The pages of online film writing are perhaps filled most with the relentless assault on (great) actors who take on and act terrible roles in terrible films. The response to these credible actors in maligned movies are very often of a scathing, close to apocalyptic nature of response. I’d like to argue that this is not just unjust but illogical!
The most evocative of these examples being the extremely mercurial nature of Nicolas Cage’s career! From Eddie in Deadfall to Behmen in Season of the Witch it’s true to say that old Nic has been in some film howlers; truly Banshee-esque! In turn though for every poor role there is Yuri Orlov in Lord of War, Caster Troy inFace/Off and Sailor Ripley in Wild at Heart. This is just to mention his less well received work. A defence of his work could equally bring up his performances inBad Lieutenant, Raising Arizona and Adaptation, not to mention his OSCAR winning role as Ben Sanderson in Leaving Las Vegas.
It seems to me more than fashionable to leap to the attack of an actor who has supposedly fallen from grace. Once faithful now fickle critics, cinephiles and even the most casual of fans are quick to muscle in on the debate of the latest poor Nic Cage effort; so much so that it has become a cynical in-joke of the film community! ‘Lol Nic Cage is making another film, can’t wait to see it…’ While I would never want to discourage opinion and discourse I’d like to advocate a fairer view of judging an actors credibility. From the roles above it is self evident that Cage has portrayed some of the most colourful performances committed to screen.
What I feel is the origin of this systemic abuse of very much a living legend is fans feeling that actors owe them or that alternatively fans own actors. Actors are artists, that much is true, but they are also workers. This is the crucial factor that movie lovers tend to miss. The glamorous over idealised media presentation of an actors lifestyle is most likely the cause of this blank. The wrong presumption that actors flit from beautiful production to beautiful production with no care and that there choosing of a poor film is demonstrative of their idiocy. In truth acting is just another, although highly publicised, profession to which there are positives and negatives, good times and bad times, necessary evils and wonderful opportunities.
There are two causes for actors ‘poor’ choices. First, that as workers, like anyone else they will undoubtedly from time to time take on jobs that they may not necessarily enjoy themselves; and quite oppositely they may take on something they deem to be novel or which perks their interest with no knowledge of the final result. Secondly, perhaps most obviously, great films aren’t always smacking them in the face, begging for their weighty presence.
Indeed, an actor who makes a ‘poor’ choice can be seen to not be slated but commended in fact. These artists are perhaps the ones least concerned with their own ‘credibility’. And I’d like to say that we should thus support them in their leftfield choices, because for every terrible film that is a result there will be an alternative brilliantly rendered edition to the canon of greats. It is testament to actors and actresses initiative and, indeed, their credibility that they do stretch themselves to perform beyond their repertoire in an attempt to add originality to their own canons. To think that the minute an actor or actress who diversifies their choices and subsequently makes a poor film is leapt on for their crimes is truly a sad thing. For the more we, as fans, crush their intentions, the more we undermine the artistic ingenuity of the industry as a whole.
To come back to my point of actors as workers I believe this needs to be expanded upon. It’s true that actors should not take just any role that shows up, they should be discerning and self-reflective in their choices. However it’s also true that they should be able to take a role without fear of reprisal. They are stars and the lifestyle that we see lived out on the covers of magazines costs. The lifestyle that they choose to live and have grown accustomed to costs. As such it is natural for them to sometimes take a role that isn’t necessarily the next iconic character of movie history in order to make ends meet.
Morever it is important to expand on the acting industry itself when assessing the choice of film roles. It is doubtful to think that an actor or actress believes in their own mind every film they make must be momentous. The emotionally and physically draining task of inhabiting another’s mind is laborious. As such creating a believable and empathetic character on screen that is not, in fact, themselves is a difficult thing to accomplish. Thus it is natural for an actor to vary their performances from high to low intensity just as any other artist will create varying levels of greatness in their work. It is, at heart, the public nature of the acting profession coupled with the readiness of movie fans to conspire and criticise that creates an air of cynicism and dismay where it should otherwise not exist.
Furthermore actors have their own interests they wish to pursue. Nicholas Cage has said time and time again that he has a huge passion for history and in particular the often committed to screen medieval period. In turn it seems natural to his personal interests to pursue a role such as Seasons of the Witch. I understand that this will not garner him anymore fans by sacrificing his perceived ‘good’ movie choices for the sake of selfish reasons but who in truth would not chose to recreate a world in which they could immerse themselves, especially one in which they have a deep passion.
It is high time that we started to judge actors by the quality of their best work rather than the quality of their worst. Despite Cage’s arguably poor choices he has embodied and brought to life extremely vivid and memorable characters. His personal and career choices have left a negative potency to his characters but I implore that this be abandoned for virtue of his inherent and self-evident natural talent.
