Nicolas Cage – good or bad? Stardom, performance, and memes in the age of the Internet
Nicolas Cage – good or bad? Stardom, performance, and memes in the age of the Internet
复制标题
尼古拉斯·凯奇——互联网时代的明星、表演和迷因是好是坏？
DOI：
10.1080/19392397.2016.1238310
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. McGowan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. McGowan
摘要本文以尼古拉斯·凯奇为例，探讨了数字时代电影明星角色中可能出现的复杂含义和矛盾。凯奇一直受到奥斯卡奖的尊敬，最引人注目的是凭借他在《离开拉斯维加斯》(1995)中的表演获得奥斯卡最佳男主角奖，并因改编而获得同一类别的提名。(2002)。在整个21世纪初，他还享有票房收入最高的明星之一的特权地位。然而，凯奇最近的许多电影在评论界和商业上都表现不佳，有几部电影完全绕过了电影院。失败的明星传统上被视为一条相对直线的默默无闻的道路，除了任何精心上演的卷土重来或丑闻的淫秽时刻重新引起人们的兴趣。然而，在互联网时代，这条轨迹可能会更加复杂。在过去的十年里，凯奇的明星形象在不经意间成为了网络米姆的突出主题。新技术使得这种“文本挖角”(亨利·詹金斯的说法)能够接触到比以往任何时候都多的受众。这篇文章将考虑这样的方法是否应该总是被认为是进步的，作为对受众的授权。凯奇经常因被认为过度而在网上受到嘲讽-当零碎的剪辑在没有原始背景的情况下以粉丝编辑的形式呈现时，这种解读可以说是提高了。这是对一个客观上糟糕的演员的公平批评，还是重申了美国电影表演中自然主义的至高无上？
ABSTRACT Using Nicolas Cage as a case study, this article discusses the complex meanings – and contradictions – that can develop within a film star’s persona in the digital age. Cage has been venerated by the academy, most notably winning the Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar for his performance in Leaving Las Vegas (1995), as well as receiving a nomination in the same category for Adaptation. (2002). Throughout the early 2000s, he additionally enjoyed a privileged position as one of the highest-grossing box-office stars. However, many of Cage’s recent films have underperformed both critically and commercially, with several bypassing cinemas entirely. Failing stardom has traditionally been viewed as a relatively linear path towards obscurity, save for any carefully-staged comebacks or salacious moments of scandal that revive interest. In the Internet era, however, this trajectory can be more complicated. Over the last decade, Cage’s star image has inadvertently become a prominent subject for online memes. New technology has permitted such instances of ‘textual poaching’ (to coin Henry Jenkins’ term) to reach a much larger audience than ever before. This article will consider whether such an approach should always be considered progressive, as an empowerment of the audience. Cage is often lampooned online for perceived excess – a reading arguably heightened when fragmented clips are presented in fan edits without their original contexts. Is this fair criticism of an objectively bad actor, or does this reaffirm the primacy of naturalism within American film acting?