Nic Cage assumes his Final Boss Form
And you'll probably be glad he did.
“Do you think he's the murderer?
It’s worse than that, he's an actor.”
At this point you’d think I’d just move on to other topics. It’s been nearly a month since A.O. Scott, the (former) co-chief film critic of The New York Times, announced that he was stepping down. But I’m still doing a thing on it, not only because I said I would, but also because I think there’s a pretty interesting discussion to be had prompted by his explanation of why he quit his beat. He (of course) wrote a soliloquy on why, but I first heard his interview on the podcast The Daily - which I thought was slightly more interesting because (I’m) Michael Barbaro got to challenge him on a few points.
*A bit of a warning, I’m going in deep with this one.*
Before I (eventually) get into the specifics of why Scott decided to switch over to book reviews, I figure it’s worth addressing the value of digging into his comments at all. Let’s start with the fact he was critic at large for one of the most notable news properties around. Even though the world is quite different than when Scott started writing about movies in 2000, The Times still holds a spot in the cultural consciousness, and its reviews most definitely hold a spot in the minds of Hollywood. His position gave him a certain purview into a world many participate in (by watching), but don’t have the same level of access to. Plus I’ve always found his reviews to be thoughtful and well written, so I was curious about his thoughts on an industry in flux (isn’t it always?).
But beyond his personal situation, the context of reviewers in general has shifted. I think it’s fair to say critics have always had somewhat of a fraught relationship with the media they comment on, but I’d argue even more so than ever - in large part because their voices are heard far less heard than they used to be (though I don’t have data to back up this claim), in part because there’s just “too much” - too much other stuff to pay attention to, too many other voices (podcasts, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok etc.) and also what feels like a general distrust of any prescribed authority in a world where “living one’s truth” is paramount.
Ok, on to The Discussion. So as I mentioned a few weeks ago, as I was listening to Scott’s talk with Barbaro - which, if you’re at all curious, I encourage you to give a full listen to - I took a few notes and grabbed quotes to get at what I thought were some of the most interesting parts. The first thing I latched onto was Scott’s thoughts on what purpose a critic serves. An idea that while obviously very debatable and somewhat ambiguous, is worth considering because they do exist and are oft referenced, if also often derided. Scott posits that they’re…
“Not necessarily an expert or an authority, but a companion.“
And maybe more importantly, one that may not agree with your opinion - and even challenge it! Which as I mentioned above is somewhat antithetical to the tact of allowing one’s “truth” to go unchecked. Obviously no one can tell you how you feel about a movie. But the other person can tell you how they feel, and you can consider their words. It’s less about trying to convince someone that something is bad or good, but presenting a take that, if one is open to receiving it, might just enrich their viewing experience. It places the reviewer not in a position of righteousness (although that doesn’t mean some won’t try to take that position), but of another voice. An open question almost. And one you don’t even need to answer, just consider.
And on that same path, Scott also describes a critic as being…
“The antidote to hype.” because “Every movie comes on a tide of marketing and publicity and advertising.“
Which I also find to be a fair point, because of course the studio releasing a movie is going to tell you everything that benefits their product (as they should!). But there’s potentially value for the viewer in having someone without a vested interest give their take1.
And who knows, maybe you actually agree with everything the marketing presented. It could indeed have been “the most fun you can have at the movies this year.” Hell, audiences clearly made their choice with The Super Mario Bros. Movie, a film many critics didn’t like. One could even say moviegoers didn’t overthink it. 🙃
But even if you read a review, disagreed with its thoughts, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth reading. Maybe it made your opinion even stronger because it made you consider what you really liked / disliked about the movie. Or maybe a movie looks / was boring AF, but you read something in praise of it. Scott noted how it was his job, at least as he saw it, to produce something concrete enough that you have to at least address it.
“And the challenge for a critic is to be able to challenge your readers, but also retain your credibility, have them still trust you, and at least say, that movie sounds like nothing I ever want to see. But he might have a point.”
This one holds a particular space for me because it irks me when people take little effort to consider another point of view on something. I have said six bajillion times how I’m no fan of the Transformers movies, but I actively try to, and honestly feel like I do understand why other people enjoyed them. If someone feels oppositely as strong as you do, it feels lazy to me not to consider why. But then again, so what to that “lazy” person? Why does what I say matter? I guess what I can say is, I personally enjoy hearing a differing or maybe just parallel take. It activates me. Brings me to life. But that doesn’t mean all takes will be heard with equal validity. And sometimes you don’t want to take the time to consider anything but whats right in front of you. And that’s ok! Scott actually gets at this too wrt “challenging” media, noting that…
“forcing yourself through difficult cinema on the way to aesthetic transcendence. That’s not everybody’s Tuesday night. But the danger is that those experiences get more marginalized, get lost, fall out of people’s repertoire of experiences that they seek out.”
