No actor in Hollywood has a reputation like Nicolas Cage. His many recent flops- The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and Trespass, to name three- have become the basis for memes, Youtube mashups and constant mockery on Internet message boards. Truthfully, these films are pretty bad. But I'm not defending those films. I'm defending Nicolas Cage, because I think he's one of the best actors working today, even if he's going through a bit of a dry spell when it comes to making quality films. But I'm also calling out the message board dwelling naysayers who mock this Oscar winning actor. How many films from his filmography have they seen? Because I'd be willing to bet that, had they seen some of his work from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, they'd think twice before watching "Nicolas Cage Loses His Shit" for the umpteenth time.
Roger Ebert once said: "There are often lists of the great living male movie stars: De Niro, Nicholson and Pacino, usually. How often do you see the name Nicolas Cage? He should always be up there. He's daring and fearless in his choice of roles, and unafraid to crawl out on a limb, saw it off and remain suspended in air... However improbably his character, he never winks at the audience. He is committed to the character with every atom and plays him as if he were him." Now, say what you want about Nicolas Cage. If you come to the end of this essay and still vehemently disagree with me, then fine. I can't persuade you. But any legitimate fan of cinema must appreciate or, at the very least, respect the views of Roger Ebert. This is a man who has been working as a film critic for almost 50 years. He's one of, if not the most, revered film critics of all time and his passion for movies is plainly visible in everything he writes. While it's highly unlikely you'll find yourself in agreement with every one of his reviews (hell, he's practically my idol and even I don't agree with him all the time), he never just talks out of his ass. His opinions are informed and well reasoned. Can the same be said for the men and women that constantly mock Nic Cage?
Now, I'm not gonna even try to defend Nicolas Cage's recent films. They are terrible through and through. But what I am saying is this: Are you making an informed decision by jumping onto the Wicker Man hating bandwagon? Let's take a look:
Cage burst onto the scene in the 1987 romantic comedy Moonstruck, which was nominated for Best Picture and took home three Oscars that year. The movie, which was named the eighth best romantic comedy of all time by the American Film Institute, is mostly remembered for Cher's wonderful performance, but I don't think there is another actor out there that could play the other half of the couple at the center of it. As the one handed baker Ronny Cammareri, a man who hates his brother but falls in love with his soon to be sister-in-law, Cage is asked to give an over-the-top comedic performance, while still remaining romantic and likable. In his first scene, Cage screams at Cher's Loretta about how her blames his brother for the accident that took away his hand (a moment shown, completely out of context, in "Nicolas Cage Loses His Shit"). It's a moment that's funny, sad, and completely different from what the typical male lead in a romantic comedy is asked to do. Later in the film, Ronny and Loretta consumate their mutual attraction not after numerous scenes of witty banter and a couple of dates but, instead, after a full moon rises, igniting their passion and leading them straight to the bedroom. That's an incredibly over-the-top plot device, but it works. Why? Because Cage and Cher sell it to the audience. No other actor has the quirks of Cage, and in any other actor's hands those scenes would have fallen flat. The film could have been creepy or just plain stupid instead of romantic. Yet, it's widely considered one of the best romantic comedies of all time.
Continuing through Cage's filmography we get to a very different film: Face/Off. This Jon Woo directed action flick follows an undercover agent (John Travolta) and a terrorist (Cage) who, due to a series of events, trade faces. Now, Face/Off is no more than an action flick. But consider this: while the special effects are responsible for instilling the idea that these two characters could, in fact, trade faces, it's the actor's responsibility to sell it throughout the 138 minute runtime. So, Cage and Travolta are forced to play two characters. In the opening sequence, Cage is at his at his most ridiculous. He's clearly having fun playing the bad guy. But, then, Cage is forced to play Travolta playing a bad guy. It's a tricky part that requires a talented actor. Cage is an actor with distinct qualities, yet he completely abandons them here and takes on the qualities of John Travolta. Face/Off is Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 94% ranking and a 100% if you're only counting Top Critics. Obviously critics, who tend to be more discerning when it comes to action flicks, bought into the story and found something to enjoy. Would they be as enthusiastic if the performances at the center weren't up to par? In any other action film, I'd say yes. When it comes to a film that hinges on the two performances being worthwhile, I just can't imagine it.
But Face/Off is from 1997 and Moonstruck is ten years older than that. In Internet time, that makes them practically ancient. But what about one of Cage's more recent films: 2002's Adaptation., a film that also dealt with dual roles.
