Michael Cera vs. the World
Are people being overly critical?
Photo: Universal Pictures
The drumbeats are already starting to stir. Over on film industry snarkfest Deadline Hollywood commenters are calling out Michael Cera after the failure last weekend of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Gotta love Hollywood. The folks in this town are worse than the political hacks in Washington, DC when it comes to overreacting and misinterpreting a single event or weekend.
Scott Pilgrim's poor performance comes at sensitive time in the career of Michael Cera. It was only three years ago the 19-year-old wunderkind was flying high after back-to-back mega-hits Superbad and Juno. That was after a four-year run on the cult fave TV show Arrested Development as George-Michael Bluth.
I personally thought there were a lot of reasons for the failure of Scott Pilgrim. Bad marketing by Universal that sold the film as a "hipster" film. Bad timing going up against The Expendables and the suddenly resurgent Sylvester Stallone.
Then I got a phone call the other evening from a couple of USC film students I've been hanging out with. They wanted to go to the movies and I suggested Scott Pilgrim. I really enjoyed the film the first time I saw it and I was up for going again. I figured three more tickets couldn't hurt Pilgrim's flagging box-office fortunes.
"Nah, we don't want to go to that." Came the response. "We don't want to see that kid (Cera). Nobody wants to see that kid anymore."
I didn't know what to say. Is it really that bad for Michael Cera that mid-20's film students don't want to see him? Isn't that his core audience? And before you start thinking that these guys might be too snobby for a film like Scott Pilgrim. Consider this. We ended up seeing The Expendables and they really enjoyed it. They weren't trying to get me to go to a Tarkovsky retrospective.
I understand some of the complaints about Cera. It does often seem like he plays the same character over and over again. Even when Cera wore a caveman suit in Year One he seemed to be playing Michael Cera. But, I think that's a little too simplistic.
A lot of comic actors rely more on their comic timing than they do immersing themselves in a character like the late Heath Ledger. People aren't getting sick of Vince Vaughn and he's a downright lazy actor at times.
In Superbad, Cera not only delivered his lines with impeccable comic timing, he also played the difficult role of straight man in Superbad to Jonah Hill and everyone else in the film. He gave that film a sense realism and gravitas that wasn't anywhere in the uneven script provided by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen. For what it's worth I think Goldberg and Rogen owe Cera at least 20% on every script they've sold since that time. He made them look that good.
His role in Juno was small but vital. Juno was sold as a hip distaff version of Superbad. I doubt seriously it would have made as large a splash in the marketplace without his presence in the film and he had a definite impact on the marketing. No one else in the film had been in a hit remotely as big as Superbad, including Jennifer Garner. And no one outside the film festival circuit had heard of Ellen Page.
I can't ignore the fact there was a lot of buzz about Diablo Cody and her script. Word of mouth on the film was huge, but it also resulted in a bit of a backlash. When it comes to movies I think we can all agree selling the actors comes first, I mean, why else do you think the Youth in Revolt TV spots (watch just above) started promoting Zach Galifianakis as "Zach Gali- The dude from The Hangover"? Juno became the "female Superbad" and Cera was "The dude from Superbad."
Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist was a minor hit — it made over $30 million domestic on a $10 million budget — but it may have been the beginning of the end for Cera. I enjoyed his performance, but the inevitable comparisons to the actor's earlier roles started with that film. I believe that comparison was due more to marketing than Cera's actual performance.
The next time fans saw Cera on screen was in Extreme Movie, a straight to DVD flick starring Jamie Kennedy. That film was originally made in 2006 and sat on the Weinstein brothers' shelf until it was released in theaters based primarily on Cera's sudden popularity. Hopefully, fans knew that Cera had little to do with Extreme Movie but you never know. It was a dreadful film.
He followed with the ill-advised duo of Paper Heart and Year One. Hearts was a faux documentary on the search for true love featuring Cera and his ex-girlfriend, the incredibly annoying Charlyne Yi. In a fair world, a sloppy, amateurish film like Paper Heart would have never seen the light of day. Because it starred one of the biggest stars around at the time, it was pimped by every major film festival and eventually found its way into theaters.
