There’s been a lot of rumbling recently about whether “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” should give the “Mission: Impossible” franchise the Academy Award recognition it, by many accounts, deserves. This is a fun conversation in theory and one that is typical of the summer movie months when film critics and writers are hunting to discuss anything with quality. I hate to throw water on the fire, but “Fallout” is not the next “Mad Max: Fury Road.” It’s not getting nominated in major categories such as Best Picture, Director or Adapted Screenplay. It is, however, a very well made thriller with some fantastic cinematography, editing and a leading man who seemingly knows no bounds in throwing his body around by doing his own stunts. It’s also likely going to be a huge hit. Perhaps the biggest “Mission: Impossible” film yet at the box office (and that’s all Paramount is really concerned about). And as for Oscar, maybe “Fallout” is a reminder that a different subject that should be broached. It’s 2018 so let’s ask the question that is actually the most realistic: Is it time for Tom Cruise to win an honorary Academy Award?
There is a lot to consider before answering what is justifiably a touchy subject for Hollywood. Cruise is a beat up, but still spry 56-years-old and, truth be told, a majority of the honorary Oscar winners received their honors when they were 65 or older. That being said it’s not unheard of. Spike Lee recently won when he was just 59. Sophia Loren won at 56. Paul Newman was 60. Jerome Robbins was just 42. Angelina Jolie received the Jean Hershel Humanitarian Award Oscar at 38. Oprah won the same honor at 58. Elizabeth Taylor at 61. Frank Sinatra at 56. Again, it wouldn’t be out of bounds for someone to receive an honorary Oscar at Cruise’s age. He’s basically hit the threshold of consideration. And his career achievements are hard to dispute.
For all of the criticism about Cruise’s personal life (and, oh boy, we’ll get to it) you cannot dispute the fact he’s starred in classics such as “Risky Business,” “Edge or Tomorrow,” “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Taps.” Even more importantly he’s starred in a Best Picture winner, “Rain Man,” and three other nominees “Jerry Maguire,” “Born of the Fourth of July” and “A Few Good Men.” He’s been nominated for Best Actor for “Born” and “Jerry Maguire” and Best Supporting Actor for “Magnolia.” But wait, there’s more.
Cruise has also starred and/or produced a ton of movies that received Oscar nominations outside of Best Picture in some capacity including “The Color of Money,” “Collateral,” “Minority Report,” “Vanilla Sky,” “The Last Samurai,” “War of the Worlds,” “Tropic Thunder,” “Legend” and “Interview with a Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles,” among others.
He also has been undisputed box office superstar for four decades. You can argue the only contemporaries who can match him at this point are Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks (granted Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis are also up for debate on this point). Not only has Cruise almost always been part of quality or pseudo-quality fare, but he’s done so making Hollywood a lot of money in return, about $9 billion worldwide. Cruise has had a long (and bumpy) relationship with Paramount, but he’s clearly the highest grossing star in their storied history. And he’s also helped many executives at 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros. and Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures) earn their year-end bonuses as well. Moreover, Cruise has experienced, on average, only one legitimate bomb a decade (whether credited as a lead actor or not). There are few actors who can match that track record for two decades let alone four.
In theory, that should be enough to be taken into serious consideration. Sure, perhaps a few in the Academy would wonder why an actor who hunted for so many challenging parts for a good portion of his career had relegated himself to only action roles over the past decade. Cruise’s work in “Oblivion” is incredibly underrated, but when was the last time he truly stepped out of the Tom Cruise mold? “Rock of Ages”? Eh. “Tropic Thunder”? Sure. But dramatically you really have to go back 14 years to “Collateral” for a leading role that didn’t truly seem like Tome Cruise playing Tom Cruise. Frankly, that doesn’t necessarily help his case, but the body of work should suffice, right?
Yeah, well, then there is everything else.
Speak to anyone who has worked with Cruise on a movie set and for the most part they are highly complementary. Yes, there was a time his starpower was so massive marketing, publicity and distribution departments would find themselves at a standstill waiting for him to make a decision on the silliest of matters (trust, I know from experience). For the most part, however, he was friendlier about it than most of his peers even if it took forever for an answer. Unless you’ve conveniently forgotten, it’s his personal life that has been the most problematic.
A long time Scientologist, Cruise has consistently defended the organization and its practices. He’s simply been the celebrity face of the “church” for decades. People remember Cruise’s wild couch experience on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2005, but what almost completely derailed his career was the infamous sit down with Matt Lauer less than two months later. The interview took place on live television on The Today Show and found Cruise lashing out against Brooke Shields, who had recently discussed her experiences using medication to help battle postpartum depression, and how he never believed in psychiatry or psychology calling the former a “pseudoscience” (a major Scientology teaching). There was a tremendous outcry over Cruise’s comments (and in an age of no social media, no less) and outside of “Mission: Impossible III,” which Cruise was already in production on, Paramount was forced put their relationship with their box office mainstay on relative ice (a decision made by Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone no less).
Cruise then did something unexpected. He took a lucrative offer from MGM to join his producing partner at the time, Paula Wagner, in taking over the fabled United Artists banner. It was a reset that neither he or Wagner were capable of executing even though it did give MGM one relative hit, “Valkyrie,” which proved Cruise was still a significant box office draw (and also helped Bryan Singer get out of a short stay in Director’s Jail). Eventually Paramount became desperate for franchises and patched up the relationship with Cruise. That led to bolder “Mission” movies that began with “Ghost Protocol” and singles and doubles this decade such as “Jack Reacher” and the aforementioned “Oblivion” and “Edge of Tomorrow.” In fact, you could argue the “resurgent” critical appreciate for Cruise came because of the Doug Liman Sci-Fi flick which has become an almost undisputed modern classic.
But it always somehow circles back to Scientology. Over the past five years alone there has been revelations in the HBO Peabody and Emmy-winning doc “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief” and the Emmy-winning “Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath” and literally tons of in-depth reporting on how the “religion” has destroyed families and careers. And you cannot discount Cruise’s now third ex-wife, Katie Holmes, reportedly leaving him over concerns over having their daughter raised in the confines of the religion or the stories of Scientology members being forced to work on projects for Cruise and the recruitment of “approved” women to date him. There have been a tremendous amount of first hand accounts about Scientology that, for worse, simply make people in Hollywood want to shudder and look away.
It’s a lot. A. Lot. So much so this post can barely scratch the surface of it. So much so that everyone associated with “Fallout” hopes you forget about it and just enjoy the movie. And the Academy’s Board of Governors knows. And even as the stories fade over time and moviegoers get sucked into the quality of Cruise’s films the Board still knows (you can argue few stars are happier the media and industry is focusing on the daily drama of the Trump administration more than Cruise). His co-stars ignore the Scientology stuff and focus on the “work.” It’s just his religious views, right? Who is anyone to judge? But, the Board? The body that bestows such honors? They know.
Obviously, a traditional Oscar win seems unlikely based on the actor’s choices the past 10 years, but an honorary one is still possible. If Cruise spoke honestly about these allegations. If he admitted their validity. If he publicly said that he would try to change how the organization conducted itself than maybe, just maybe a slight window for this lifetime achievement honor could open. But people have been waiting for Cruise to turn that corner for almost 30 years. What makes anyone think he’ll do so now?