Zooey, exhausted

Leslie Armstrong
Arts Editor
A lot of people are willing to argue that versatility in actors and actresses is an important skill. They believe that actors are, in the truest sense, acting — playing a medieval heartthrob one moment and a psychotic clown the next, like the late Heath Ledger. Fans of versatility are likely the same people who crack jokes about Morgan Freeman’s voice.

Guess what? Freeman’s voice rocks. Why else would producers cast him in the same gentle, wise narrator-type role all those times? He plays the same character indefinitely, but in his defense, he built that character with his bare hands. He owns it.
I would say the same about my new unhealthy obsession as of late: Zooey Deschanel.
Anyone who has watched Deschanel in action knows exactly what I’m talking about. She typically plays the role of a quirky, deadpan idiot savant, seeming ditzy and slow at first, and then proving herself as a bright, genuine individual. It doesn’t hurt that she is uncommonly beautiful, with a pale complexion and a thick, heavy fringe.
It took a few films in her acting career to solidify her shtick. She debuted in Elf (2003) playing a skeptical Santa’s helper at a holiday themed shop, but she really honed her signature quality in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005) and 500 Days of Summer (2009). In Hitchhiker’s Guide, she nailed “funny-without-trying-to-be”, while in 500 Days, she was brutally and refreshingly honest about love.
Just when I thought that everything was going great for this actress — that she’d found her niche, her happy place — I got a bad omen after watching Your Highness (2011), an all-around crappy medieval farce. I’ve never seen a film use such well-respected actors — James Franco, Natalie Portman, and Zooey Deschanel herself  —  so poorly. Deschanel seemed to have drawn the short straw for dialogue, and sported an even worse English accent. In other words, her existing talents weren’t able to shine.
Maybe it’s too early in the game, but she seems to have picked up another ill-fitting role in the upcoming TV series The New Girl, which follows a young, klutzy woman who moves into an apartment with three guys after her boyfriend dumps her. Stylistically, the trailer was a horrible mockup of Taylor Swift’s music video for “You Belong with Me”, geek specs and all.
It’s not that I don’t like the idea of the show. To be perfectly honest, I could see myself getting sucked into a series about a goofball girl who is tactless in her love life —it’s easy to relate to. But why cast Zooey Deschanel, whose brilliance lies in nuance, blunt stares, and bone-dry sarcasm? The comedy of The New Girl revolves around physical humour and witty off-the-script dialogue, a kind of comedy best suited to actresses like Amanda Bynes (or, hey, Taylor Swift).
No need to hide it — I think she should make like Morgan Freeman and stick to her act. I think that she should stop what she’s doing and reevaluate the roles she’s taken on recently. If you think I’m afraid of change, consider this: can you remember a role where Michael Cera hasn’t played the romantically awkward teenaged boy? Like Deschanel, he’s honed his craft and got his character down to a science, and he hasn’t gotten any flack for redundancy. Quite the opposite.
What saves Michael Cera from redundancy is the wiggle room he’s created for himself. With each new role, he pairs another element with “awkward teenaged boy”. In Juno (2007), that other something is the sweet, straight honesty he delivers, like when he tells Juno that he thinks she’s beautiful. In Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010), the second element is his admirable intensity that drives him to Ramona Flowers. Having that alternate trait is also what saves Deschanel from monotony time and time again.
So why hijack Zooey’s routine? It was just getting polished. It was loveable, but better yet, it was sophisticated, artistic and precious. It was going somewhere. As I write, it’s being tossed out for a one-size-fits-all script, and exhausted on the wrong kind of film and television.