Late last month, The New York Times posted an interesting article on the sudden career resurgence of French screen icon Jean-Paul Belmondo – mainstay of Breathless, The Thief of Paris, Mississippi Mermaid and dozens of additional Euro classics, and one of the top international sex symbols for years.

For those who aren’t aware of how he spent the past decade: Belmondo suffered from a massive, well-publicized stroke in 2001 that left him partially incapacitated and robbed him of speech for six months. For a time it looked as though he would never work again. But this was not to be: the iconic Jean-Paul enjoyed a comeback of sorts in last month’s Un Homme et son chien (A Man and His Dog) – not original material per se, but a big screen remake of Vittorio de Sica’s neorealist masterpiece Umberto D. The twist? It seems as though Belmondo has experienced only a partial recovery. NY Times correspondent Elaine Sciolino writes:

“Belmondo uses a metal crutch and drags his right leg when he walks. His upper body tilts to the left when he moves. He speaks in short sentences, sometimes slurring his words. His right arm sits lifeless by his side… He agreed to do A Man and His Dog… only if it showed him as the old, disabled man that he is. ‘It’s me,’ he said, ‘without any special effects.’”

The French press did not take kindly to this realism – and that’s putting it mildly. As referenced in the Times article, François-Guillaume Lorrain writes in a Le Point assessment of the film, “the movie is, in effect, a documentary of a man who suffered a stroke in 2001… One can only be staggered by this portrayal of decrepitude and this disillusioned universe where the only point of interest is … a dog.’”

Let me be perfectly clear: I can’t begrudge Belmondo the desire to work again. I also genuinely empathize with his physical plight, and regard the Le Point comment as stunningly tasteless and insensitive. But the whole scenario does raise an interesting question - regarding when, and if, an actor should bow out of the limelight after suffering from a debilitating illness. It’s the same question, more or less, that the ailing Dick Clark’s presence on the Rockin’ New Year’s Eve raised last December 31st, or that the Chris Reeve inevitably raised when he when he made several feature appearances following his equestrian accident that left him quadriplegic and dramatically shortened his life span. Given the demands of public image that attach themselves to celebrity, is it ill-advised for a superstar to go on taking on-camera roles as if nothing has transpired, following a devastating physiological crisis (as several French periodicals boldly suggested about Jean-Paul)? Or does the nobility in this, and the importance of our respect for the victim, far outweigh any artistic compromises that may result in the finished product?