Check out this interesting answer on Yedda
Harrison Ford has been consistent in the roles he has chosen since the beginning. There is a difference between a diversity and reinvention. If anything the weakness in Harrison Ford’s acting diversity is his inability to reinvent himself. He once played a murdering husband opposite Michelle Pfeiffer in "What Lies Beneath",
this movie is hardly memorable and is not realistic at all, but what it shows is that
Harrison Ford is best at playing himself. (the jaded anti-hero) I’m not saying he’s a bad actor, but reinvention is not what he will be remembered for.
Even Jimmy Stewart in the twilight of his career played a bad guy. Sean Connery is similar in that he rarely steps out of being himself in different situations, but Connery usually plays towards a more stuffy pretension at times then the jaded smirking Ford. Both actors portray sarcastic anti establishment characters, but Ford always smirks at pomp and circumstance and Connery we all know was James Bond who while was not above multiple lovers, was for the most part was a stuffed shirt. The reason Connery was able to play off Ford in the last Indiana Jones movie is the character’s differences were realistic in a father and son relationship. Young men rarely reflect the character traits of they’re fathers. If anything the Patriarchal martyrdom complex that Freud details is a factor. Sons will rebel against they’re dad, and as a result a son will rarely have a personality exactly similar to a father if the relationship between a genetic father and son are close (even if appearances are similar). There are of course exceptions, but the reason Connery seemed to be Harrison’s father is that one could see how Ford’s personality would evolve from Connery’s. This does not mean that there was a parallel in personality types.
Answered by SimonStudio on May 07, 2008
View the entire discussion on Yedda