Pick your villain

Here's my out-of-left-field pick for a cinematic representation of Cheney: Sutter Cane from Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness. He lurks in shadows, inspires mindless devotion among his mad followers, and is studiously writing a new reality (tying into your post from yesterday), which he dubs "the new bible," unleashing cosmic terrors that forever alter the psychological and physical landscape of the world.

I also disagree with Elmer Fudd as Cheney, for two reasons. 1) he had a conscience, always actually feeling instant remorse when he thought he had actually hurt Bugs ("What have I done? I killed the wabbit..."), even though that had been his intension. And, more significantly, 2) he was very concerned with following the rules--in particular, he wouldn't hunt rabbit if he found out it wasn't rabbit season, as was the premise of Chuck Jones' hunting trilogy in which Bugs and Daffy play on Elmer's gullibility and law-abiding nature by trying to convince him that it was only legal to hunt the other. Elmer doesn't make any attempt to create or change the rules, and wants badly to follow them. (Although there was one short in which he framed Bugs for tax evasion, so maybe I'm wrong....)

As far as Cruise, as you've said before Jim, at least great directors know how to use him (Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia," Spielberg's "Minority Report," Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut.")

JE: I think Edelstein's Elmer Fudd comparison was a comment on Cheney's hunting abilities. As for Cruise, yes -- he has to be used by a director who makes his desperate overacting an interesting part of the character -- like in "The Color of Money" or "Eyes Wide Shut." (I find him unwatchable in "Magnolia" because it's just too easy. In retrospect it seems like a harbinger of Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" -- actors allowed to indulge their worst impulses, not for the benefit of the film.)

Oh, right, and there's still Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," (bitter, power-hungry, a bit racist, seemingly has the entire state, at the local level, in his pocket) although, uh, he never tortures anyone or never perverts or violates the Constitution of the United States. Definitely a lightweight in comparison.

I've long thought Dick Cheney is the role Edward Arnold was born to play, or vice versa...

Jim, I must take exception with your Cruise comment. You're right, I absolutely did cringe at that scene - and at Cruise's performance throughout that movie in general.

But that scene doesn't "prove" anything about his abilities - it's a bad movie, whose screenplay and soap-opera editing and lighting make all the actors look bad (with the exception, I believe, of Kevin Bacon). Nicholson's over-acting is cringe-inducing as well - he pulls it off better than Cruise, but it's a ridiculous performance, for a ridiculously-written role.

But I don't know how one couldn't see a night-and-day difference between Cruise in "A Few Good Men" and Cruise in "Minority Report," "Collateral" or "Magnolia."

JE: I said it was a reminder, not "proof." I agree it's a bad movie through and through. But shouting Aaron Sorkin dialog does no one any favors. Look at how Nicholson holds something back, even when he has to deliver an impossible speech. I mentioned it elsewhere, but I think the best uses of Cruise are in "The Color of Money" and "Eyes Wide Shut." His egomaniacal determination (just about the only thing he's capable of playing) is essential to both characters.

You can't HANDle Tom Cruise!

To be fair, "A Few Good Men" is just not a good movie overall. The hack screenplay and, hate to say this Rob cause I love ya, but hack direction from Reiner capture the worst of Cruise AND Nicholson. Nicholson walks away looking decent only because he had the saving grace of having a half-interesting character. Really though, his performance is over-the-top, noticeably so because of the disastrous screenplay/direction whereas his over-the-top work in "The Departed" was fine and fun because Scorsese understands how to film it, how to capture a whiff of realism and how to make the direction entertaining/ he has Thelma Schoonmaker as his editor so the bring out the best in Jack.

By comparison, Cruise has a stiff cliche character, the direction does nothing to overcome that and Cruise can't save himself, in fact, he makes matters worse with his blank face, constant yelling without nuance and his hand's uncontrollable urge to make stroking gestures. Maybe it's frustrated by the lack of sex in the film between Moore and Cruise's character so now the hand is expressing its rage through violent/masturbatory movements. Whatever the case, watching a few scenes from "A Few Good Men" is watching a few too many and minutes of your life you'll never get back.

