One of Gene Hackman’s most beloved roles is the titular character in Wes Anderson’s The Royal Tenenbaums, but he originally turned down the part. The movie follows the attempted reconciliation of the Tenenbaum family, led by estranged patriarch Royal as he tries to rectify his relationship with his three adult children while also attempting to win his wife back from her new suitor. While The Royal Tenenbaums features an all-star ensemble cast of names like Angelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Gwenthyth Paltrow, Bill Murray, and the Wilson brothers to form the Tenenbaum family, Royal was really the heart of the movie, which is why his specific casting was so important.
Anderson actually wrote the part of Royal Tenenbaum with Oscar-winning now-retired actor Gene Hackman in mind, which made it difficult when Hackman rejected the role. He had also written the Tenenbaum matriarch Etheline with Angelica Huston in mind, though she thankfully signed on much quicker than her Tenenbaums counterpart. With Hackman being increasingly difficult to get on board, Anderson had to move on to other similarly mannered actors to lead the movie, with revered Hollywood legends Michael Caine and Gene Wilder temporarily being considered as Royal. After giving plenty of reasons why he wasn’t going to take the role, Hackman’s agent finally convinced him to sign on to Wes Anderon’s movie.
With Hackman being one of the most famous Hollywood actors since the 1960s, it might have been easier for Anderson to take the first rejection and move on, but he persisted. The reason he so desperately wanted Hackman to portray Royal was that, frankly, the movie wouldn't work without the right actor in the role. Since movie director Wes Anderson wrote Royal specifically for Hackman, he knew the exact manner and type of eccentricities needed to bring Royal to life, and only Hackman would satisfy. In The Royal Tenenbaums Criterion Collection extras, Hackman reveals that his early reason for turning down the role was that he didn’t like that someone had written a role specifically for him. Hackman took offense that Anderson thought he “knew” him enough to write a role how he thought Hackman would play it based on who Anderson thought Hackman was.
Hackman’s reluctance to play The Royal Tenenbaums’ distant and insensitive patriarch was also due to a more personal reason dealing with his own family. In an interview with The New York Times, Hackman revealed he recognized himself in Royal as he recounted times in which he had been insensitive and distant to his ex-wife and children. The Enemy of the State actor was apparently worried about making his family uncomfortable by portraying this onscreen, so he asked his children for their permission to play Royal. His family then encouraged him to accept the part, and it was a driving force in Anderson finally getting him to sign on for the movie.
While most of Hackman’s reservations in joining the film seemed to deal with his pride or family retaliations, Anderson explained the most significant reason he wasn’t accepting the role was the money. In an interview with Vulture, Anderson revealed that The Royal Tenenbaums had a small budget that was clearly used up to get its movie star cast onboard, so Hackman wouldn’t be getting the type of paycheck he was used to. The film's entire cast was getting paid scale, which meant that even though Hackman was going to have an intensive and prominent role, he was likely going to be paid less than the high salary he had been getting for small parts. Although Hackman was still notable for being highly antagonistic on-set, it’s remarkable that his agent convinced him to sign onto the film, making The Royal Tenenbaums the beloved film it is today.