Paper Heart is the kind of film that separates the men from the boys career wise. Back in the mid 90's there was a similar small film featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire and pretty much everyone else in the young Hollywood at the time. That film, Don's Plum, was blocked from being distributed by DiCaprio. He knew it wasn't up to the quality of a feature film and would be marketed solely on the names of those involved. That was a smart move by DiCaprio. Paper Heart was adumb move by Cera.
Year One, on the other hand, seemed like a smart move. Directed by comedy legend Harold Ramis and co-starring Jack Black, it must have seemed like a can't miss prospect. It did miss. It missed by a lot. I don't think you can blame Cera for the failure, however. He more than held his own with the hyper-kinetic Black. He was funny and likable. The movie just didn't connect with audiences.
Then the wheels came off. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they filmed Youth In Revolt. That was one unwatchable movie. It didn't really matter, because no one did watch it. Opening weekend box-office was just under $7 million and it quickly went downhill from there. The Weinstein Company title ended up with a worldwide total just over $18 million, which most likely barely covered its print costs.
How bad are things for Cera now? Let's put it this way. Two years ago he was one of the busiest actors in Hollywood. Now he's only being mentioned for two projects. The long rumored Arrested Development movie that has no script, and Warner Brother's proposed Gilligan's Island movie. Who else is rumored for that "all-star" cast? Seth Rogen and Beyonce. That should get the stockholders juices flowing.
I think it's a little too early to write off Cera's entire career. He's only 22 for crying out loud. But, its safe to say he's in serious trouble. And I think that's a shame.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 33 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Well I think you are right when you say Michael Cera currently is in a very delicate position.
I think the main problem here is that the reason for his success is precisely the reason of his very possible failure. He is a good actor with comedic timing but the audiences where engages by his weird persona more than anything. He is the perfect nerd teenager that everyone loves and a fresh alternative to the classic teens (Zachs, Taylors…), but the question is… Can he translate this charisma to the adulthood? I don´t think so.
He has a weird voice, a weird face, a weird body… Nothing on him is attractive as a man, what was cute as a teenager suddenly is annoying as an adult.
As he is a talented actor I think he will have a career as a supporting actor but no way as a star.
For me is a similar case to many child actors, the best example is Haley Joel Osment… he was hugely popular, nominated to an oscar and a great actor but he lost all the charisma and charm in the transition to be a man.
Nothing against Michael anyway, and the best of lucks but this is my opinion. Oh, and sorry for my English, I´m from Spain.
You're English is great, and I completely agree with you. Especially about the transitioning from teen to man comment. Spot on.
YOUR English. Geez, and I'm a native speaker.
Haha… Thanks!! ;o)
I think it's easy to write him off because it seems he's publicly denounced his George Michael character, yet hasn't gotten far away from that role and that's really the main complaint. I personally don't like him for the same reasons most people do, but I also loved Scott Pilgrim and it wouldn't have been good with anyone else but him. I enjoy his personality and know he's a good actor but I would love to see him do more with his characters. But maybe it's the only role he can do and we can mildly enjoy him over and over again.
I quite enjoyed Paper Heart and Youth in Revolt, even if they weren't sucessful. And with Youth in Revolt we got to see him break out of his typical role with his alter ego…
I fear that asking him to play another character is like asking Woody Allen to pay another character. Then again, I doubt Woody Allen would be in too many movies if he didn't make them himself.
I feel that the Cera backlash has a lot to do with the attention span of today's audience. People who watched Arrested Development would have been familiar with him for longer, but for the vast majority of the mainstream audience they would have seen him break out just three years ago. Isn't the rule that most celebrities have a seven year limit before the downslide? Maybe, for today's youth, that's more like two…
I like the comparison of Vince Vaughn. But look even further back: Jimmy Stewart. Yeah, there's the odd film here and there where he acted out of character, but as one of the most successful and beloved of all screen actors he's a guy who rarely showed his range. And, with The Expendables as box office champ, why doesn't this "same old, same old" complaint not apply to people like Stallone or Li? Jet Li's craft is martial arts, Cera's craft is awkward teen… you know what you're going to get when you buy a ticket, and you go because there's not a lot of people who do it better.
