In Defense of Nicolas Cage
As seems to happen whenever Nicolas Cage releases a commercial movie such as Knowing, the critics and pundits are bitterly asking just what happened to this once brilliant, artistically inclined thespian and why oh why has he sold out? Guess what folks. Nicolas Cage is still Nicolas Cage and he's always been the same quirky, half-insane goofball who would eventually name his son Kal El (yeah, I love Batman, but I didn't name my daughter Selina, Pamela, or Talia). The difference is one of expectations and selective memory.
Nic Cage was making movies for about thirteen years before he won the 1995 Best Actor Oscar and became a mainstream player. In between Fast Times At Ridgemont High and Leaving Las Vegas, this allegedly fallen star made such high-brow, intellectually simulating entertainments as Trapped In Paradise, Valley Girl, and Amos and Andrew. Yes, he also made such movies as Red Rock West, Raising Arizona, and Peggy Sue Got Married. He was a working actor who alternated between occasionally lousy studio movies and often artistically superior low profile entertainments. Some of these movies made money, many of them did not. What we forget was that, prior to Leaving Las Vegas, Nic Cage was never all that respected as an actor. He was an offbeat performer, someone who often added a little color to the films he appeared in. Every time he gave a solid dramatic performance in something like Red Rock West, critics acted a little surprised. When he stole the show with his manic villain in Kiss Of Death, critics raved about a new high for this cult actor.
Leaving Las Vegas was a revelation for many, but in retrospect, it was partially just Nicolas Cage doing his shtick in a toned down version, for a film of genuine quality and morose contemplation. It was Nic Cage being Nic Cage, but with an entire film worth of back story and context to give his antics 'deeper meaning'. After he won the Oscar, he did three big-budget action films in a row. Why? Because he was a geek at heart and he wanted to do action films dammit!
It helped that all three films were of a respectable quality. More importantly, it wasn't 'action star Nicolas Cage'. It was 'Nicolas Cage... in a big budget action film'. The Rock is still Michael Bay's only great film, Con Air was a terrifically entertaining acting treat and quasi genre spoof, and John Woo's Face/Off was and is a masterpiece, and it contains what I still feel is Nic Cage's finest performance. I've always said that Face/Off's acting and dramatic scenes were so good that it would still be a great film without the shoot outs.
After Face/Off, Nicolas Cage got serious. And it's here that critics started to gang up on him. City Of Angels, a pretentious and overly somber remake of Wings Of Desire, was arguably the turning point. The film was a hit, but it contained an unusually gloomy Nicolas Cage performance. Personally, I feel that it's main offense was casting then-TV super cops Andre Braugher and Dennis Franz and failing to give them any scenes together. Super serious films with super glum Nic Cage performances would alternate with the quirky, goofy vibrating-head Cage or ole. He was nutso in the ambitious but mediocre Snake Eyes, but he was sober in the disappointing 8MM (great first half, terrible second half). He was a little of both in Martin Scorsese's vastly underrated Bringing Out The Dead, which closed out the 1990s.
After getting panned for palling around with Martin Scorsese, is it any wonder that Cage retreated to the safety net of producer Jerry Bruckheimer? Cage started out 2000 with one of his very worst films, Gone In 60 Seconds (or as I like to call it... the action film with no action scenes). It is this decade that detractors claim that Nicolas Cage 'sold out'. They point to admittedly terrible films like Captain Corelli's Mandolin and The Wicker Man as signs of crossing over to the dark side. There are two problems with this argument.
First of all, if you look at Cage's filmography in this decade, you'll notice that he actually has a somewhat decent batting average. You have studio garbage like Ghost Rider, Next, and Bangkok Dangerous. But you also have genuine art like Adaptation, Matchstick Men, Lord Of War, and The Weather Man. If critics and audiences ignore Lord Of War and then take notice of Ghost Rider (a terrible film with plenty of Nic Cage quirk), they can't then say that Cage is a sell-out who only does big studio confections. As it is, if you recall, many of the reviews for The Weather Man seemed to criticize Paramount for releasing such a character-driven, small scale drama (how dare they release an intelligent drama for adults, instead of passing it off to Paramount Vantage!).
As for the uber-successful National Treasure series (by far his highest grossing films), I kinda like them. They are, if I may, incredibly stupid but genuinely fun, with lots of good actors (Sean Benn, Ed Harris, Jon Voight, Helen Mirren, Harvey Keitel) getting paid a solid sum to engage in historically-based PG-rated, family friendly adventure. I wouldn't want every film to be National Treasure (just like not every home should have a bowl of freshly cut lemons in the refrigerator), but I'm glad there is one series that fills that void. Random anecdote: I took a private school principal on a first date to see the first National Treasure (somehow Kinsey didn't seem appropriate) and I'm convinced the reason I didn't get a second date was that she was offended that I had taken her to an education-based movie that was so willfully dumb.
