Edwin Arnaudin: Nicolas Cage still makes some pretty suspect genre movies, but projects like the darkly quirky Dream Scenario and other recent fare like Pig and The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent bring out the best in him. Were you similarly taken with the latest film from Norwegian writer/director Kristoffer Borgli (Sick of Myself), and are we in the midst of another Cage-aissance?

James Rosario: I think he’s at a point in his life and career where he's just taking on movies that interest him and roles that allow him to stretch his legs. Sometimes we get the over-acting, goofy Cage of old, but sometimes we get Dream Scenario, where he plays an average schlub who has celebrity foisted upon him for some truly bizarre reasons.

There are probably other actors who could have pulled off the role of Paul Matthews, a suburban family man, husband to Janet (Julianne Nicholson), and professor at a low-rent community college who inexplicably enters people's dreams, but it's exactly Cage's chameleon style and storied ability to get really weird when needed that make him absolutely perfect for the role. A Cage-aissance? Hell yes, bring it on.

Do you think directors like Borgli, ones with dark senses of humor and big, sometimes uncomfortable ideas, are tailor-made for actors like Cage? Or do you think he's simply able to adapt to any situation and make it his own?

Edwin: Throughout his career, Cage has shown that he's capable of pretty much anything — good and bad. But he certainly rises to the occasion with great filmmakers, particularly Martin Scorsese in Bringing Out the Dead and Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman in Adaptation, the latter of which comes to mind often in Dream Scenario.

Whether as "Charlie Kaufman" or here as Paul, Cage is magnificent at playing nebbish characters. There's a certain neuroses he's able to tap into like few actors can and it's a pleasure to watch. In Dream Scenario, that assignment yields plentiful laughter from one absurd situation after another. Once things take a darker turn, the film overall suffers somewhat, but Cage's performance remains impressive thanks, as you note, to his chameleonic ways.

How did the film's tonal shifts work for you?

James: The transition from a rather light-hearted and whimsical tale (think Stranger Than Fiction) to a cynical and almost sinister examination of self-victimizing conservatives is a bit awkward and abrupt, but it's by no means a deal-breaker. Yes, the first half is better, but without the shift in tone, where could the film possibly have gone?

A story like this can't keep its head in the clouds forever. Some darkness has to break through eventually, even at the expense of our comfort. Borgli (who also serves as the film’s editor) might not nail the landing, but the ride, thanks to the performances — Nicholson is also quite good, and Tim Meadows is deadpan hilarious as Paul’s boss — and plenty of cleverly veiled political and cultural jabs along the way, keeps it well on the interesting side of the road.

Without going too far down a political rabbit hole, do you have any interesting takeaways about what Borgli was trying to say with his film?

Edwin: First, it almost plays like a COVID metaphor as a mysterious "illness" hits people in similar yet distinct ways. But considering when the darkness descends, I think Borgli is more interested in skewering victimization and fame — both of which also stand trial in his other film from this year.

Paul's inability to stand up for himself, follow through on his dreams, or take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities presented to him are tragic, as is his intense rage when things don't go his way. Then there are the goofy musings by Michael Cera's ad agency CEO and insane final act shenanigans by a new breed of "influencers" that flex Borgli's satirical gifts.

James: I have similar observations, but I'll go one step farther. In the first half of the film, when Paul appears in someone's dreams, he's a passive observer who refuses to help in dire situations. He has the power to, but instead of taking action, he just stands idly by and watches the carnage. This could be a metaphor for climate inaction, indifference to police brutality and racial violence, late-stage capitalism, global hunger and genocide, alt-right nonsense, or any number of issues older generations and politicians don't seem too concerned about solving.

In the second half of the film, when Paul's dream passivity morphs into violent rage, murder, and mass death, Borgli is showing us the inevitable consequences of willfully ignoring the existential crises we and younger generations now face — crises we did not create but ones that threaten our futures nonetheless. I think Paul represents the damage done to our planet, economy, and overall quality of life by selfish Baby Boomers and entitled, out-of-control "Karens." A harsh assessment, perhaps, but Borgli has a keen wit and seems to revel in extremely barbed jabs at society's more ridiculous aspects (see Borgli's Sick of Myself for more on that topic) on top of easily-identified generational differences.

On the flip side, I could also see conservatives and those on the right latching on to Paul as a hero against "woke-ism" and cancel culture, as his self-pitying victimhood often rubs elbows with those Fox News rallying cries. I'm curious to see how moron pundits like Ben Shapiro interpret the film.

Edwin: And we haven't even gotten to the real-life inspiration for Dream Scenario, which you eerily introduced to our group after the press screening.

James: I'd like everyone to google "This Man," a concept I've been mildly fascinated by for well over a decade. The story goes that, in 2006, a "well-known psychiatrist" in New York sketched the face of a man who his patients had reportedly seen in their dreams. After passing the sketch around to other psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists, over 8,000 people have now claimed to have seen "This Man" in their dreams. When you read stories about the phenomenon, it sounds like the kind of hoax you'd expect from the early days of the internet, but it does bring up some very interesting concepts surrounding suggestion and marketing, which are more topics Borgli is clearly skewering with his film.

All told, I think Borgli has successfully and artfully taken on a myriad of hot-button issues without ever specifically naming any of them, and done so with both the stylistic eye of Bergman and Lynch and the unapologetic wit of Lenny Bruce and George Carlin — a potent combination that gets an A-minus from me.

Edwin: I was also frequently reminded of Beau Is Afraid, one of our favorite movies of the year, and it’s fitting that its writer/director, Ari Aster, is credited as a producer. Whenever a filmmaker is willing to tackle big existential topics and filter them through absurdist humor and creative visuals, I’m there. With both of his 2023 efforts, Borgli has certainly grabbed my attention, and though both films have their flaws, they show that the Norwegian belongs in the same conversation as the artists we’ve mentioned. I give his latest an enthusiastic B-plus and I look forward to whatever he cooks up next.

Grade: A-minus. Rated R. Now playing at AMC River Hills 10, Carolina Cinemark, the Fine Arts Theatre, Grail Moviehouse, and Regal Biltmore Grande.

(Photos: A24)