Lesson from Nicolas Cage: Hardest Working Man in Hollywood

I never liked him, not as an actor. I didn't pay attention to his early career, when he was coming up or the roles he played; I was too young to have watched most of his eighties flicks when he was starting out. He oscillated between playing low energy monotone sad sacks and adrenaline juiced macho men. Neither role suited him His intensity was forced; his stare obnoxious. His emotion uneven; he didn’t so much cry as weep, painfully! His on screen presence was grating and cartoonish to anyone unfortunate enough to have purchased one of his films in the discount bin. The list of forgettable movies that stared the California native Kiss of Death, Trapped in Paradise and Deadfall were a starting point, nothing more. Like a baby bird pushed out of the nest too soon, he became an actor years before he was ready. Some said having a famous movie director uncle is what gave his film career a nudge. It wouldn't be the first time, Hollywood or Middle America, where nepotism was the secret ingredient in the success of an otherwise average joe. Nepotism is only a spark though. Talent is required at some point even if many people fake it for a while. Nicolas Cage got better with time and some of that acquired talent was in the selectivity of the films.

 The first time I noticed the talent, the likability and even the range was opposite Meryl Streep in arty film called Adaptation. Cage played two roles in the movie, brothers who are both writers but completely different in temperament and style. If this sounds like a recipe for a disaster script full of plot holes and excuses for Cage to overact both parts, it really wasn't. He played it straight which was a nice change from a man known for his outbursts and fits of emotion on screen. He managed the transition between the characters flawlessly and while dispensing with some of the ticks (sarcastic laughter, twitchy movements) he had become famous for. Having two veteran actors on set, Streep and Chris Cooper, may have elevated the tone of the set. Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Academy Award for his role, ...er roles. 

He had success before and after Adaptation, but I noticed it more in that one. He seemed to find his groove with the National Treasure films that featured an optimistic history buff uncovering secrets of America’s ‘founding fathers’. Although not a stretch artistically, the character felt like how a Disney version of Indiana Jones might look. Cage played it like a pro. In the Weatherman he was a Chicago meteorologist with a marriage breaking apart and no outlet for his frustration with everyday life. The movie wasn’t great but Cage allowed the story to develop around the character instead of pushing the acting in a singular direction. He really grew up in this film and refined the notion of what angry and determined look like on the face of a Nicolas Cage character. He was even better in the Netflix special Joe. Joe is a dark but simple portrayal of a rural Texas man struggling to be put his prison years behind him and find redemption. He shows in this role more than he tells about the reckless, but honest, nature of a criminal trying to stay on the straight and narrow. Much of this film involves Nicolas Cage doing a very un-Cage thing, holding back the viciousness and hostility until the script begs for it. Most people won’t see this movie but released in 2013, it remains one of his best.  

   

The lesson from Nicholas Cage and his catalog of films shows us that it isn’t how you start it’s how you finish. His lousy 90’s reels gave way to fuller scripts in the 2000s and the awkward moments overlaid with real talent. An actor should keep working no matter what; how are other careers any different? Whether you are a writer, musician, athlete, home builder, accountant or preacher, the process is the same—keep working. The best part is you get better. Look back every now and then from where you came and notice the substantive difference in the quality of the work. The rough edges aren’t there and a kind of comfortability with who you are sets in. Ugly proceeds beautiful and a star is born. So embrace the ugly and love the awkward, Nicolas Cage is living proof it gets better.

funny video from early Cage

Wisdom of P.J.

Today from the BBC: A gem about presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders from P.J. O'Rourke, who really has found a niche opining on baby boomer culture.

"Bernie seems a bit foggy on things that have happened since Woodstock, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. Bernie doesn't know the Berlin Wall fell and doesn't know he's still standing on the wrong side of it."

Defending the 'umbrella strategy'

 Doug Bandow of CATO on US defense

. 

The crux of his argument is that America isn’t getting full value from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and other defense pacts. Countries under defense pacts with the United States plow money into popular welfare programs and ignore their military commitments, letting Uncle Sam cover the tab. The ‘umbrella’ that the United States represents for other democratic countries is hugely expensive and becoming more so with the cutbacks hitting the military. I am optimistic that NATO is the best option for curtailing Russia aggression in Eastern Europe and everywhere. America needs to maintain that link even if the pact looks a lot different in twenty years. Asking members to contribute to their portion of the bill is always difficult and messy, diplomacy requires a delicate touch. The precious little help America gets in financial commitments from NATO is better than the nothing they would get without the pact. Intelligence sharing among member countries constitutes real time help even if it isn’t a direct economic benefit. Nations get serious about their security when they have to. Here is Mr. Bandow:

 

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Europe. U.S. officials and NATO leaders made their usual calls for members to hike military outlays, but most European states did what they usually do, continued to cut spending.

Under normal circumstances European behavior would be mystifying. The European Union demonstrates the continent’s ability to overcome historic national divisions and collaborate for a common purpose.

Collectively the Europeans enjoy around an 8-1 economic and 3-1 population advantage over Moscow. Even after its recent revival, Russia’s military today is a poor replica of that during the Soviet era.

Yet when Moscow acts against non-NATO members Europe’s eyes turn to Washington for military relief. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they push for U.S. action.

I think Thomas Sowell said that ‘there are no solutions only trade-offs’. It is frustrating how lazy NATO has made much of Western Europe; the trade-off though is non-aligned European countries fighting each other while Russia moves slowly westward. Would a democratic country struggling to keep its economic framework and infrastructure rather be neighbors with Germany or Russia? The answer should be obvious and without a strong NATO Eastern Europe wouldn’t hold up against a belligerent Moscow.  Here is Bandow on Taiwan and Korea:

 

Last week North Korea staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.

The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.

Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.

Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S assets to the Korean peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines.

A better response would be for Seoul to announce a major military build-up. The Republic of Korea should boost its military outlays—which accounted for a paltry 2.4 percent of GDP in 2014, about one-tenth the estimated burden borne by the North. The ROK also should expand its armed forces from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the DPRK’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But if the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot the ROK, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

It isn’t fair to compare the amount spent on a defense between North and South Korea. The North’s first priority is nuclear buildup at the expense of everything else, including food for its people. South Korea could, and should, do more to build up its own defense but it operates under budgets and voting the way all democracies do. If the political will isn’t there, the US will have to step back its obligations methodically.  

 America doesn’t protect allies just because it likes to root for an underdog. They protect them because stable democracies are not an aggressive military threat to their neighbors, they would rather engage in commerce. When the American Navy keeps sea lanes open it benefits everyone engaging in trade. Small countries like South Korea and Taiwan (ROC) couldn’t fend off an attack from a powerful Chinese military and the South China Sea could quickly become off-limits for American sailors and certain commercial vessels. Defense of Taiwan is part of a larger plan to keep the seas open and Beijing in check.

Doug Bandow is right in calling for America’s allies to step up financially and handle affairs where they can in their own neighborhoods. The current American ‘umbrella’ won’t last forever and a lot of nations could be left to fend for themselves. Money is tight everywhere and people rarely vote to build up the military in peace time. America’s role is crucial to world stability and it is the only option right now.