Nicolas Cage has made sixteen live-action films in this present decade (counting Knowing and not counting his ten-second Grindhouse cameo). About half of them have been big studio genre pictures that haven't been well received. The other half have been either well-received studio films (I hated World Trade Center, but I'm in the minority), or artistically inclined pictures that mostly flopped. So, for all the huff and puff, Nicolas Cage still seems to operate on the 'one for them, one for me' principle. He is a working actor who is undeniably past his prime, but still makes interesting choices regardless of whether the films work out in the end. And, for those who think that Cage has gotten dull... answer me this... could any other actor have made a film as awesomely terrible as The Wicker Man?
In the end, Nicolas Cage suffers from a very simple problem. He alternates between big budget studio genre pictures and smaller, more artistically inclined films. The issue is that critics and pundits inexplicably choose to ignore the smaller stuff and then use the mainstream tripe to nail him to the wall as the poster boy of an 'actor who became a performer'. They ignore Lord Of War and focus only on Next. They call him a sell-out because National Treasure was a smash hit, forgetting that Adaptation was not. They forget that Nicolas Cage will always do whatever film Nicolas Cage wants to do. Maybe, just maybe, Nicolas Cage always wanted to be a movie star, as opposed to a 'serious actor' (why else do you think Cage followed up an Oscar with three slam-bang action films?). And really, what's wrong with that as long as he does what he wants to do? We should all be so lucky.
Nicolas Cage is not the best actor in Hollywood nor is he the worst. He doesn't have the worst track record of any major star nor does he have the best. He has a varied filmography, with various genres, many interesting directors, and far more smaller-scale pictures than you'd think from all the hand-wringing. He may not be worth idolizing, but he is not the poster boy for anything wrong with Hollywood or the movies in general.
Scott Mendelson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
First of all, you forgot to mention that Cage became a star with Raising Arizona and sealed it with Leaving Las Vegas, but there is no need to defend him; he is absolutely a fantastic actor.
Is there a website that reports the production and marketing budgets for films? I know that Box Office Mojo just lists the production budget, which is some times unavailable.
Nic Cage is hit and miss. I can definitely agree with that. Many actors are.
Valley Girl remains my favorite Nic Cage movie of all times. Yeah it was cheesy and filled with bad acting but 20 years later I still have a tremendous amount of fun every time I watch that movie - and for me, THAT is what makes a good movie.
I hesitate to call myself a fan, but I too like Nic Cage. I loved cult classic, Raising Arizona and thought he was really good in Lord of War.
I actually hadn't planned on seeing Knowing, because unfortunately something with Nic's hairline has gone horribly wrong. But I knit-pick.
I think Nicholas Cage is a solid actor. He's not great, he's far from horrible. He's a Rock....li
Naw, he's cool.
Funny how critics of Nicholas Cage rarely apply the same reasoning to actors like Christopher Walken. Walken has been a part of so many bad films over the years, I can't even begin to remunerate them. From gleaning interviews I've seen with Walken, he often knew how putrid the movies were before signing the contract yet still went ahead and did them. But he's also had a fair share of decent stuff. Strange how critics will pick on one actor and ignore the same or more egregious flaws in another. My only explanation is that Cage comes from celebrity stock, so critics hold him to a higher standard, or simply like beating up on celebrity families.
Walken is a good example of a Teflon actor; Michael Caine is maybe a better example because he's been a bigger star for a longer time. We all know he's worked in many quality films, but I can't think of another certified name-above
It might be because he's British, and British actors make no pretense about "selling out"--they go where the money is and seem genuinely grateful to be working. It's disarming and kind of refreshing in its honesty.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
For anyone that cares, here is my review of Knowing...
http://sco
I've never understood ANY criticism of Cage. He seems to be able to cover anything. I've enjoyed his less known movies and his money makers. So who listens to those types of critics anyway?
I mean if anyone deserves criticism it's Julia Roberts who plays herself in all her movies for the last 7 or so years. I watched this latest one but...yep.
But Cage is enjoyable to watch in all his movies.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
While I found Julia Roberts most annoying in her stereotypical romantic comedies (she often played selfish, seemingly mentally disturbed individuals that for some reason the male lead kept crawling back to), she is capable of other stuff. For a VERY against type performance, try Mary Reilly. Critically panned for no good reason and a victim of terrible pre-release buzz, this flawed but moody number is a variation of Jekyll and Hyde (both played by John Malkovich), told from the maid's point of view. Roberts is in nearly every frame, and she doesn't smile once.
