So how is this different than Crowe? The lack of children sticks out — Downey doesn’t have any strollers to push. But more to the point, I think that RDJ incorporated his past into his contemporary star image. He doesn’t reference it verbally, but the root of his humor, which seems to be barely holding the manic at bay, certainly evokes it.

In an odd way, it reminds me of Adrienne McLean’s look at the scandals that affected Rita Hayworth and Ingrid Bergman in the ’50s: Hayworth could survive divorce and marriage to a Muslim prince because it was readily incorporable to her flexible star image, while Bergman’s star image was far too closed and inflexible to bear the burden of an illicit love affair (and child out of wedlock).

One, Crowe’s gossip column image has often been at odds with truth and reality. Too many writers buy into the gruff, angry, constantly fighting persona that has grown around him. Yet, for one example, as Crowe himself has tried to get across, there are numerous stories about him punching photographers and the like… but you can’t name one instance, why? Because he has never hit one. He’s thrown verbal barbs, but given the way he’s hounded, I think that’s a pretty mild response. Crowe is one of a kind, yet when you examine the record, his few misdeeds are minuscule compared to many other celebrities. He is not an angry man, and he’s never undertaken “anger control” counseling.

Two, Crowe is truthfully a dedicated family man. He married his first love after years of friendship, and from all accounts, is happily domesticated. He got quite a rap from the press for the short lived Meg Ryan affair [and lets not forget she was the married one], but he has never been, despite the gossip stories, a womanizer. Why does someone like George Clooney always get a pass from the press? Because he smiles charmingly. Also on the personal front, Crowe has many loyal friends, but mostly out of the spotlight.

Let’s not forget the one big reality here. For the past month, Crowe has been one part of a big publicity push for a major film project. What did you really expect him to do, go on TV talk shows and be rude and bluff? He’s been fulfilling his professional responsibilities. Prior to this, he was just living his life quietly in Australia.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100039604/russell-crowe-on-radio-four-petulant-spoiled-and-amazingly-humorless/

Which is all to say that I certainly think that some people are aware that this is a dramatic change — but others probably just enjoy Crowe’s jovial self when they happen upon him on Access Hollywood, Oprah, Regis & Kelly, whatever. But as is always the question when it comes to stars, just because people respond positively to Crowe in interviews does not guarantee that they’ll want to go see his movie. But again, the similarity of this role to that of Maximus — the very groundnote of his stardom — will certainly help.

The question remains, do we buy it? I am not sure that we do. I think that anyone who thinks about this matter for more than a few minutes is likely to conclude that, just as there are many Russell Crowes, they are part of the same composite image. I think it is more likely that we buy the rhythm of the star cycle. That is to say that many of those who follow celebrity culture enjoy the shifts from bad to good and back again. This is a comfortable routine, particularly when the stakes are comparatively low. Crowe was never that ‘bad’ and so it can’t be that difficult for audiences to believe that he is now being governed by this good, family-oriented side.

Ultimately, I think that the most significant challenge will be to convince people to care about Crowe during a hectic summer movie season. For that, I think that Robin Hood (and his resemblance to Maximus) will do a good bit of the heavy lifting.