Eddie Murphy is back on people’s screens with Beverly Hills Police: Axel F. – and also, in a rare burst of publicity, back on the press circuit, promoting her new film, something that doesn’t always happen when she has a new project in the works. This has provided an opportunity for many amusing retrospective stories (such as her dinner with Marlon Brando, recounted to Seth Meyers), along with some genuine insight into what Murphy thinks of his own work and legacy. In his chat with the New York TimesFor example, the interviewer praised Murphy’s work in Bow fingersuggesting it might be his best performance, and Murphy responded that he worked on the Crazy Professor The most notable achievement was playing different characters with the help of Rick Baker’s extraordinary makeup, even vaguely dismissing the interview answer that he also plays two different characters in Bow finger.
This is a relatively casual comment expressing a preference, of course, and it is not unusual for an artist to think about his or her work differently depending on when or how you ask him or her about it. In 2016, at a similar retrospective interview promoting his little-seen indie drama Mr. ChurchMurphy reacted to a similar comment by simply saying, “I love it.” Bow finger. That’s funny.” He also mentioned that he didn’t remember doing much improvising on the set of that film, calling it “Steve Martin’s creation” that was “pretty much all on the page,” which seems like a humble downplaying of the actual improvisations director Frank Oz remembers happening on the set. But perhaps his memory of the film as a Steve Martin film makes him feel less possessive of it than The Nutty Professorwhere he often plays in front of himself.
Murphy is obviously a mercurial guy, even in his softer-spoken years, and seems to resist any sense of being constrained by expectations. That’s why, for example, what some fans might think of as Axel Foley’s famous laugh isn’t present in the new legacy sequel, despite the film bringing back multiple stars, jokes, and even tunes from the previous films’ soundtrack. As Murphy has explained on multiple occasions, InterviewsAxel’s signature laugh, a sort of low, ragged intake of breath, is really his laugh, and he forced himself to stop laughing like that decades ago.
Murphy talks about not wanting to be pigeonholed and known for something so superficial, but he also focuses on how anyone doing an impression of him would punctuate it with laughter. He points out, with a comic actor’s keen eye for the botched job, that even today, Murphy’s “impersonations” tend to involve doing the voice of Donkey for Shrekfollowed by laughter. “That’s not me,” he says, laughing, but not like that, but through his feigned indignation.
You make a great point about the reductionist nature of recognizing the distinctive elements of actors’ performances, and at the same time, how doggedly reactive do you have to be to literally change your laugh just to prove a point, years into an ultra-successful career? In fact, if you’re worried about being known as a simplified version of your image, why do such a thing? Arriving in America either Police in Beverly Hills 4 (or, in the past, Another 48 hours either A detective on the loose in Beverly Hills III)? In this decision you can see a mix of bravado and defensiveness, which may be the key to why we see so little of the “old” Eddie Murphy these days. He can still offer charm (as he does in Axel F) and big laughs (as he did in his fantastic Saturday Night Live episode) and push himself as a performer (as he did in the otherwise terrible Mr. Church), but Murphy often seems to keep his audience at a distance, as when he appeared on the SNL 40 special for not doing much, or when he flirted with the idea of hosting the Oscars but then backed out. His long-awaited return to stand-up also seems to be a victim of not wanting to play to the public’s high expectations.
This is not a criticism of Murphy, who has been absolutely correct when, in the past, he pointed out that he has nothing to prove to anyone. His place in film and comedy history is assured. (He should have been nominated for an Oscar for something much sooner.) Dream GirlsEither for Bow finger, Crazy Professor(Or something else entirely.) And almost no one stays exactly the same for decades anyway; that stasis is the last thing Murphy owes his audience. But there is a certain old-fashioned comedian’s insecurity at play in the decision to reprise old characters. Axel F It is Murphy’s tenth sequel if we count the Shrek movies, though he also seems willing to make a genuine part of himself disappear in an attempt to reduce the bad impressions made by others. Or perhaps it’s that last bit that really rankles: the idea that while Murphy’s charisma, energy and way of speaking can’t be truly replicated, his laugh was easy enough to imitate. This might be Murphy’s way of forcing us not to accept substitutes, despite the fact that he’s made plenty of them himself.
Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer based in Brooklyn. He is a regular contributor to The AV Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others. He podcasts on www.sportsalcohol.comalso.