I've always loved Nicholas Cage. I always watch his movies. There is something about him. You can't take your eyes of him. Plus, that gorgeous body! I loved him in "Moonstruc
I worked with Nick on Moonstruck and Trapped in Paradise, and I can can absolutely verify your appraisal. He brings it all to the table all the time, regardless of the project.
Scott, you make a very energetic defense for Cage's acting ability, but I have to agree with the minority here that he is, as Sean Penn once said "A performer who once was an actor". His dopey, loopy style was amusing in Peggy Sue but it has not worn well with age, and I found his last two movies literally unwatchable. Many of the movies you cite as acting successes were good because of the writing and directing, (Raising Arizona) mostly, and I would like to disagree with you about others. I thought "Leaving Las Vegas" was self-indulgent and excessively dark, and Cage's role consisted of one bleak note. All of the scenes that showed Cage surrounded by at least 50 just-emptied liquor bottles were so distracting (nobody could drink that much in a day and live) but I thought , in a way, that such cheesy manipulation was an emblem for the movie.
Other movies that you cite as successes were pleasant enough, but a movie needs to be more than entertaining and likeable to be a cinematic success. (Slumdog was fun, not the greatest movie of the year).
This is meant as an argument only, I love movies and love to talk about them,(I'm even a Godard fan, ) and even though I disagree about Cage I enjoyed reading your piece.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I think we pretty much agree on Leaving Las Vegas and Slumdog Millionaire. As for Godard, film school turned me off of all the 'French New Wave' folks. I just couldn't stand how they seemed to often represent everything that is wrong with movies today (ie - visuals first, story and narrative logic a distant second). And I'm still convinced that many of their technical gimmicks (like the jump cut) were born out of screw ups that they couldn't salvage. I do enjoy Claude Chabrol's thrillers, for what it's worth.
Slumdog Millionaire review (if you care) - http://sco
I completely agree with everything you've written. Except that I LOVE Gone in Sixty Seconds. But I suppose that could be because the best car is my namesake. :)
Aside from that I think your analysis is spot on.
Thanks for putting Nic Cage's career in perspective for the doubters.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I don't have a particular thing for cars, so all I saw was a well-cast heist film where the only action scene was set up in such a way to render it pointless.
Sad you didn't mention Vampires Kiss. I love that one.
"Am I getting through to you ALVA?!?!?!"
I also don't see why Cage needs a defense. He's an actor. Some of his films suck, some are good. I think if anyone needs a defense it would be Al Pacino.
Scott probably felt, like I did as a casual fan, that he was getting unfairly bashed in the smart-alleck press all week as he did publicity for Knowing. It grated on me too so I enjoyed Scott's piece. I don't always like Cage, but I'll watch anything that grabs me, almost regardless of who's in it. A lot of his stuff appeals to me in spite of him. If I like the movie, I like him, not the other way around.
Raising Arizona will always be my favorite, with Moonstruck running a close second. I still have a soft spot for Valley Girl and Rumble Fish. I enjoyed Family Man, Matchstick Men, and (shoot me) the National Treasure movies. I LOATHED Peggy Sue. Still haven't seen all of his work. I was interested in Knowing after I read a great review by a regular person on AICN that made it sound dark and twisted, very unHollywood. Saw it this past weekend and still can't shake it. Cage was serviceable in the role of John Koestler, but I don't think he went quirky enough, for once. He said he really loved the story and just wanted to service it, rather than draw attention to himself. That's kind of a shame.
Look, the dude is always gonna be weird. But I don't think his best days could possibly be behind him. He's still young and fit and when the right thing comes along, he could be great again.
The Rock? Con Air? Good movies? Jeeez.....
if those are good movies, then you are a good writer.
What makes Con Air much better than The Rock is the wider variety of characters, acted well. Their was humor too, and satire of the crime format, such as Steve Buscemi's serial killer.
CON AIR is a guilty pleasure.
"Put... the bunny... back in the box!"
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Then I guess I'm a good writer. Thanks for the compliment.
I'd also like to add that I liked Ghost Rider but parts really sucked. Can ANYONE tell me why Sam Elliot's character only had one ride left in him and then it was JUST A RIDE?!!??! he couldn't help, just RIDE!?!? I HATE THAT PART lol
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I have never laughed longer, harder, or more often in a theater, at a film that wasn't supposed to be a comedy, that I did at Ghost Rider. And the one ride bit was the part that almost made me cry. Thanks for reminding me.
I, too, am puzzled as to why he needs defense? except of course in saddling his son with that name! I've always liked Cage since Valley Girl and Face-Off and Con-Air were awesome! (he needs to do more with John Cusack)(I like parenthesis too!) I liked City of Angels. Raising Arizona - the best! I haven't seen all his work but he seems to be doing just fine
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