Onto debate two... Tom Cruise might not be a great actor but, like all actors, give 'em the right role and let his repressed zaniness and loose/ exploits his compulsion to be intense and he's frighteningly effective. For examples, I point to "Collateral", "Born on the 4th of July", "Minority" Report" and especially "Magnolia" (or, in a not-as-impressive but amusing example, "Tropic Thunder"). I can also stomach his work with Crowe and Kubrick but only because he's in a Crowe or Kubrick film.

Despite his off-screen antics or, in some cases, all the more because of them, I like Cruise for specific roles, but, like Robin Williams, there are some roles he should never been given lest he regress to the sort of performance we see in "A Few Good Men".

It's true of all actors though, give them more to work with - or something that's right for them - and they will give more back or the perfect performance like, I feel, Cruise gave in "Magnolia".

My advice to Tom: avoid square-jawed straight roles. Look for funkier roles, they're always your best. You also tend to make a more interesting villain than hero... Or maybe just... a creep? ...Sorry... Oddball?

Believe it or not that's the first time I've actually seen that clip. Oh, I've seen Nicholson shout "You can't handle the truth!" which seemed cool enough.

But...goodness...in its entirety, that's jaw droppingly awful.

(I know this post isn't REALLY about Tom Cruise - but comparing political figures to movie characters is a parlor game I'm not prepared to play)

I took another look at "Magnolia" about three weeks ago. I hadn't seen it in a long time, and the Tom Cruise part struck me as being sequestered from the rest of the movie. I'm aware that Anderson wrote the part specifically for Cruise, and maybe that is why it seems that the actor is driving the character rather than the other way around. At the end of the day I still enjoy that performance, and, to a greater extent, the movie.

Is typecasting part of the problem? It is for so many actors. Whatever the case may be, it is a little painful to watch Tom Cruise most of the time.

Hmm...who's the bigger villain we want to rant about - Cheney or Cruise? :)

Actually, now that you mention it, Colonel Jessep might be the embodiment of Dick Cheney. You don't want to know what I'm doing to keep this country safe. You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. Etc.

The kind of arrogant self-righteousness - that anything that I do to benefit my country is morally correct - is one or two steps removed from horrors like Auschwitz, gulags, etc. And I think it maps to Dick Cheney quite well (apart from those parts of Cheney's character which I won't mention for fear that doing so might be libellous).

While I know this community isn't much into TV, and even less into animated TV, I have 3 children. So I've been exposed to some very fine (imho) animated shows that have elements that appeal to parents as well as to children. Things like Avatar: The Last Airbender; Batman The Animated Series and particularly Justice League Unlimited.

For the first two seasons of Avatar, Firelord Ozai would be a good candidate for Dick Cheney. And there's an interesting scene in the Justice League Unlimited episode "Patriot Act". The US government has a project trying to find ways to control or limit the superheroes, precisely because they're loose cannons who can't be controlled. Project Cadmus includes a general who, in "Patriot Act", has himself injected with a compound that turns him into a 500 pound behemoth that he thinks can challenge and defeat Superman, and he starts tearing up some city's downtown to try and get Superman to respond. The trouble is, Superman and all the rest of the really big names are several light years away, leaving non-powered heroes like Green Arrow to hold the fort. There's youtube clips of the relevant parts at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHXjMgdIQk&feature=PlayList&p=F05B42A623E3C5C3&index=23
and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMPX8M77bw8&feature=PlayList&p=F05B42A623E3C5C3&index=22

cruise gives a terrific performance, and one that is arguably even better than dustin hoffman's, in "rain man." and he deserved the nomination he received for "magnolia." watch the scene when he returns to the seminar after learning that his father is dying... so explosive, yet so subtle, a perfect balance.

JE: I find Hoffman in "Rain Man" unwatchable, too.

I've always thought Tom Cruise was one of the most self-conscious actors around and have also thought he was incredibly self-conscious in the few interviews I've seen with him. He never sounds genuine - as if he's rehearsed his answers (both words and presentation) ahead of time. His jumping on Oprah's couch looked completely pre-meditated and staged.

I thought his best role was Magnolia if only because, as you said, the role draws on his worst impulse. Mackey is completely self-conscious, and Cruise is able to pull off the character by just being himself.

I concede the point about Cheney re: Elmer's hunting abilities. But Andrew Sullivan pointed out that Nixon is disqualified because he has a conscience--I thought it only fair to give poor Elmer the same treatment.