This is where I feel like the larger industry stuff comes into play, and the other aspect of the discussion I want to dig into. Scott makes a point in both his written exit interview and on the podcast that he does feel like the movies are in some sort of crisis - even as he notes people have said this numerous times throughout the decades, going all the way back to when “talkies” became a thing. Scott notes that the rise of streaming caused certain movies to be removed from theaters and combined with the rise of superhero movies, has “blunted the impact” of certain movies. Which is where he sees the “crisis”.
Barbaro challenges Scott on this and asks whether…
“if this is truly a crisis for film or a crisis for a film critic.“
Scott, to his credit, consider this…
“And is it a crisis just for this particular film critic, right? I mean, there are lots of movies out there. There are a lot of people writing about movies. There are many of them writing wonderful and insightful things. So I’m not here to proclaim the death of cinema or the death of criticism.
But I have found that the way that I’ve practiced it has gotten harder to do. And also, the feeling of disconnection between the critic and the audience feels much stronger And the gulf feels much wider.“
That gulf is I think caused by what I mentioned above. The “other” that people have in their lives. So I would argue that there isn't any “crisis” at all. It’s far too easy to blame the changing world rather than our dislike of that change. Random aside, but I remember a talk I went to where Flea, yes from The Red Hot Chili Peppers, talked about how he didn’t want to sound like a grump old guy, but Hollywood was just “better” back in the day, when he was 15. Of course Hollywood’s changed, but so has Flea! Nothing is the same as when you’re 15. And movies aren’t the same as when Scott started. Yes there’s a glut of superhero movies, there’s endless streaming content etc. etc. But to the 15 year old’s of the world, all they know is the world as it is. And they have near limitless options of media to consider. Which I'm sure they'd lament if you snapped your fingers and took away. Sure, someone older might say this means there aren’t the same shared experiences, or they'll lament the death of toiling around a video store, or that “the algorithms” can push people into echo chambers (which aren't a real thing).
Barbaro challenges him again asking…
“Is all of this maybe not actually a bad thing? I mean, are they collectively democratizing forces in the film world that are giving people what they want? And is it possibly true. That the old Hollywood that you are fond of was a little snobby and a little insular?“
And Scott says he wouldn’t want the industry to go back to what it was, as it was a far more “exclusionary” and even an “actively racist” place. So what’s the real issue causing the crisis? Well, beyond the stuff he already mentioned, he never fully defines it which sort of leaves the listener to interpret.
Personally, it reads like someone having done a thing for a very long time, enjoyed how they did it and the impact they had with it, but over time the world shifted to blunt that impact? I don’t know, I think dissecting that might be a whole other discussion. And ultimately it doesn’t matter. He’s stepping down as is his right. And maybe that’s how it “should” be? He did his time and now is moving on to other things. 🤷♂️ Scott is a human like anyone else, affected by the world around him and at the very least, I have to consider his opinion on it.
Or do I?
NEWSY BITS 👾
HBO Max to Be Renamed ‘Max’ With Addition of Discovery+ Content, Launch Date and Pricing Revealed [changeover happening May 23 in the US. The switch was pretty much known, but now it’s official. They also announced a bunch of new stuff, including a Harry Potter TV show and another Game of Thrones spinoff based on The Hedge Knight (fuck yeah)] - Variety
Behind Apple and Amazon’s Billion-Dollar Bet on Movie Theaters [the gist here is that Apple and Amazon are betting the bigger theatrical push will help drive viewership on their streaming services. This is basically the same “trickle down effect” (not that kind) studios have counted on for years to help movies perform better on DVD and with rights sales - basically the theatrical release is in part, an “ad.” Not literally of course, but you get the idea] - Bloomberg
Netflix’s Approach Shifts, Pushing Content That Can ‘Pop’ [a profile on the new head of marketing for The Flix, Marian Lee, and how the company is focusing more on less with their content, and thus shifting their marketing strategy to highlight individual projects vs just Netflix as a whole] - The New York Times
EXTRA CREDIT MOVIE(S) 📝
Mafia Mamma - when the trailer came out I said this would be “A certain stinker until you have Toni ‘please cast her in everything’ Collette as your lead.” Turns out, still a stinker even with Collette as the lead. 🤷♂️ The reviews still like our star, it’s just that she apparently can’t overcome a trite script and meandering tone. It is set in Italy and has some feminist vibes going for it, so I guess that’s a plus? Playing in (Kinda) Limited Theaters this Friday.
Suzume - It’s another anime from director Makoto Shinkai (Your Name) that’s getting glowing reviews, but will probably only kill with a certain crowd inside the US (even as the rest of the world helped it become one of the biggest anime films ever). Bit of a bummer as the reviews say it’s at first glance odd, yet very affecting story about nationalist trauma (it deals with the 2011 tsunami that killed 20,000 people in Japan) and grief told via two teenagers in love works extremely well. If you’re even remotely curious, it’s probably worth a look. Playing in Limited Theaters this Friday.
