If you watch Raiders, and then LC, back to back, the contrast in Harrison's appearance is almost unsettling. Seven years may be a long while, but even for seven years, Harrison aged A LOT.
Compare his aging in that time frame to other stars, for example Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp or Brendan Fraiser, or even old time stars like Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart...In the case of the first mentioned more modern three, they all have baby faces not that dissimilar to when they first started out, I mean Brendan Fraiser could still easily pass for his late 20s or 30s despite being around the age Harrison was when he made LC, and in the case of the latter two, they didn't age all THAT much until they both became sickly....
What caused Harry to age so much between 1981 and 1989? Hell, even between the production of ToD (1983) and LC (1988), just 5 years, there's a lot of aging...He doesn't look much different in ToD than he does in Raiders, just thinner and in better shape, whereas he looks haggard in LC...
Compare his aging in that time frame to other stars, for example Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp or Brendan Fraiser, or even old time stars like Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart...In the case of the first mentioned more modern three, they all have baby faces not that dissimilar to when they first started out, I mean Brendan Fraiser could still easily pass for his late 20s or 30s despite being around the age Harrison was when he made LC, and in the case of the latter two, they didn't age all THAT much until they both became sickly....
What caused Harry to age so much between 1981 and 1989? Hell, even between the production of ToD (1983) and LC (1988), just 5 years, there's a lot of aging...He doesn't look much different in ToD than he does in Raiders, just thinner and in better shape, whereas he looks haggard in LC...