Know about Knowing?

S

Sagan

Active member
"Knowing" 2009. It's another Nic Cage film that would have been more enjoyable without Nic Cage. Not that I actually hate him, (not as much as many people do), but I always think that any film he's in would be that much better if he wasn't in it.

Case in point, "Knowing". It's a pretty good apocalypse movie with a good story line, nice pacing, and some fairly good acting by the supports. But every time Nic appears I get distracted because I know he's just acting! Everybody knows about his "unique" acting style, and some people even go so far as to compliment him on it. But I just think it's nothing but deliberately peculiar. Like all actors he's more or less obliged to make himself "memorable" to make himself saleable in the film-making business. But I think the persona he's chosen to go with is a handicap rather than an asset.

I think he's an actor who relies too much on a manufactured appearance to carry his acting. Not that he's appealing-looking! I mean, that hair! I wish someone would tell him to get it cropped way back so that it doesn't look like a 50s kid trying to imitate an Elvis style... And I'd bet the farm that his everyday voice sounds nothing like his "movie voice". I don't know any other actor whose voice sounds so artificial and affected. If he really speaks like that in normal conversation, I imagine it discourages people from calling him for a chat! His profile is, to put it kindly, unfortunate. That lower lip hangs out like a chimp, and his back hump would do Quasimodo proud!

Last but not least, his semi-permanent scowl gets in the way of his acting. Even when he's supposed to be being mild, and happy, he frowns like he's just been insulted.

I enjoyed "Knowing", for many reasons, despite the fact that Nic Cage is in it.

How say you?
 
Last edited:
LOL, this is not as much a review of "Knowing" as it's a hate paean to Nicolas Cage :). I have not seen "Knowing", it's not usually the kind of movie I like, but I found your take on Cage interesting. I think there is such a thing as a performer who just gets under your skin, and that's an individual thing, a chemistry if you will, between audience member and performer. Now there are simply bad actors - i.e. actors who can't act, or are very poor at it, and who have no redeeming value on screen. But then there are actors who are "mannered", who have a certain style, which can rub people the wrong way - and others may actually like. Nicolas Cage falls into the second category. Take Jack Nickolson - that's a very mannered actor. I mean, he acts acts... you either like him, or you hate him - I think he can be pretty brilliant, but I like him in smaller doses, not all the time - he also has his "style", his super mannered way of speaking, his eyebrow trick etc, etc. etc. The thing about Nic Cage is that he's in all the movies - especially the B grade or exploitation films. Nic Cage has a schtick. If you are lucky, you like it, sort of like liking licorice - you might really, really like it, or you may hate it (for the record, I hate licorice). I am very lucky in that I don't hate Nicolas Cage - but I fully understand if someone does... because I hate many other actors, and it's unfortunate, because it limits the enjoyment I get from fllms they're in. Sort of like not liking a certain food element will limit your diet. I hate Colin Farrell - I think he's a no talent hack whose career I just don't understand... why does anybody employ this utter hack? But there you go - he's probably no worse than a thousand other hacks whom I don't hate. Sometimes it has to do - for me - with a hack who becomes super popular/big - I'm not offended by a hack who is recognized for being a hack, what offends me is a hack who for some reason is treated as a good actor, like Colin Farrell.