What else can you say about Nicolas Cage that hasn’t been said? No, I mean that literally. Please tell me, because I’m not sure I have anything original to write about the actor who has had what feels like more cultural comebacks than starring roles (at least 111 according to The Googs). The dude is thespian commitment personified, so you can bet your throbbing neck veins (editor’s note: weird thing to bet, but ok) on the fact he goes full on with his vampire rendition.
But while Cage as Dracula is a big part of the sell here - and maybe ultimately the main draw - you should think of him as more the topping on this bloody sundae2. I mean, the movie is titled “Renfield” for a reason. It’s the ol’ classic let's tell a story you know but from a new perspective bit. Using Dracula's bug eating familiar helps shift the weight of things, allowing Cage's blood sucker to punch things up here and there rather than having to carry it all. Which does seem like a pretty smart switch, but reviews are a bit mixed on how effectively the movie nails all of it.
But first, some quick context. If you’re not aware, Renfield is an OG character from Bram Stoker’s original Dracula. And indeed, he did eat bugs, or rather, he fed those bugs to rats and birds and ate those to acquire their “life force.” Odd stuff. Here Renfield is transformed from a psychotic devotee to an abused employee played by the always great (and dare I say underrated?) Nicholas Hoult who when he stuffs his face with spiders and the like, basically becomes a superhero. Convenient for the action bits!
Ok, back to reviews and story stuff. Critics are quite predictably loving the casting of Cage as The Count and praise Hoult nearly as much, saying he’s far too pretty to be as funny as he is. But that things get a bit convoluted and muddy with the intermixing of a mob sub-plot involving Awkwafina, a cop who helps Hoult realize the toxicity of his situation. No shock here either, Awkwafina is also getting plenty of love3.
So wait, the three leads are are all supposed to be great, but the movie is getting just ok reviews? Ummm, yeah that about sums it up. I guess reviewers were hoping the movie might focus its attention a bit more on the toxic relationship between the boss and his underling vs basically setting up gruesome action sequences.
But even if the ice cream of this sundae might be a bit vanilla (metaphorically, cuz vanilla the flavor is actually quite delicious), remember’s there’s always the cherry on top (see: Cage).
🍒
Out: Friday
Where: Theaters
1 hr 33 mins | R | 🍅: 63%
The amount of exorcism movies far exceeds the number of legitimate expulsions of the devil’s influence. Which isn’t hard considering exorcisms are total bullshit and none of them are real (the demon residing in a human part, the priests throwing holy water and saying hoo-y, yeah that’s real). But the idea of them fascinates the public in such a way that we’re still getting movies about them every few years with some slight variation on the original, even though the og set the possession genre bar so damn high no one has really come close since.
The twist here? It’s, as the title says, that we’re dealing with the Pope’s personal exorcist. Dun dun dunnnnn. Why does the Pope have an exorcist? I dunno dude, but he was apparently a real guy, Gabrielle Amorth, who claimed to have performed 60,000 exorcisms. Sixty thousand. Assuming he performed them for 50 years, that’s 1,200 a year. Hmmmmm. That’s a lot of demon bashing4. 👿
Of course the movie takes all sorts of liberties and kinda makes someone who had questionable opinions - that yoga and Harry Potter are satanic and lead to evil - into a bit of a hero. But outside of that, don’t be expecting anything all that different from the stories that have come before. Some poor child actor (well, hopefully not that poor after this 💰) will still be strapped to a bed, writhing in filth encrusted pajamas while they speak with the voice of the devil who is done by…. Chris Pratt?! Oh, you didn’t know Chris Pratt does exorcism movies now too? I’m kidding. His voice is still stuck in the body of Mario at the top of the box office for at least a few more weeks. No, our main man here is Russell Crowe, an actor, not unlike our boy Cage, who can’t seem to turn it off, even when the schlock factor is pretty high (just to be clear, Crowe doesn’t voice the devil, he plays the exorcist guy). Critics are fairly middling on the movie as a whole, saying if not for Crowe’s ability to elevate any line he delivers, the movie might’ve turned out like the bile thrown up by those possessed in the movie. 🤮
And if you disagree with me on the validity of exorcisms, that’s ok of course, but it might affect your level of interest for a movie like this. Although I’m not sure in which direction…
Out: Friday
Where: Theaters
1 hr 43 mins | R | 🍅: 60%
As the placard above says…
It’s more Indy, and that’s all right with me.
Looks fun!
First movie directed by Charlie Day from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
A better trailer than the teaser, so hoping it turns out all right. Same director (David Lower) as Pete’s Dragon and The Green Knight.
A combo documentary / narrative on the career of one the most like-able actors to ever act.
J. Lo don’t let people mess with her child.
although of course they have an interest in keeping you reading, as their product is their words
not that one
can she lead another movie already? The Farewell was excellent. She’s an amazing side-kick, we know this, but let someone else be her side-kick for once
sounds like Charlie Sheen level boasting