I think it's a shame that he is as locked into type as he is at the moment, but I don't think it's an unfamiliar phenomenon in the slightest. Plenty of our biggest stars play the same persona in movie to movie.
Not every movie is destined to make 100 million dollars. Pilgrim's advertising was, in my opinion, fairly accurate to the film (which I would currently rank as either my favorite or second favorite movie so far this year). It's a niche movie for a niche market, and it's definitely not Cera's fault. Honestly, if Cera would've been the selling point on this movie I probably never would've seen it.
I do not know anybody who has ever read or owned a copy of the "Scott Pilgrim" comic books…something relegated to 12-year olds perhaps, but nobody from my hood. As for Cera he looks and talks like such a fey nerd, that no wonder the supposed targeted 'fans' for this type of film stayed away in droves.
I think part of the blame (or cause) falls at the hands of one Jesse Eisenberg. He's the guy everyone was calling "the poor man's Michael Cera" when Adventureland came out, but he's since followed that up with the critical/financial darling Zombieland and gained credibility by taking roles in more serious movies like Solitary Man and (potentially) The Social Network. It doesn't hurt when your breakout movie is something as brilliant as The Squid and The Whale, but Eisenberg has just made better choices than Cera and has avoided that whole hipster stereotype.
I'm not saying Eisenberg is a better actor (I think he is, but that's not the issue here). He has just done a better job of avoiding overexposure by choosing the right blend of indies and mainstream movies with a variety of different target audiences and demographics.
I think after The Social Network, no one will be calling him "the poor man's Michael Cera".
I personally think the failure of Scott Pilgram had mostly to do with marketing. I wasn't crazy about the film, but I don't think it's BO was a result of MC being the star. He does seem to play the same type of character often, but that can be said for most actors IMO. Most actors play the same sort of characters most of the time, but I guess their characters aren't seen as annoying.
geez… am i the only one who likes michael cera? i can point out other actors who play themselves in every movie, lets see… justin long, jonah hill, danny mcbride, will ferrell, but they sell movies because of their comic timing and i believe michael cera has wonderful timing…
Actually, I don't think anyone here is hating on Cera. Quite the contrary I'd say.
Well, I don't see the failing performance of Pilgrim as a backlash on Cera. More like, It was a niche film and was marketed as such. There fore, most mainstream movie goers said this movie probably isn't for me because they were told by the marketing this movie wasn't for them. As far as Cera's career goes. Yes, he has a problem. He always plays the same character and I realize Vaughn does the same thing but Vaughn's humor is more mainstream. Not as dry. He gets the laughs, Cera is just the straight guy. Straight guy's shouldn't be expected to open movies. He'll have a great career as a character actor. Provided the script is written around the only character he knows how to play!
Playing yourself or one type of character has worked for lots of actors. Jeff Goldblum. Christopher Walken. Etc.
I could see Cera having a career like those guys…
Michael Cera (in my honest opinion) is one of those actors that i find doesn't so much ACT as he IS naturally…if that makes sense. that saying, i think he's a good actor! & i enjoyed the film immensely; it was different & true to the comic books, & downright hilarious & quirky.
will u all stop hating on micahel cera!!!!
ok who gives a fuck about his voice or how he looks or how his face look or his body!!! the fucking point is that he is fucking great actor!!! y the fuck give a shit about his look huh what are u gay for carying his look!! ok no body is fucking perfect ok!!!!! all of his movie is fucking great i love them all i enjoy watching them ok. FIRST read the fucking comic of scott pilgrim and i say he did act like scott pilgrim and 2nd youth revolt he was playing a character lets say like a loser well not that much of a loser that he was in love with this girl and he changed for her just to be with her i must agree paper heart was boring but still he is a great actor so fuck all of u haters
Wow… someone is totally lost. No one is hating Michael Cera here and as for me, the one that talked about his look and his voice is my fucking business if I´m straight or gay but nothing to do with my comments.