So I feel lucky not to hate Nic Cage - in fact, I often think he adds something to a film, like a spice. Yeah, he's goofy looking, and he has his bag of well worn tricks, but for some reason I can't bring myself to hate him - just as well since he's in so many movies :) - but I do feel for you :) To me, he livens things up - look at the movies he's often in - those are cheap stupid dumb movies (often - I have not seen "Knowing"), and Nic Cage comes in and stirs up the joint - someone you can clap eyes on and watch, since everything else on screen is so dismal and dull. This is akin - not exactly, but similar - to the actor who really can't nessesarily act, but whose entire reason for being is screen presence. Those actors always play themselves, because they have no range, but for whatever reason, we can't take our eyes off of them. They can even be bad actors, but have loads of screen presence and you just watch them hypnotized - Humphrey Bogart was such an actor... he was pretty bad at acting, but boy, you couldn't take your eyes off of him! Sly Stallone - much less of a screen presence, and he can't act, he's always himself on screen, the same Sly in every picture, still he has a bit of screen presence and that's enough. The Rock. Swartzenegger - same deal. Not all action hero actors are the same (at one point Nic Cage was regarded as an action actor!) - Bruce Willis can actually act, even if he mostly does the same thing in every movie, but he has a bit of range, whereas someone like Sly has none. But we watch those guys, because when they walk into a room, everyone notices - some folks just have that quality of presence. For Cage it's a bit different - when I see Cage in a film, I know he'll liven things up. If you want to get really depressed you should see all those 3rd tier actors who act in C or D grade movies and who for some reason are promoted to "action" status and who have neither acting ability, nor screen presence, nor any reason for being other than to depress the viewer - example: Scott Adkins (you might not even know who that is). At least Sly, The Rock, Swartzenegger, Willis etc. are first tier "presence" actors - there is also the second tier, guys like Chuck Norris who can't act his way out of a wet paper bag, and whose charisma level is tiny, but at least it's there, tiny, tiny as it is - you can stil (barely) watch him. Scott Adkins is a guy who not only can't act, but whose screen presence is zero - the level of a dead chicken... explain that career - my only thought here is that he apparently has some martial arts training, so he uses that - but man, what a total joke - and that face! But there you go. Now, would I rather watch Nicolas Cage - any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

So Nic Cage gets by through having a schtick. For some it's good enough. For others it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
 
OldCorpse said:
LOL, this is not as much a review of "Knowing" as it's a hate paean to Nicolas Cage :). I have not seen "Knowing", it's not usually the kind of movie I like, but I found your take on Cage interesting. I think there is such a thing as a performer who just gets under your skin, and that's an individual thing, a chemistry if you will, between audience member and performer. Now there are simply bad actors - i.e. actors who can't act, or are very poor at it, and who have no redeeming value on screen. But then there are actors who are "mannered", who have a certain style, which can rub people the wrong way - and others may actually like. Nicolas Cage falls into the second category.
Click to expand...

Well, what can I say to that? You've put my case better than I did. You didn't change my mind about Cage, but you gave me a lot to think about.

I can't agree with you about the value of "screen presence", though. When you think about it, every actor could be said to have screen presence, no matter how minor. Just the willingness to be photographed while pretending to be someone else implies a certain peculiarity in those people who act for a living, and that's something that fascinates ordinary people. I think what we think of as "screen presence" is just our subjective response to seeing this phenomenon on the screen. So, really, an actor doesn't need to adopt unnecessary mannerisms or affectations, unless they're inherent in the character he's portraying.

I think that what we really react to is the personal charisma of the person who's standing there being photographed. Even though we "prepare" for watching a movie by suspending our disbelief, we never entirely forget that we're looking at an ordinary person who's reciting words that he didn't think up, and exhibiting emotions that he doesn't really feel. That itself imparts a screen presence. So, when an actor deliberately strives to include eccentric mannerisms into his acting, it seems superfluous to me. I think, "Just act, for goodness sake! Never mind doing your "Nicolas Cage" bit every time!"

Of course, some actors can't avoid it. Humphrey Bogart is an excellent example. His personal charisma came though without any obvious effort on his part. You knew you were looking at H. Bogart even though he was pretending to be someone else. Because his charisma was so much a part of his day-to-day real-life personality, you enjoyed his acting even more, because you recognised the skill required for him to pretend to be someone else.

I completely agree re Colin Farrell. I think he gets work only because the script calls for "bystander with eyebrows". I hadn't heard of Scott Adkins, but I looked him up a few minutes ago and I've already forgotten what he looks like.

Thanks for your very entertaining reply. :D
 
Last edited:
William Shatner : Nick. Cage. Is. A. Very. Peculiar. (pause longer than the other long pauses combined) Actor.
 