I see what you mean about "Magnolia" (and, for that matter, "There Will Be Blood") but I enjoyed them both; I think the performances fit the characters very well.

And I forgot to mention, but yes, that right hand in that clip is pretty ridiculous! I remember watching "A Few Good Men" and liking it--but I was about 12, so maybe I can be excused for not knowing any better.... (I've always liked the "Simpsons" parody with Sideshow Bob way better, anyway. "You can't handle the truth! I deride your truth-handling abilities!")

Well this has apparently turned into a Tom Cruise post. As any reader of Cinema Styles knows, I'm no fan. But Magnolia is him playing egomaniacal, which you said is all he can play (and I agree a thousand times over). It's him playing himself I believe and thus he does a damn good job. I'm surprised you mention his performance in that film as being one of his you don't like. Hell, it's one of the only one of his I do like.

And I can't ever put Daniel Day Lewis in the same category as Cruise, even by indirect association as you've done here. Jim, I know you've made dissing TWBB a second career at times, but really, there's good ham acting and bad ham acting and Lewis does the good kind. In all my years of performing on stage and working with actors in the theatre and in college getting my degree with them, I've seen some of the worst ham actors in the world. Lewis ain't one of 'em. Makes me think you wouldn't appreciate a good ham performance by Laughton or Oldman.

I sent Sullivan this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VAedKcu7kQ) from Aguirre: Wrath of God. Aguirre is the ultimate usurper of power, driven by his blind ambition (see that little speech about Cortes, substitute Mexico for the Middle East), never phased by setbacks, not constrained by conscience or concern for people, unable to foresee/care about consequences obvious to any sane and sentient person, and, ultimately, all alone, adrift surrounded by corpses (lets say, Elizabeth Dole, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales) and crazy little monkeys (i.e. Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, A-- C------).

I was also thinking of Klaus Kinski, but for Cheney you need more of an uncomfortable comic-horror element. Kinski in Crawlspace.

Regardless of which villain fits Cheney the best, he certainly looks like one. Below is a link to a "fullscreen gigapan viewer" of Obama's inaugural address. Zoom in (keep double-clicking) on where Obama is and notice the villainous looking and scowling Cheney (and the tart-looking Bush) sitting behind him. It's such a perfect image.

http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c

John Huston as Noah Cross. They've both got the grandiose vision, the clear conscience, the inner serenity, and the disdain for anyone too simple, too stupid or too weak to understand and appreciate what he's had to do to make it all real.

Magnolia is a great movie. Tom Cruise is excellent in it. As he is in basically everything I've ever seen him in.

There Will Be Blood is a great movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is excellent in it. As he is in everything I've ever seen him in.

Jim, your opinions here are laughable; as they have always been. The only desperate overacter here is you.

Great post and discussion.

I think Jack's onto something. Think about it. If you asked Cheney why he does it, what could he buy that he can't buy already, he might just say, "The future."

One question Jim: I'm not sure what you mean by this: "I find him unwatchable in "Magnolia" because it's just too easy."

What part is too easy exactly? The conceit of the character? If it's the performance, then the result would be bland, not "unwatchable."

An important thing to keep in mind is that Frank, Cruise's character, is acting in pretty much every single scene of the film. He's created a screen which he lives through, and the greatest parts in the performance are when he's fighting against his emotions to maintain his persona. (Obviously I'm a fan.)

Jim:

You talk about how Cruise is only effective when his "desperate overacting" is an interesting part of the character - and yet you say he's unwatchable in "Magnolia." How is his performance in "Mangolia" NOT a perfect example of what you said? The character is a desperate performer - he's performing when we first see him on the TV commercial, he's performing in front of his crowd at the seminar, he's performing during the interview (even before it starts - "I thought we had started - I am firing pearls at you!"). That's what he is - he has created himself as an image, as a brand, and his entire job is to perform like the Frank T.J. Mackey that he has created. Performance - acting - is the character's entire livelihood.

I also think there's a pretty clear distinction between his performance in those scenes (the seminar, the ad, the interview) and the few other moments where we see him in different states of mind - when he's less in control, when he's more uncertain of how to behave and straddles the line between the impulses of the projected image he has created for himself and his impulses simply as a person (a line, actually, that most of us straddle from time to time - one reason, of many, that I actually found the depiction of that character a very honest one).

