Should Tom Cruise
have an Oscar? He is the definitive movie star of the last 40 years. Without
the help of Marvel, Star Wars, or animated movies, he's amassed a staggering
lineup of hits. He's had at least two $150 million hits in each of the last 4
decades. I doubt anyone can match that. Movie stars don't have to have Oscars
though. And that's what makes Tom Cruise's case interesting. He's chased Oscars
almost this entire time that he's been box office gold. Rain Man won
Best Picture. A Few Good Men and Interview With the Vampire were
Oscar players. Born on the Fourth of July, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia,
Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, The Last Samurai, Collateral:
these were all Oscar hopefuls in their own way, almost all from auteur
directors. Cruise even turned Jerry Maguire into a legitimate Oscar
threat. Then, he shifted to producing Oscar hopefuls like Lions for Lambs
and Valkyrie when he resurrected United Artists. He's mostly abandoned
the hunt in the last decade. Only American Made has been anything close
to an Oscar play. But, when you look at Cruise's career, does it seem like he
should've snuck in an Oscar win somewhere? Think about it. Brad Pitt is an
Oscar winner because he happened to produce 12 Years a Slave. Someone as
connected as Tom Cruise I'd think would've stumbled into an Oscar somewhere.
The great missed
opportunity of his career has to be Born on the Fourth of July. The
stars were aligned, it seemed. He was fresh off being the actual lead in the
Best Picture winner the year before (Rain Man). Director Oliver Stone's
last Vietnam movie, Platoon, won Best Picture 3 years before. The year
before Dustin Hoffman won the Lead Actor Oscar for Rain Main, Michael
Douglas won the Lead Actor Oscar award for Wall Street (also an Oliver
Stone movie). Born on the Fourth of July was even an Oscar behemoth. It
got several major nominations and won Stone the Best Director award. A Lead
Actor bid doesn't come in better situated than Tom Cruise's.
Tom Cruise gives a
huge performance. Pure Oscar bait. He acts big. He acts hard. He never crosses
into being cartoonish or melodramatic. Compare this to some of his fellow
nominees that year. Kenneth Branagh was doing Shakespeare in Henry V.
That kind of theatricality was decades past its Oscar viability. Morgan Freeman
in Driving Miss Daisy was understated in a way that almost never wins.
Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society was the "just happy to be
here" nominee. Most years, Tom Cruise would've had the award locked up.
Then came Daniel
Day-Lewis. Fuuuuck. That performance in My Left Foot overlapped and
outdid everything Cruise did in Born on the Fourth of July. Tom Cruise
can't walk? Well, Daniel Day Lewis can only move a single foot. Tom Cruise
yells? Daniel Day-Lewis howls. And that movie came out of nowhere. Miramax was
in its infancy still. Jim Sheridan was a first time director. Daniel Day Lewis
was a first-time nominee that no one outside the art house theaters knew. If Tom
Cruise really does care about winning an Oscar, this has to be the loss that
keeps him up at night. His nomination for Jerry Maguire was a bit of a
surprise to begin with, so losing to Geoffrey Rush that year wasn't a huge
blow. The field was wide open when he lost for Magnolia in 2000. At the
time, he undoubtedly figured there would be more nominations in the future.
Instead, he's on a 20 year cold streak, despite seeing several costars getting
nominated.
So, to answer my
own rhetorical question: Yes, Tom Cruise should have an Oscar by now. The fact
that he lost for Born on the Fourth of July should've necessitated a win
later, as a "make-up call" at the very least. Personally, I found
this movie about as subtle as a brick to the head, but it's one of Cruise's
finest roles and unlike just about anything else that he's done.
Verdict: Weakly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment