One way to look at the variance might be to try plotting extremes instead. For example, plot the highest and lowest rated movie by an actor in a sliding 5-year window, with labeled movie points. (Even Cage isn't prolific enough to have enough movies in a single year to show a good min/max.) Overlay a few actors for comparison. Cage's two min/max lines will probably be usually be well below/above the controls. This would be more intuitive than some sort of variance measure, because you can see what the low/high points were: 'Cage's best movie in the late 2010s was the crazy _XYZ_, while Robert Downey Junior's best movie was just _ABC_, so even if Rob's average is higher, you can see why people might watch more Cage despite incredible stinkers like _DEF_ way down there'.
One way to look at the variance might be to try plotting extremes instead. For example, plot the highest and lowest rated movie by an actor in a sliding 5-year window, with labeled movie points. (Even Cage isn't prolific enough to have enough movies in a single year to show a good min/max.) Overlay a few actors for comparison. Cage's two min/max lines will probably be usually be well below/above the controls. This would be more intuitive than some sort of variance measure, because you can see what the low/high points were: 'Cage's best movie in the late 2010s was the crazy _XYZ_, while Robert Downey Junior's best movie was just _ABC_, so even if Rob's average is higher, you can see why people might watch more Cage despite incredible stinkers like _DEF_ way down there'.
why you do him like that
why you do him like that
The meme section should mention this dramatic compilation posted to Youtube back in the early 2010s. It's fascinating:
Nicolas Cage Losing His Shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zySHepF04c
HODL nic cage