NorBro said:
I think most people gave up hating NC after KA:
Click to expand...

Not me, Bro.

I've only seen clips of it, but what I did see just made me dislike Cage even more. Only Nicolas Cage would take a part in a movie that required him to fire a pistol at a little girl. Never mind that she's meant to be wearing a bullet-proof vest; the image isn't bad ass, it's just plain bad.
 
DLD said:
William Shatner : Nick. Cage. Is. A. Very. Peculiar. (pause longer than the other long pauses combined) Actor.
Click to expand...

lol, Yes, Shatner has his mannerisms, too. But I always find them to be at least appropriate to the characters he plays. And at least he speaks in his own voice. The pauses could be seen to be advantages to a screen actor, I think. The audience doesn't have to try to translate quick jumbled speech. And unlike Cage, his emphases fit his words. With Cage, I have to repeat in my mind what he's just said, because the curious emphasis he has placed on it has given it an ambiguous sense. Ambiguity is a good thing sometimes, if it fits the character. But it's intrusive if it's applied randomly.

There are scenes in "Knowing" where he's addressing his class, and all I could think of was that his students must have trouble learning anything from him.
 
NorBro said:
haha. That movie isn't for you if you think that's a bad scene (the one where he shoots her).

(But the save scene above is 'badass' for those who love the movie.)

Maybe this will change your opinion about him (lol):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0i4vRcLGcg
Click to expand...

I meant "bad" inasmuch as it borders on the offensive, (and I'm not easily offended by movies).

That Japanese commercial did nothing to change my mind, Bro. He was marginally less annoying because he wasn't on-screen for long enough to do his bit.

I might come to appreciate him one day, when he's cut that desperately overdone hair, and raised the pitch of his voice to its natural level, and stopped frowning at nothing in particular. But I doubt it. :)
 
lol. I'm pretty much being sarcastic the entire time (although I like KA, but the movie is very violent).

I know it's lost in translation, but this is usually what happens in threads like this.

I mean...what is there to really complain about? (Just saying in general.)

The guy is who he is and has made millions of dollars. It's clearly just a job for him. He's at the top of the list and a showpiece for criticism, but there are thousands of people like him that may irritate viewers in other ways.

This is life. People have personalities. Many much more questionable. We just get to see his on the big screen.
 
NorBro said:
lol. I'm pretty much being sarcastic the entire time (although I like KA, but the movie is very violent).


I know it's lost in translation, but this is usually what happens in threads like this.
Click to expand...

True. :)

I mean...what is there to really complain about? (Just saying in general.)

The guy is who he is and has made millions of dollars. It's clearly just a job for him. He's at the top of the list and a showpiece for criticism, but there are thousands of people like him that may irritate viewers in other ways.

This is life. People have personalities. Many much more questionable. We just get to see his on the big screen.
Click to expand...

True again. I guess I'm not complaining so much as letting off steam. I enjoy "Knowing". I've watched it several times and never fail to enjoy it. But after each viewing, I have that nagging feeling that, to watch a story I enjoy, I've had to put up with a player who seems to be wilfully trying to take me out of the story, and notice him. The best comparison I can think of is watching a tennis tournament, and one of the players has that annoying habit of grunting-groaning each time they hit the ball. I can enjoy the playing skill and the drama of the game, but that damn groaning keeps jarring me out of the moment.

And it's all so unnecessary. Nicolas Cage would be a passable enough actor if he simply played the parts he was called upon to play. But instead he plays "Crazy Nicolas Cage" every time. And his affectations don't add a thing to his portrayals.

