3 ms·

Bruce Willis’ Stoic Roles Masked His Silent Decline

7 points by georgecmu 4y ago

rbanffy 4y ago
It's a really sad story. Prior to his retirement, he was an extremely versatile actor, equally at home in comedy as well as in drama. I wish we had more like him.
wrp 4y ago
Summary: Willis has suffered cognitive decline over many years. During that time, his acting roles were made less talky so that he could handle them. The article claims that this is a tragedy because a good actor was led into making many bad movies. You could look at it another way. A man experienced cognitive decline and lost the ability to perform as he used to. His employer then modified the demands of his job so that he was able to continue working, which he desired. So while Willis' mental decline is a tragedy (and I agree his recent movies are awful), it could be seen as positive for him that people were willing to help him keep doing what he wanted to do (even if their only motive was greed). I say this as someone who has seen the hurt it does to elderly people to deprive them of opportunities to feel productive.
jfengel 4y ago
Stardom is so odd. People will go see movies based largely on the presence of an actor they like looking at. Actors prize "range" in themselves, but people don't much care. We say that actor has "charisma" or "star power" or just "it" -- we can't say what it is but we know it when we see it. Studio executives are constantly looking for it. When they find somebody, they stick with them, casting them in role after role (suited or not) because they're convinced people will see it. Movies who don't catch the interest of such a person don't get made, or are relegated to ultra-low-budgets and minimal distribution. And that's usually the correct economic choice. It's not just the stoic roles that kept Willis' career going, but the fact that people wanted to see him in these movies. In Willis' case they may well have kept going longer than he was actually profitable. The "direct-to-video" market is a pretty ugly thing. I wish it there were a way around that "stardom" thing. It's real: stars really do "open" movies. It bugs me to see stars do very good work in films where another actor could be at least as well, but isn't a star. Maybe they could be; stardom is really hard to predict. I believe all those out-of-work actors have a fair number of potential "stars", if only they'd shine a spotlight and do all the other things that make the big stars so glamorous. And I really wish I knew what it was. As an actor and director myself, I know when I've got somebody the eye is drawn to. I wish I could teach it to others.

7 points by georgecmu 4y ago

It's a really sad story. Prior to his retirement, he was an extremely versatile actor, equally at home in comedy as well as in drama. I wish we had more like him.

wrp 4y ago

Summary: Willis has suffered cognitive decline over many years. During that time, his acting roles were made less talky so that he could handle them. The article claims that this is a tragedy because a good actor was led into making many bad movies. You could look at it another way. A man experienced cognitive decline and lost the ability to perform as he used to. His employer then modified the demands of his job so that he was able to continue working, which he desired. So while Willis' mental decline is a tragedy (and I agree his recent movies are awful), it could be seen as positive for him that people were willing to help him keep doing what he wanted to do (even if their only motive was greed). I say this as someone who has seen the hurt it does to elderly people to deprive them of opportunities to feel productive.

jfengel 4y ago

Stardom is so odd. People will go see movies based largely on the presence of an actor they like looking at. Actors prize "range" in themselves, but people don't much care. We say that actor has "charisma" or "star power" or just "it" -- we can't say what it is but we know it when we see it. Studio executives are constantly looking for it. When they find somebody, they stick with them, casting them in role after role (suited or not) because they're convinced people will see it. Movies who don't catch the interest of such a person don't get made, or are relegated to ultra-low-budgets and minimal distribution. And that's usually the correct economic choice. It's not just the stoic roles that kept Willis' career going, but the fact that people wanted to see him in these movies. In Willis' case they may well have kept going longer than he was actually profitable. The "direct-to-video" market is a pretty ugly thing. I wish it there were a way around that "stardom" thing. It's real: stars really do "open" movies. It bugs me to see stars do very good work in films where another actor could be at least as well, but isn't a star. Maybe they could be; stardom is really hard to predict. I believe all those out-of-work actors have a fair number of potential "stars", if only they'd shine a spotlight and do all the other things that make the big stars so glamorous. And I really wish I knew what it was. As an actor and director myself, I know when I've got somebody the eye is drawn to. I wish I could teach it to others.