, was its ending. Although it may have hurt its initial box office numbers – they certainly feared it would – the impact is still being discussed. Even now, 40 years later, people are debating whether to spoil it for first-time viewers. I have two 14-year-olds who are finally going to see it on Saturday, and I’m torn about whether to tell them what happens. Half my friends say I should, while the other half think it would ruin the experience. Interestingly, the director filmed an alternate ending – a rather absurd scene where my character was heavily bandaged, supposedly at a remote Alaskan outpost. It was shot so poorly, though, that it was unusable. But that was just Billy being bold and taking risks.

“Manhunter” has a really distinct and unsettling feel – it’s very deliberate and slow-burning. It was interesting to move directly from one project to that one. What was that transition like?

Looking back, those two roles were really two sides of the same coin. Both films definitely fit into that classic ’80s cop thriller vibe, but they were worlds apart in terms of the story and, especially, the characters. My guy in ‘To Live and Die in L.A.’ was all reckless energy – constantly on the edge, taking insane risks, and just wanting to chase down the bad guys. But Graham in ‘Manhunter’? He was the complete opposite. He was withdrawn, didn’t *want* to be involved, and barely even wanted to answer the phone! I think that ‘To Live and Die in L.A.’ character reflected who I was back then – full of that drive and intensity. Now, I’m much more like Graham – I’d honestly rather just stay home and avoid the whole thing.

Filming ‘To Live and Die in L.A.’ wasn’t emotionally draining; I could easily relax afterward with some beers and a football game. ‘Manhunter,’ however, was much harder because of the dark and intense subject matter we were dealing with daily. It wasn’t about me getting deeply into the character’s mindset – I don’t act like Daniel Day-Lewis.

Serial killers and the experts who study them are really common in movies, TV shows, and podcasts now, but that wasn’t always the case. Back then, people didn’t know as much about these types of criminals, and the idea of profiling them was still relatively new.

I noticed audiences were really drawn to the details of criminal activities in films like “French Connection” – specifically the heroin production and counterfeiting. The counterfeiting scenes in “To Live and Die L.A.” also captured people’s attention. While making “Manhunter,” we visited the FBI lab and showed how they use forensic techniques like lifting fingerprints. This sparked my interest in the idea behind “CSI” – people are naturally curious about the process of solving crimes and the science involved.

I’m really curious about filming your scene with Brian Cox – the one where your characters talk for a long time. It must have felt like performing a stage play within the movie, having such an extended dialogue.

Working with Brian Cox was a real treat. We actually ended up playing some of the same stage roles, funnily enough, just in different countries. On set, I only worked with him for a couple of days, but the scenes took a while to shoot. Michael Mann was really meticulous with the camera work – all those shots with the bars, going back and forth – and he had a very specific vision he wanted to achieve, which he definitely got, meaning lots of takes! I just remember the atmosphere being incredibly focused. Brian was absolutely brilliant and brought something so unexpected to the role of Lecktor. He *is* my Lecktor, honestly. Anthony Hopkins is great, of course, but Brian’s portrayal feels like a completely different animal to me.

Read More

2025-09-26 21:32