We are trying to figure out why Michael Cera seems to have lost the appeal for the mainstream audiences these days, only two years after breaking as a star. In my opinion, and I do think he is a brilliant actor, he is not destined to be a star, to be the one above the title and opening big movies. He has not charisma as an adult and I can´t imagine him having a diverse career as DiCaprio, Farrell, Whalberg, Damon or Downey Jr. They are stars and sadly or not, have something to do with the way they look but is not a question of being hansom or not.
Only the comedy A stars are sometimes weird looking (Carrey, Ferrell, Black…) but I don´t see Michael Cera having this kind of career.
If you are the PERFECT teen nerd is very possible that you loose your appeal when you are not a teen anymore.
Once again, nothing against him or his acting. I´m only trying to do an objective analysis about stardom,
No, reading the source material to get the full enjoyment out of a movie should not be required.
I agree with you on some points Brad, I think Cera is a good actor but he has a tendency to play very similar roles, that nebbish, awkward character. He's always chasing the girl, he's always a bit off kilter and he never seems to change too much. He's not the only one Jay Baruchel might have a problem in the future. If he's funny then playing similar roles shouldn't matter but I think Cera is only as good as his material. He doesn't seem to bring much to a role apart from his own presence (much in the same way that Jack Black brings his manic enthusiasm) and that's only going to hamper him in terms of how he's perceived. You know what you're going to get with Cera whether you like it or not.
If he mixed it up earlier in his career maybe we wouldn't be at this point but if he does decide to change it, it may just be seen as a reaction to his floundering success. I'm not totally sure why people have this adverse reaction whether its just jumping on the bandwagon or not liking his persona its difficult to accurately pinpoint. Youth in Revolt (i thought) was a good film, its a shame that it wasn't seen by many others as it shows him attempting something different. Then again there are many other actors who do exactly the same thing again and again, a list thats longer than my arms that are more successful than he is.
So in conclsuion – who the hell knows!
I completely agree. Really like the guy and it's a shame that public turned on to him so quickly – hell it's a shame that it did it anyway. A lot of actors play themselves over and over, but I guess Cera's bad luck has to do with the general character he's playing – a character people don't like. I have to say it's doubtful that he could successfully go the route of Jesse Eisenberg – get a breakout, star in a couple of indi-comedies but not wait until everybody starts hating you, and instead do dramatic films. Cera, at least right now, definitely doesn't impress me as a good dramatic actor. But as a comic actor, he's absolutely great and it's a shame nobody likes or wants to see him in those roles.
His range, or lack thereof aside, Cera just doesn't come off as leading actor material. He's too slight (not just physically) is combined with his rather wan, featherlight charisma holds an audience only for so long. As a supporting actor he's tops—he does have great comic timing—but as a the star draw, he just plain lacks.
What bothers me about him is simply the fact that he will always act the same way. He cant change into a character. He finds movies where he can act the same as he did in Superbad and in Youth In Revolt. I want to see him be different , i want to not watch him in a movie and think the character hes playing resembles every other character hes played in his career. He needs to understand that quick or every movie hes in will just feel the same mostly because he isn't acting any different from previous roles.
From what Michael Cera says in interviews, he doesn't even like being that famous. If it turns out his movie career is over, it's not like his life is over. You're right: he's only 22. He can easily go on to something else and live a great life.
I don't know if he wants to be famous or not. I think he enjoys doing comedy and judging from his on-line work he enjoys creating new material. In a recent interview he even said he has some script ideas for the Arrested Development movie. (Something that I'm sure made the writers and producers cringe a little, but who knows)
But whether he likes fame or not, it would be sad to see him end up a mid-20's has been. He deserves better than that.
Some of you are straying from the point. It doesn't matter if Michael Cera is a good actor or not. If you gave every person in the country a chance to act, you would find millions of good actors. The point of the article, I thought, was his marketability.