I dunno, maybe if he was cast in a movie where he played a character called Nicolas Cage, he'd find his niche. ;)
 
Well, I'm gonna have to disagree wrt. screen presence. I definitely think there are actors who completely lack it - like in 0% screen presence. In fact, I'll go further - if you've ever sat through open call castings, where all sorts of folks apply, both pro actors, non-actors and aspiring actors, it's quite an eye-opener. I've sat through my share, where you, producer, others, the director + video camera. It's really shocking how some people just POP and others are complete non-entities. And it has little to nothing to do with acting skill. You may not know these people from Adam. Yet you recognize it instantly. It's just... presence! And as you sit there watching it, it's funny how everybody agrees - yep, this person has got "it" and the other has none. It's very obvious. And again - nothing to do with acting ability. Now, many actors have very little of it, and many have actually none. One of the reasons why a number of character actors can't be in the main role, is because they can't carry a movie - precisely because they have "X" amount of screen presence, but it's just not enough to carry a whole movie on their slender shoulders. Some character actors have a lot of it, and sometimes they can transition to a main role. And some actors, bless their hearts, just have NONE. And it is not really related to how known they are. There are amateurs who just have *loads* of screen presence and you simply watch them. But just because an actor is on screen doesn't mean he registers with the viewers, that he invites watching - as a viewer you can tire super quickly of an actor and don't want to watch him/her... they are best used as incidental characters who pass through the scene. It's an odd phenomenon, but quite real. It reminds me of those experiments they did with chickens, where a dominant chicken has a certain coloring/features on their face/beak, and other chickens just submit to their leadership - and scientists have gone ahead and put such markings on non-dominant chickens, and other chickens immediately treated them as dominant. There's probably something in the same neighborhood that happens with actors - some folks you just watch, and others you ignore - it might even be hard-wired, so that even behaviors from totally different cultures even though completely dissimilar in what is dominant or non-dominant behavior, nonetheless is recognized. A great example is the Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune - he had such a boatload of charisma that regardless of what culture you come from, you immediately spot him as someone to watch, and he stands head and shoulders above any other Japanese actor, it's so striking. Whereas any number of guys around him are completely ignorable even if they're the only ones in frame.

Again, that's slightly different than what we are talking about wrt. Nicholas Cage - he has a decent amount of screen presence, but that's not what we are discussing with him. He basically has mannerisms and tricks, and some just hate that, though as I mentioned there are many actors, some regarded as icons and among the greatest actors who ever were on screen, and yet some of them can totally be mannered too with a well worn - well worn - bag of old, old, old, same same same tricks, as I gave in the example of Jack Nicholson. But then there is the opposite example of Lawrence Olivier, who didn't have loads of screen presence, but who also was the kind of actor who had no "mannerisms", he never played "himself", instead, he was very flexible and able to play very different characters. Or take a different case yet... Robert DeNiro - here's a guy who does have a ton of screen presence, but who can play very different characters - although somehow, it's alway "him", LOL. Anyhow, actors love or hate 'em, they are the key element in what makes a movie. And for whatever reason, Nic Cage has proven he can carry a film, and so gets hired over and over again - though agreed, he's somewhat controversial in that a lot of people do hate him (whereas, random example, I never heard of anyone hating, say, Dennis Quaid - he just doesn't invite controversy).
 
OldCorpse said:
Well, I'm gonna have to disagree wrt. screen presence. I definitely think there are actors who completely lack it - like in 0% screen presence. In fact, I'll go further - if you've ever sat through open call castings, where all sorts of folks apply, both pro actors, non-actors and aspiring actors, it's quite an eye-opener. I've sat through my share, where you, producer, others, the director + video camera. It's really shocking how some people just POP and others are complete non-entities. And it has little to nothing to do with acting skill. You may not know these people from Adam. Yet you recognize it instantly. It's just... presence!
Click to expand...

I haven't been at any film casting calls, but I've been involved in stage productions. I suppose it's a different story there, because an actor has to have more than just a presence; he has to have a projectible presence. Subtle tics and mannerisms have to be restrained somewhat, too, because they won't be visible from the back seats. Peter O'Toole was a successful stage actor before going into films. But he didn't bring that projecting style of acting to film.

