How Should We Remember Great Actors Who Stop Making Great Movies?

Robert de Niro

In an advertisement for Dirty Grandpa, there is a picture of Robert de Niro sitting in a chair, as if preparing to masturbate. It's in front of a plain white background that is accompanied by the words describing de Niro as one of the greatest actors, while also finished with the words "... And now this." Does it mean that it's edgy, or that the actor has stooped so low as to star in a film that basically is done by no name actors that are a third of his age? Whatever the reasoning may be, it does raise an interesting point about legacy. How are we to appreciate an actor who likely defined a generation between the 70's through the early 90's when he's starring in a film that is likely to receive flack for being puerile? Do we just go with it because he's letting loose? Well, it would be easier if it was one or two movies per dozens of quality roles, but actors like de Niro have faded into the back half of a career where they'll do anything just for a paycheck. How does that impact a legacy exactly? Do they end up being recognized for their entire career, or will the last 20 years be ignored?

There's no denying the impact that de Niro made in his prime. He was one of the most charismatic actors on the scene, and also one of the most intense. Anyone who reads the regiment for Raging Bull will know the insane amount of work that he put into being Jake La Motta by becoming a legitimate boxing competitor before gaining weight. Few actors of his stature would've done that, but he did it among a variety of other challenging roles. There was Taxi Driver, where he became an actual taxi driver. There's even the insane story around Cape Fear, which allegedly had him get his teeth bashed in for the deranged criminal character that he played. He was intense, and it makes sense why he would stop doing it in his older years. However, one must wonder what was lost in the process.

De Niro is by no means the first actor to "lose his way" as it were as he went from a legitimately talented and overqualified actor. One could turn to Marlon Brando who, following Mutiny on the Bounty, became an activist first and an actor second. He did things for paychecks without any real passion, including arguably the great Superman movie. His later work is riddled with films that contradict this. He was the influential actor that reinvented acting with A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront. He didn't need to stoop to mediocrity. Then again, the transition between Old Hollywood and new faces in the 60's hurt a lot of icons of the time. This isn't to be mistaken for a case like Orson Welles, whose career was so reliant on defying studio systems that he ended up without too much finances and caused him to appear in stuff like the animated Transformers movie. 

There are actors that you could debate have maintained a consistency between quality and paycheck roles. Meryl Streep is noteworthy, as her countless Oscar nominations might suggest. Jack Nicholson always seemed to care more than his peers and while The Bucket List is a far cry from Chinatown, he at least had other compelling works in About Schmidt and The Departed. It's very weird then to look at their counterparts like de Niro and Al Pacino and wonder why they failed to maintain a legacy. It could be finances or that the intensity in de Niro's case got the best of him. Either way, their lows are lower than Streep or Nicholson's despite the argument that their highs are higher too. 

So what is to be made about former greats who skid by on mediocrity? True, it makes sense to cast prestigious actors in lowbrow movies. It's what gave Leslie Nielsen a second life after Airplane! took off. It's what makes most of that movie actually work. Even Donald Sutherland's stoned professor role in Animal House could be seen as great subversion (though he was doing rambunctious comedy before with MASH). In that regards, de Niro being a Dirty Grandpa seems appropriate, but that would be if it hadn't become the latest in a long string of obvious paycheck roles. One could look at Little Fockers or The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and see an actor who is clearly just doing silly comedies because they don't require him to change his shape. In some cases, you could argue that he's mugging for the camera a little much.

It ruins the novelty of something like Dirty Grandpa, which in a different case could be like Sutherland in Animal House. It could be funny to see a prestigious actor doing silly things. Maybe the film is capable of being something subversive in a different way, but the very idea that the poster has to point out his credentials and then "... And now this" doesn't feel like a shock because, frankly, de Niro hasn't done much of note in the past decade to warrant a subversive take on his reputation. While David O. Russell's recent string with him (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, and Joy) might qualify as his best work in years, that's only a sliver when compared to everything else. 

It is tough to maintain a career for as long as de Niro has and still remain even tangentially relevant. I am not against the idea that he could do whatever he wants. After an impressive three decades of work, he more than earns it. It's just a matter of what the audiences would expect, especially those who pan off the roles in lowbrow nonsense with the "At least I got to work with Robert de Niro" excuse. No lie, I probably would work with him if the option came up. It's just that I don't know that I would list too much of his recent output as encouragement, especially to those who have no idea (unfortunately) about GoodFellas, Midnight Run, Brazil, or even Meet the Parents. He's a great actor who could surprise you, but the positive surprises have come out rarer and rarer.

I don't know that I will see Dirty Grandpa, partially because it's become disappointing to watch new de Niro movies with a certain frequency. However, I do think that it creates conflict for cinephiles who know his best work (which is at least a couple dozen titles) to have to convince audiences come de Niro's obituary that he was a great actor. The quality has faded, and now we have the ".. And now this." clause hanging over him. While it will give audiences a chance to discover why he was great, would they honestly care about half of the stuff that he made in the past decade? Probably not.

The argument could be made that the sins of the past are forgiven by death. For instance, there's the conflicting career of Robin Williams, which was always hit and miss. He never had a period where one side overpowered the other. Where one could look at impressive films like The Fisher King or Moscow on the Hudson, you have to consider Toys, License to Wed,  or RV at the same time. When he unfortunately died a few years ago, his legacy was cleaned of those mistakes. Audiences flocked to what made him a compelling artist. He could be funny or dramatic while being great at either side. Yes, he had his flaws, but his ambition definitely overpowered his quality output. One could argue that while people may discover Happy Feet somewhere down the line, its lack of quality will not influence their opinion on Williams as much as it had at the time of its release.

I will admit that it becomes harder to admit that I want to see a de Niro movie. I wish that I could say that for Dirty Grandpa, but even its premise sounds like a novelty to a fake movie satirizing how low Hollywood has sunk. Maybe that's the issue. Maybe de Niro doing anything has made it hard to take his later career seriously, and he may not get that honor back until his death. Even then, he should be respected for everything that he did right. He was influential and unlike any other. You just wish that he could impress half as well as he did even when Meet the Parents was out. You could argue that he did in Silver Linings Playbook, but even that is few and far between. Still, I do hope that he pulls out a great role, just so Dirty Grandpa doesn't look nearly as embarrassing on his resume when he dies.