Tom Cruise recently picked up his first Oscar at something called the Governor’s Awards. Bestowing honorary Oscars is a noble practice. It also casts further doubt on the annual habit of evaluating art and deciding on a winner; this is the kind of thing that happens when theater kids are always picked last at kickball.
Honorary Oscars recognize “extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement in cinema and exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences.” Maybe it’s just me, but it feels less prestigious when you’re being awarded not because an individual performance demanded it, but simply because you’ve been in the game a long time. It’s a “fine, you wore us down” award.
You can probably tell from my tone that I think Oscars are dumb. Mostly because when I used to watched the ceremony, the movies I’d actually seen never won. I realize that probably says a lot about me but I’m fine with it. I’d rather watch F1or Thunderbolts than any Wes Anderson movie. To this day, the best Academy Awards was the year The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won everything. It felt like a lifetime of comeuppance all in one evening. Come to think of it, that year was basically an honorary award in recognition of the entire trilogy.
This year’s Governor’s Awards was the 16th. Basic math tells us the inaugural ceremony was held in 2011, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was ending his term as California’s governor. Probably a coincidence, but I choose to believe one of Arnie’s final acts was colonizing the ceremony and naming it in his honor. We can only assume calling it the Governator’s Awards was a step too far.
People like to talk about Tom Cruise being our last movie star. He’s not, but he very may well be cinema’s biggest fan. Dude loves movies. It’s quite endearing, actually, and almost makes you forget he’s the unofficial face of a cult and also has a history of bizarre relationships. Given the depth of his love for movies, his award might feel a bit self-congratulatory, as though by giving their #1 cheerleader a statute, Hollywood is also awarding itself. But even though I brought it up, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. Cruise has been in a ton of iconic movies, and he’s a solidly good actor. He’s deserving.
He spent half of his acceptance speech honoring his fellow awardees, and generally gushing about how great movies are. I’ve never met the guy, but he is so likable. Is it all an act? Is he a better actor than we’ve given him credit for, or is his public-presenting persona close to the real deal? I lean toward the latter. But I also used to believe I’d drown if I ate a sandwich before swimming in a kiddie pool, so, you know, maybe form your own opinions.
Tom Cruise cares deeply about movies. You can’t watch his acceptance speech and come away thinking any differently.
On the other hand, I’m not certain Harrison Ford would show up to claim a consolation Oscar. He was famously a carpenter before a certain little space movie made him a household name, and he has retained the weary pragmatism of a working man. He loves acting, doesn’t seem to enjoy anything else involving movies.
“I never wanted to be rich and famous. I just wanted to be an actor.” ~ Harrison Ford, via People Magazine
Nonetheless, I’d like to nominate Ford for the next batch of honorees. I assume this is how it’s done? An obscure writer makes a passionate plea, and if the Powers That Be deign to listen, they Picard that shit? Like a letter-writing campaign, but it’s just me on my soap box, the same one that once aired my grievances with Santa.
This plan is foolproof.
Not to pit Cruise against Ford, but I feel it’s necessary to use someone as a comparison in making Ford’s case for a shiny participation trophy he probably doesn’t want. And since I only just heard of the Governator’s Awards yesterday, Tom Cruise is the only other actor I know who’s won via the prestigious, 16-year ceremony that occurs in late November while everyone is thinking about the holidays and their chances of making the fantasy football playoffs.
Also, Cruise is an easy actor to compare because I’m familiar with his work. And—even better—his peak years overlapped with Ford’s pretty neatly.
I want to suggest a few categories to corral this argument. Criteria gives the whole thing the illusion of rigor. The scientific approach, but make it lazy.