Adaptation. is a mind bender of a movie, with a script so layered with social commentary, meta humor and emotional moments that it's hard to completely take in on a first viewing. In it, Cage plays Charlie Kauffman, a neurotic screenwriter who's struggling to adapt a nonfiction book to the big screen. Cage also plays Charlie's twin, Donald, who's lazy and annoying but decides to take screenwriting up on a whim and becomes successful with it almost immediately. Playing two characters that share the screen is nothing new. Hell, Eddie Murphy and Michael Meyers do it all the time. But here's the difference: Murphy and Meyers use makeup and costumes to specify which character is which. In Adaptation., Nicolas Cage doesn't hide behind makeup or special effects. He looks exactly the same, yet whenever Charlie and Donald share the screen we always know which one is which. I don't know how he does it, but Cage changes aspects of his body- his posture, his hand motions, even his tone of voice- to reflect his character. Is that an easy thing to do for any actor? Cage secured an Oscar nomination for his work in this film, and it's probably his last universally acclaimed starring role.
But, as great as these performances are, none come anywhere close to his work in 1995's Leaving Las Vegas, which also earned him his only Academy Award. If their is any justice in the moviegoing world, it's the performance he'll be remembered for. Granted, Leaving Las Vegas is a very disturbing film and I feel no desire to ever re-watch it, but if I was to make a list of the best performances of all time, I can't imagine Cage not appearing in the Top 10, maybe even the Top 5.
In the film, Cage plays an alcoholic screenwriter who heads to Vegas with the intention of, literally, drinking himself to death. For a majority of his screen time, Cage's character is either drunk, getting drunk, or reeling from a night of drunkenness. Now, playing an alcoholic is an easy thing to do. Many of us have, at some point in our life, been drunk or around a drunk person. And, even if we haven't been drunk ourself, I'm sure we've pretended to be drunk amongst friends, as a joke of some sort. We can sway our arms, slur our speech and say stupid things. Voila, we're alcoholics. Playing an alcoholic in a dramatic film, however, is extremely difficult. It's far too easy to come off as comedic. There is nothing funny about Cage's performance and, if he makes you laugh, it's because the scene called for that reaction. Instead, the alcoholism on display in the film feels all too real and quite sad. But unlike lesser films about addiction, like this year's vastly overrated Flight, Leaving Las Vegas never relies on contrived plot devices to progress the story. In fact, there isn't much story. The film is an examination of a man who is slowly and willingly killing himself, and we're all the more riveted because of it. There is a scene where Cage's lover, a prostitute played by the wonderful Elisabeth Shue, is instructed by Cage to never ask him to stop drinking. The scene sent chills down my spine. It was then that I realize: Cage doesn't just play the part, he lives it. For such an extravagant, off the wall actor, Cage's ability to disappear into the role is uncanny. Whether he plays a terrorist, a struggling screen writer, an alcoholic or a quirky baker, Cage completely commits.
That makes sense though, doesn't it? Take the scene from Wicker Man in which Cage runs through a field, in a bear costume, and proceeds to punch a woman in the face. You don't have to be a psychic to know that scene probably won't look very dramatic on film. Many other actors would use the film as an oppurtunity to wink to the camera and sell it as a joke. I can't blame them for it- if you're stuck in a bad film, why not try to convince the audience that you realize it's bad? Yet, there is something to be admired about Nicolas Cage's unwaveringly straight face. Good film or bad, he respects the fact that he's acting and constantly stays in character. It's not a lack of range or talent, like so many would like to believe. It's an actor trying his best to act in a film that ended up going horribly wrong.
Look, I laugh at the Wicker Man scenes too, cringed at the trailer for Trespass and got mad at the fact that there might be a third National Treasure movie. But what I'm saying is this: the Internet, as a unit, seems to set the consensus for all forms of entertainment media and, while that certainly can be a good thing, it can also be equivalent to wearing horse blinders. It encourages others to form opinions without truly considering the argument. Yes, "Glee" may be a bad series but how many of the people that criticize it week after week have ever actually tuned in? Yes, The Dark Knight may be an influential action film but how many of it's fans have considered the fact that Christopher Nolan was influenced by other, smaller films before it? And, yes, Nicolas Cage's acting in The Wicker Man is amusing and "Nicolas Cage Loses His Shit" made me laugh. But how many films have the people that criticize him actually seen? Has he made bad movies? Yes, but many actors have. The truth is, it's become "fun" to criticize Nic Cage and act as if he is disgracing the art of cinema whenever he appears on screen. But I encourage all those that mock him, and especially those that call themselves film fans, to seek out all of his work. Because the truth is, I love Nicolas Cage. He's one of my favorite actors. I believe that he's had the misfortune of turning up in some pretty terrible films. But, hey, Robert De Niro was in Rocky & Bullwinkle, Al Pacino was in Gigli and Jack Nicholson was in Anger Management but no one is criticizing those guys. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm just asking that you make an informed decision before doing so.
No comments:
Post a Comment