When Ron Howard took his revenge on a “pouty, shitty” actor: “I got what I needed”
Throughout cinema history, countless directors have been branded as egomaniacal, tyrannical, petty, and vindictive, but Ron Howard definitely isn’t one of them. However, don’t count him out completely.
The two-time Academy Award winner has always been viewed as one of the nicest people in Hollywood, and nobody spends their entire life in the industry without making enemies if it isn’t true. It’s almost impossible to imagine him being petty, but one actor made the mistake of challenging his authority.
This being Howard, the living embodiment of middle America with a face that looks like apple pie wouldn’t melt in his mouth, his pettiest moment had an inevitably wholesome tinge. That said, he was confident enough in his abilities to challenge a veteran to a bet, and when he won, he rubbed it in their face even more.
When a modern audience thinks of Wilford Brimley, the first thing that probably comes to mind is ‘DIABEETUS’ if they even know he is. If it isn’t that, then it’s most likely to me the meme spawned from his performance in Howard’s Cocoon, when he turned 50 during shooting, despite looking old enough to convincingly play a senior citizen, effectively making him the Wario to Paul Rudd’s Mario.
He was an established character actor, whereas Howard had only recently turned 30 and was helming his fourth feature. Naturally, the generational divide reared its ugly head. The director wanted to shoot Brimley in close-up, but he didn’t want to do it and explained that the shot wouldn’t make it into the final cut.
“He said, ‘They’re not going to let you control it anyway; you’re young,'” Howard recalled to Vulture. “Those producers are going to take this movie away from you.’ I said, ‘That hasn’t happened to me on any of my movies so far.’ And he said, ‘Well, it’s going to happen on this one.'”
To sweeten the deal, the filmmaker suggested a wager. Brimley would agree to shoot the close-up, but if the studio removed it in post-production, Howard would pay him $1,000. However, if he maintained creative control until Cocoon was locked, the grizzled character man needed to pay up.
“And he still did the close-up in a pouty, shitty way, but I got what I wanted, and we moved on,” Howard said. After principal photography had wrapped and the sci-fi flick was screened for various executives, nobody suggested making any sweeping changes to the movie, which spurred Howard to indulge his antagonistic side.
“I wrote Wilford a letter that said, ‘Wilford, I want to thank you for all you contributed to his movie. Your improvisations elevated this movie in a way that I could not have dreamed of. But I do feel I should let you know that I won the bet, and I’d like you to make a donation.'” For anyone wondering how that was in any way spiteful, Howard “chose a charity that I knew he wouldn’t approve of.”
Brimley evidently didn’t approve, seeing as Howard received a cheque for $1,000 and no reply. He’d convinced the disgruntled star to shoot a scene he didn’t want to, won a thousand-dollar bet, and then rubbed it in his face by donating his winnings to a charity he wouldn’t give a cent to. As far as revenge goes, it’s not too bad.