But those scenes are beside the point for the purposes of this argument - the main point is that this performance in fact epitomizes everything you say WORKS for a Tom Cruise performance. (The "desperate overacting" you speak of is certainly a more important part of his character in "Magnolia" than it is in his character in "Eyes Wide Shut.")

What's wrong with overacting? If you think about it, there is only "acting" or sincerety - no real in between, just different styles. No actor can be "real" playing a character with an audience/camera/crew watching them, and a non-actor's performance I'd say is more a product of how they're directed.

We know way too much about Tom Cruise's personality right now, but in twenty, thirty years he'll just be another former star and we can watch his performances unbothered by his real-life persona (as if we could really say what that was, anyway). And we'll see that he was sometimes bad but mostly good, electric, and sometimes excellent.

Jim, you brushed off L. Marcus' comment about Cruise's performance in Rain Man by touching on Hoffman's (which I don't find terrible so much as a tad misguided) but Cruise was wonderful in that movie. The scene near the end where he's able to tell his brother he loves him is absolutely beautiful and no actor could've done it better than Cruise, because there's no actor like Cruise.

If Kinski's got his madness, Stewart and Hanks have their Joe schmo charisma, Nicholson's got his joy of performance and Grant's got his grace then let Cruise have his "egomaniacal determination." Some people are like that. Like Cruise.

Tom Cruise's turn in Magnolia may have redeemed him for just about every smiley films he's ever done. I don't see Frank MacKay as a villian. The character has more of a bent towards the antihero archtype. What really does make him a villian in Magnolia anyways? Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) and Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall) qualify more villianous ranks. Magnolia doesnt wade into embellishing heroic and villianous archtypes,it rather projects a gamut of flawed men.

PT Anderson's previous Boogie Nights was similarly devoid of any clear marked villians. Punch Drunk Love has a bullyish Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and despite his strutting demeanour doesnt win higher points as a consummate villian.

Daniel Plainview (Day Lewis) aspires for villiany in There Will Be Blood and succeeds in acheiving it more so than Frank MacKay. Then again, Plainview charachter can be seen as a darker shade of an anti-hero.

For me Frank Booth in Blue Velvet claims unprecendented ground in depicitng cinematic evil. Dennis Hopper really nails the protovilliany that make other look benign bystanders.

Completely and totally disagree with you about both Cruise and Daniel Day-Lewis.

Cruise raises the intensity and his voice and body language in this scene (in this case, his vigorously pumping right hand), and there is a purpose for it. His whole intent during Nicholson's stint in the witness box is to ignite Col. Jessup's emotions, rile him up like a camper jabbing a pair of tongs at a rattlesnake. Can this be done by speaking softly, eloquently, unemotionally? Not on your life. Now watch Cruise while Nicholson speaks. Stone-still. Silent. Eyes intent, unblinking. He's watching Jessup, waiting for his overwhelming pride to do him in. And when he sees that Jessup's almost swallowed the bait, Cruise goes in for one last shouting match to push him over the edge. Great scene, great acting by Cruise and Nicholson, and I don't care what you say about it. The picture as a whole, though, suffers badly from being shot (and scored!) like a daytime soap opera, but I still find it pretty enjoyable overall.

You want to pick on a Cruise role, try watching him in Mission: Impossible 3. Lord preserve us.

As for Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood," well, please elaborate on what you think his "worst impulses" were in which he was apparently allowed to indulge. What I saw when I watched that very great film was an extremely nuanced performance of a character I had never seen before on the silver screen.

This scene always reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail--the part where they're trying to figure out a strategy to defeat the killer rabbit, and someone says, "Perhaps if we taunt it, it will become so angry that it will make a mistake."

What about the puppetmaster/antique shop owner from Stephen King's "Needful Things"?

Though, I'm not sure that guy was as evil as Cheney.

Seriously, trying to knock Daniel for TWBB is just sad. Your no longer entitled to an opinion.

Regarding Tom Cruise, his performance in Sydney Pollack's The Firm was quite compelling (my personal favorite Cruise film)- I think in large part due to Pollack's efforts.