Going to the movies is a fantastic experience. If we want reality, we can knock on our neighbors door and talk to them for 90 minutes. @Borjatdl is on the right track. People playing teenagers can get away with awkwardness, and general dweebishness. But older actors cannot. I feel that watching Michael Cera in a lead role is like being victimized by modern art, where part of the joke is that you are buying tickets to see him. Stars need to be above average in looks, and sexy in some way. Micael Cera never will be. But I wouldn't mind him as a neighbor.
Ditto Toby Maguire. He is now relegated to indie films and I would suggest the stage. He can't even do TV because his previous success in Spiderman (playing a teen!) means he is potentially distracting in an ensemble cast. Like the success of Mr. Whipple in the Charmin commercials, doomed that actors ensemble work.
I am making a film about a skinny un-attractive jewish boy with a frank spencer-ish demeanor, although i am concerned about the current market saturation in this genre do you think Michael Cera would be up for his fifth movie playing this role? yours sincerely
Jerry Bruckheimer
Based on a few interviews I've read, he seems more interested in writing. As of now he's co-writing and producing a show for FX called 13th Grade, so I guess we'll see how that goes, assuming it works out. Based on Clark and Michael, I think he could certainly carve out a place as a writer, and probably direct at some point.
I personally think Scott Pilgrim Vrs the world what a great and funny movie. I understand his voice is "Fugged" as I get told all the time but I must say. Michael Cera is one of my favorite actors along with Jonah Hill. He has great timing. I don't even remember him in Juno. As for Kickass, I honestly though Michael Cera was going to play Kickass, I was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but Michael Cera in Extreme movie what just a "role playing" rapist. He met a girl online and he went to the wrong apartment where the lady beat him. I also hear the game to Scott Pilgrim was epic, which I should be downloading the demo soon to it. The comic basically was just made and sold to movie industries, from what I know. The last copy of it came out a month ago I believe. Either way my opinion stays same, Michael Cera is a great actor with great potential. I'm sad to say that I even agree he won't last forever but I sure do hope he does at the same time. Now most of the times I usually just watch the funny movies, not crappy movies like "The Expandables" or "Last exorcism". I won't watch crappy action movies to where they talk for ten minutes (Kids don't say "TEY TLK FER MOR TAN 10 MINOTES"), and then fight. Sorry I just won't. I'd rather watch Lindsey Lohan hit a baby with a truck. Now I can already tell I will get replys, so if you're going to reply, make sense of it. Thanks. Daniel.
Michael Cera just needs to choose the right script with the right director.
Tom Hanks was eight years in the feature film business before he got Big; Hanks had to get past Punchline, The Burbs, Joe Versus the Volcano, and The Bonfire of the Vanities before Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, and Apollo 13 locked him in as a serious film star.
Harrison Ford might have never had an acting career beyond playing Han Solo if Raiders of the Lost Ark and sequels, Witness, and Working Girl hadn't established his acting range.
It's always an unknown question whether an actor is typecast into one type of role because (a) that's all he can do; (b) that all he can get cast in; or (c) that's all the audience will accept him in.
An actor who is unwilling to risk a series of disasters in against-type roles can never find out which of the three the problem is.
But once you've gotten past that hurdle, you can play a Nazi in 1976 (Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man) and a Nazi Hunter two years later (Laurence Olivier in The Boys from Brazil).
Good luck, Michael Cera. Some of us out here want to give you that chance.
Cera's problem is that he has a screen persona that quite frankly isn't the stuff leading men are made of.
Audiences don't care if their leading men aren't particularly handsome, pretty or tall. They do however want to root for a guy who doesn't come across completely as a wimp. Compare, for example, Michael J Fox 25 years ago a short, Canadian not stunningly handsome actor who, also looking like a teen to boot, became a superstar because, unlike Cera or the creatives that have encouraged him to repeat the George Michael character in subsequent ventures, he didn't play the wimpy underdog.
Imagine Marty Mcfly as played by Cera and you get what I mean. Audiences want to live vicariously through their leads and won't do that with actors that uncomfortably come across as more real than the idealised standard.