Oh, that poor Kevin Smith, who'd earlier worked with Willis on "Live Free or Die Hard," and therefore got to see how he "terrorized" movie sets! If Willis was so horrible, why did Smith want to work with him again?
Here's what's hilarious -- you guys all want to present yourselves as so in the know about the behind the scenes behavior of Bruce Willis. Okay. So let's say everyone knows what Willis is like, and the Bruce-bashing stuff you've read (do you know there's stuff bashing just about everyone of note in Hollywood?) is all as true as the gospel. That would mean that anyone else in the Hollywood loop would know all that you know, wouldn't it? Do you suppose Woody Allen just signed Bruce so he could fire him? Do you really suppose that? If Willis has a "reputation for being a bit difficult," then Allen would have to be an idiot not to know it, right? He must have seen something in Willis that he wanted.
One of the famous actresses of the '30's demanded -- and got -- everyone banned from the set when she was filming except the absolute essentials. One of the famous actresses of the '40's would hardly come out of her trailer, she was so anxious about her performances. The son of a director who got some of the best work out of her said, "But that's what they pay directors to do," referring to dealing with an artist's temperament.
Some directors can. Some can't. Some won't -- they're exactly as temperamental as the stars.
But contrary to what you guys are trying to pretend, Bruce Willis didn't invent "artistic temperament."
When evil is viewed as good, righteousness is viewed as evil.
reply
share