I think of actors like Alan Arkin. What did the casting director think when he auditioned for Yossarian in "Catch 22", I wonder. His persona is the very opposite of arresting. He plays the Everyman character with utter conviction, but when he isn't doing it in a film, he must be a boring guy to be around. He seemed to be born to play the part of Yossarian. Joseph Heller could almost have had him in mind when he wrote the novel. Yet he always plays a non-entity.

One of the reasons why a number of character actors can't be in the main role, is because they can't carry a movie - precisely because they have "X" amount of screen presence, but it's just not enough to carry a whole movie on their slender shoulders. Some character actors have a lot of it, and sometimes they can transition to a main role. And some actors, bless their hearts, just have NONE. And it is not really related to how known they are. There are amateurs who just have *loads* of screen presence and you simply watch them. But just because an actor is on screen doesn't mean he registers with the viewers, that he invites watching - as a viewer you can tire super quickly of an actor and don't want to watch him/her...
Click to expand...

I think of Cage as a wannabe character actor, without the skill to play "characters". So he acts offbeat and employs practised idiosyncracies as a substitute for acting. You either like his devices or you don't. I don't, because I can never think of them as anything but devices. I imagine what it would be like to watch a Sylvester Stallone movie in which he appears in every single scene, and said "Yo!" every time he delivered a line. The audience would start to boo.

It reminds me of those experiments they did with chickens, where a dominant chicken has a certain coloring/features on their face/beak, and other chickens just submit to their leadership - and scientists have gone ahead and put such markings on non-dominant chickens, and other chickens immediately treated them as dominant.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

A great example is the Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune - he had such a boatload of charisma that regardless of what culture you come from, you immediately spot him as someone to watch, and he stands head and shoulders above any other Japanese actor, it's so striking. Whereas any number of guys around him are completely ignorable even if they're the only ones in frame.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. But I always thought his charisma was very much a product of his demeanour. I mean, his face spoke for him. No matter how stern and firm his expression was, you always wondered what he was thinking, and what he was going to do next. He didn't have any tics or poses and he didn't put on airs, but that's what made him so watchable.

Nicholas Cage - he has a decent amount of screen presence, but that's not what we are discussing with him. He basically has mannerisms and tricks, and some just hate that, though as I mentioned there are many actors, some regarded as icons and among the greatest actors who ever were on screen, and yet some of them can totally be mannered too with a well worn - well worn - bag of old, old, old, same same same tricks, as I gave in the example of Jack Nicholson. But then there is the opposite example of Lawrence Olivier, who didn't have loads of screen presence, but who also was the kind of actor who had no "mannerisms", he never played "himself", instead, he was very flexible and able to play very different characters.
Click to expand...

Jack Nicholson traded on his natural personality, I think. His appeal was that he didn't give a toss, (or appeared not to), and audiences are attracted to that. Nothing is more off-putting than an actor who takes himself seriously. You just want to smack him and tell him to get off.

Or take a different case yet... Robert DeNiro - here's a guy who does have a ton of screen presence, but who can play very different characters - although somehow, it's alway "him", LOL.
Click to expand...

When I first saw "The Deer Hunter", the guy who stood out for me was Christopher Walken. De Niro was just another character in the story. It wasn't until the Russian Roulette scenes that he made his presence felt, with that phenomenal acting. But after those scenes, it was Walken who continued to command attention, (when he was on screen.)

Anyhow, actors love or hate 'em, they are the key element in what makes a movie. And for whatever reason, Nic Cage has proven he can carry a film, and so gets hired over and over again - though agreed, he's somewhat controversial in that a lot of people do hate him (whereas, random example, I never heard of anyone hating, say, Dennis Quaid - he just doesn't invite controversy).
Click to expand...

Yes it's curious about Dennis Quaid. He's just likeable in everything he's in. He's nothing outstanding, acting-wise, but he's unignorable.
 
NorBro said:
How about that Keanu Reeves?

People are OBSESSED (again) with him this year.
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that I have never, and will never, understand why Keanu Reeves in the movie business. And that's all I have to say about that.:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top