"I started to look for a guy to be at the center of a movie, and I met a ton of guys. They were different, unusual, great, but they didn't have this John Cusack thing I was looking for. [I wanted the actor to be] this very relatable, winning, funny guy." –Director Jon Kasdan, The New York Times, in the April 8 issue discussing the casting process for "In The Land of Women."
Had John Cusack never been born, it would be difficult for me to envision a situation wherein a woman would ever find me attractive. I think I speak for an entire generation of young men when I say — with all due respect to Charlemagne, Albert Einstein, and Biggie Smalls — that John Cusack is the most important person who has ever lived. Perhaps this is a bit of an overstatement. Let us simply say Cusack is the most important American to have ever lived.
Cusack's importance has nothing to do with his movies, although it should be noted "Say Anything," "High Fidelity" and "Grosse Point Blank" could legitimately be considered three of the best movies of the last 20 years. The genius of John Cusack comes from his inadvertent managing to redefine romance and masculinity for an entire generation. Falling in love is never going to be the way it used to be, and it's pretty much all because of Johnny C.
This is a very good development for people like me (Read: average-looking smart alecks) and a very bad development for, I dunno, people like the late Steve McQueen, who would undoubtedly be getting very little ass in this day and age. Before John Cusack came along, the ideal man wasn't the well-spoken monologist with a killer record collection; it was Steve McQueen and John Wayne, which is to say, big burly guys with cool nicknames who ate a lot of pork products and hated their wives.
Look at your grandfather. Now, I'm sure your grandfather is a very nice man, and I'm sure he has lots of wonderful stories about paying a nickel to get into the Polo Grounds. But try and imagine your grandfather dating in the modern world: Could he put together a perfectly realized mix tape? Could he sit through Jim Jarmusch movies? No, he couldn't, and I wouldn't expect him to, no more than I'd like to be expected to use a rotary phone or wear a fedora out in public.
That's not how people used to date. In fact, they wouldn't date. They'd just meet, get married, and then the man would spend the next 60 years complaining about his pants being too damn tight.
John Cusack made it cool to date the witty, wry, emotionally guarded guy. He wasn't the first to project this image, but he was the first to do so successfully. People might say Woody Allen got there first, but no guy ever consciously wanted to be a fidgety little clarinet freak, and no woman (with the exception of Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton) wanted to see him naked. Allen's best movies take place in a kind of fantasy land of his own making. They may have been funny, but there certainly was no shock of recognition.
Now, Cusackian qualities aren't just a charming abnormality, they are expected if you are dating a girl with any kind of intellectual or emotional curiosity. And this is all well and good for the rest of us, since the best qualities projected by John Cusack are the kind of involuntary intellectual and emotional tics that come easy to most men of less than 30 years who have a half a brain.
But now, here comes the problem: John Cusack is getting sort of old. Granted, he's only 40, but people have to wonder how much longer he can keep up the moderately dependable, emotionally unavailable hangdog routine. And this is troublesome, because once John Cusack segues into playing middle-aged family men, a whole lot of young men are going to need a new role model. And if one doesn't come along, who knows what could happen?
The search for a new John Cusack should be the most important issue in Hollywood right now. Forget piracy, rising budgets, and the search for the next great action-hero. If Hollywood can't find a new John Cusack, the world as we know it will cease to exist. Any preconceived notions you have about romance are going to be thrown out the window; witty observations about pop culture will no longer be acceptable ice-breakers. Men will begin to wear narrow ties, and the Western will make a comeback. It'll be the '50s again, minus the cool cars and cheap gas.
The media seem poised to anoint Adam Brody as the next Cusack, which would be a horrible, horrible error in the wiseass line of succession. Adam Brody may be the most overrated cultural entity in America today. Every time I hear him speak, I want to gouge my eyes out. He lacks Cusack's laidback charm and cross-gender appeal. He's a motor-mouthed spaz, full of fake sincerity, whose "O.C." character would probably have gotten decked in the mouth if he lived anywhere other than some rat's ass suburb in southern California. He plays the same shtick in the god awful "In the Land of Women," although it should be noted he's prettier than Meg Ryan.
Shia LaBeouf has received a lot of play in the media lately for "Indiana Jones IV." "Disturbia" was a really fun movie, and I easily could have seen that role go to Cusack 20 years ago. He also seems comfortable in dramas ("Disturbia" and "The Battle of Shaker Heights"). Still, I wonder about LaBeouf's comedic chops, and he also seems to be a bit of an idiot, as evidenced by his recent interview where he claimed he could adapt "The Catcher in the Rye" because J.D. Salinger was dead.
Emile Hirsch was great in the "One Crazy Summer"-esque 2004 comedy "The Girl Next Door," and his career trajectory seems to mimic Cusack's. But he doesn't have John's authority as an actor.
So, allow me to float a name: Topher Grace. Granted, I feel like I've been reading the same "Topher Grace is the next big thing!" article for almost five years, but the thing is, Grace is probably the best actor we have younger than 30. His performance anchored "In Good Company," turning the movie into an emotional powerhouse worthy of Billy Wilder. "P.S." was under-seen but beautifully done. And even "Win a Date with Tad Hamilton" was pretty good, in a goofy, inoffensive sort of way.
When I look at Grace, I see the same awkward charm and unique blend of humor and heart that was unique to Cusack. Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see. Either way, the very fate of humanity depends on Grace being able to take on Cusack's mantel. Do us proud, Topher. We need you.
Ray Gustini is a sophomore majoring in English and journalism. Do you ever ponder what life will be like in a post-Cusackian society? Send your questions, comments and cries of outrage to Ray at [email protected].
