Because there's a myriad of ways it is about loss and the way it echoes through time.
#Hulk pig feeder movie#
It sounds trite to call Pig a mOvIe aBoUt lOsS because it goes far beyond the simple conceit of Nicolas Cage’s truffle pig being taken from him. And I want you to see it because I have to get into detail as to why. Seriously, If you haven’t seen the film, spend the four bucks to rent it.
#Hulk pig feeder series#
Which is important because the story is also constantly, but subtly playing with your expectations of what the film “is.” But it can only achieve that because both Cage and the filmmakers make every crystal clear right choice through its evolution, all en route to the incredible final series of scenes. He’s someone so clearly wounded, yet you understand how humane every motivation of his behavior is. I genuinely can’t remember the last time I loved a debut feature as much as this? Probably Ducournau’s Raw? Anyway, Michael Sarnoski has done it and Cage is absolutely tremendous. But when it all lines up? When Cage’s performance choices are aligned with the director’s vision and more importantly, how the story is being told? Well, that’s when you get something special. Likewise, we often applaud when Cage goes more restrained for a good drama or finds unexpected sweetness in a character (like the dad in Kick Ass), but that doesn’t always translate to automatic success (see aforementioned redbox era). I genuinely think his Face / Off performance is one of the best of all time (I really mean that). If the film is more subdued and straight-forward and he’s playing bigger, he’ll get accused of “over-acting.” But sometimes that high energy is exactly what helps a film achieve its equally operatic goals. So the real question of whether or not it works is just “how it fits” into the film around him. Sure, sometimes it might be “big,” but it’s always earnest. Heck, even in his late redbox era, he always seems engaged and brings energy and truth to what he’s emoting on screen. He’s genuinely a great and passionate actor. This is what’s always been the fascinating thing about Cage. It’s “knowing what the assignment is” and being able to line it up with everything else happening in order to work in service of the story around you. But if that character is suddenly gung ho about the filming then it… gets rid of all that baseline tension? I mean, where does that leave the conflict that drives the entire film? The truth is that this kind of thing is really important not just to storytelling choices, but the profession of acting. Because EVERYTHING that works in Shadow of the Vampire, comes from comedic tension of the fact that this director is trying to wrangle this very real ancient vampire into doing all this movie stuff.
But aside from the fact that this would have been a pretty late game change, the real problem is that it’s one of those fun short-sighted changes that would nullify the entire core conflict of the movie. And all of sudden Cage had this idea of like “wait, what if the vampire character was a huge movie fan? That would be so funny!” And suddenly he’s off imagining that version of the character (which, granted, I’m sure could play as funny or something). Now, I’ve been trying to google the clip of him telling the story and I can’t find it (has google gotten unusable or is it just me), but I remember it going like this: They’re pretty deep into pre-production and they’re having a read through meeting. And 2) one of the first films Nicolas Cage actually produced. To wit, there’s this great story that Willem Dafoe told about working on Shadow of the Vampire, which is 1) a good meta film about the making of Nosferatu where the “real” story is that John Malkovich’s character hired an ACTUAL dangerous vampire and he has to keep this under wraps from the crew.
Some of them aren’t even *that* wild, they just feel more out of place.
There are two things that are deeply and equally true.Ģ) He also sometimes makes buckwild choices.
0 kommentar(er)
