Cinemascope

Here's an essay that does a good job of detailing the changes in his outer behavior that started around 2005: August 24, 2006 Critic's Notebook Mission Imperative for a Star: Be Likable By CARYN JAMES Sumner Redstone, the 83-year-old chairman of Viacom, is old and cranky and enough of a loose cannon to have blurted out what ordinary people have been thinking for months, that Tom Cruise is out of control. It?s always fun when someone in Hollywood is blunt. Mr. Redstone cited Mr. Cruise?s distracting off-screen behavior as the main reason Paramount Pictures (owned by Viacom) chose not to renew its contract with his production company. Yet Mr. Redstone soon fell into the usual showbiz doublespeak, when he said of Mr. Cruise, ?As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal.? He got that backward, at least from the moviegoers? perspective. Tom Cruise?s real problem is: We just don?t like him anymore. Losing his likability is the cardinal sin for any movie star, and Mr. Cruise?s began to plummet even before his couch-jumping days. In the annual Harris poll charting America?s favorite movie stars, done every January, Tom Hanks ? the essence of likability, genial on talk shows, a nice guy on screen ? was ranked No. 1 for the last two years. Mr. Cruise hasn?t even been in the Top 10 since the poll in 2004, when he ranked No. 5. What stars like Mr. Hanks and Julia Roberts have is a connection to the audience that shines through the characters they play and has the audience on their side. Even the best actors sometimes use their likability as a wink to the audience: Meryl Streep as the wicked fashion editor in ?The Devil Wears Prada? is more endearing than a villain should be, partly because it?s fun to watch Ms. Streep do comedy. The essence of Mr. Cruise?s appeal going all the way back to ?Risky Business? and on through crowd-pleasers like ?Jerry Maguire? was a fresh-faced, unpretentious exuberance, a glee that practically leapt off the screen and that even worked in unlikely roles like the outraged, paraplegic Vietnam veteran in ?Born on the Fourth of July.? Mr. Cruise had that energy and connection as recently as 2004, and his last terrific acting job, in ?Collateral.? He played against type as a villain with graying hair and he had to share the starring role with Jamie Foxx, but his audience was happy to see him really acting again instead of just outrunning some ?Mission: Impossible? fireball. But in the last year his life has become a public relations debacle as he has gone into full Scientology mode, and he has come to seem self-righteous and intolerant (most conspicuously in his angry confrontation with Matt Lauer on ?Today? about prescription drugs). He now seems too strange and remote for the average moviegoer to relate to. This summer a Forbes magazine list named Mr. Cruise as its most powerful celebrity, but that calculation was based on income and media presence, obviously not on common sense. While Mr. Cruise?s last two movies have done well around the world, he wasn?t the only, and maybe not the main reason, for their success. This year?s Cruise film, ?Mission: Impossible III,? is part of a self-propelled franchise; last year?s, ?War of the Worlds,? was a Steven Spielberg movie. The roles didn?t demand much, and Mr. Cruise seemed to coast through them, assuming the audience would coast with him. Today?s Tom Cruise is the opposite of a Teflon celebrity; he can?t seem to get anything right, not even baby pictures. While Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie expertly and quickly stage-managed the sale (for charity no less) of their daughter, Shiloh?s, baby snaps, Mr. Cruise and Katie Holmes have been secretive and elusive about their 4-month-old daughter, Suri. There are reports that Annie Leibovitz has photographed baby Suri for Vanity Fair, but no pictures have arrived yet, and into the void comes more tantalizing gossip, including a widely circulated report from a British tabloid that David and Victoria Beckham were invited to see Suri but were forbidden to use baby talk because Scientologists think goo-gooing is bad for babies. True or not, a report like that alienates fans. Such distance isn?t necessary. John Travolta may fly his own jet, but he creates the impression of remembering where he came from. More instructive, when he is asked about his devotion to Scientology, he explains patiently and good-naturedly, without antagonizing anyone. But Mr. Cruise has done so much damage to his image that his camp?s best efforts at spin now seem hollow. When word filtered out that the entity known as TomKat had stopped on the road to aid at the scene of an accident recently (O.K., they just stopped and waited until the police arrived) the incident invited speculation bout how carefully orchestrated that little news item might have been, and reminders that Mr. Cruise had, conveniently enough, helped stop a mugging in 1998 and rescue a family at sea in ?96, as if he were a volunteer action-hero. Before ?Collateral? he hadn?t challenged himself as an actor since 1999, when he played a ponytailed self-help guru who does television infomercials in the daring Paul Thomas Anderson ensemble film ?Magnolia.? It was a role that may have cut too close, revealing how illusory a celebrity?s public image is. These days he is like a charlatan who can?t manage to dupe anybody. He seems desperate to maintain his stature as one of the world?s biggest movie stars, even as he morphs into something no movie star can afford to be: a guy you wouldn?t want to know.

It really wasn't so much in the details, maybe, as much as in the general sense of intolerance that his attitude suggested. A lot of it is difficult to convey in words, because you'd probably have to watch the video to really see how aggresive he was -- I am not sure I think it was a morning interview with Matt Lauer -- about putting down certain things while at the same time defending Scientology. I can certainly post lots of links but I don't think it would be much different that what you could dig up on any search engine... but I'll look around.

But many John Wayne movies are also John Ford films. And there's a lot to Ford that may be too subtle to catch on first viewing -- it certainly was for me. Did you get to watch Directed by John Ford last time it aired? If not, maybe you would be interested in catching it next time it shows. It really does a good job of pointing out some of the strengths of Ford as a director, as well as those of JW as a frequent star of his movies.

I feel so borough-less

I don't mean to sound too cynical here but I fear the reason we occasionally see some boxed sets at super low prices is just because the video companies want to make a fast buck now and know that many people will be buying these titles again once they've switched to a high-definition format (Blu-Ray or HD-DVD). With a lot of the best-known titles that are likely to be among the first of the classics to be put on high-def format, I may as well wait until the HD version. But if you like having them in regular DVD then more power to you.

Oh I thought Till the Clouds Roll By looked wonderful -- considering we'd been stuck for years with horrible PD copies.

These days almost every new movie receives lots more attention in the channels that belong to the same corporation. I think that's the reason we saw so many promos for The Good German on TCM - it was a WB film.

The reason I am writing now is the quote above. If you truly do think rape is funny, then you have crossed the line. I have known real victims of rape, and seen the psychological damage that can haunt them for so much of their life. One can have a very dark sense of humor but still know rape is never funny. It is only when one's humor is sick can rape ever be regarded as funny. Agree 100%. To think rape is funny is just totally sick.

Well a lot of it may already have been mentioned in the story (see link in 1st post). But I think a lot of it has been his lambasting certain actresses and in particular taking a very strong stance against anti-depressants, and calling psychatry "pseudoscience". Oh and didn't he say he planned to eat his baby's placenta?

And there you are... So who do I like best? Again, how could I possibly choose? They are both so fantastic! I agree with you. I was madly in love with GK when growing up because those were the musicals I watched then. But I've seen a lot of musicals since then, and especially after The Purple Rose of Cairo I really started to think of FA (especially when with GR) as the personification of elegance in dance. But they are both so fantastic, there's no way to choose one!

The style might reflect the preferences of the directors or choreographers. I'm not sure, but I think they were both excellent dancers in their own styles!

Are these upcoming releases?

No actually studies have shown that people tend to be much more careful about what they say IRL than online.

With digital enhancements and color timing, we can get a similar quality but not every film these days wants or should have eye popping color. A great point lzcutter (you're on a roll today!). I'd also point out that some directors are exploring the use of HD cameras, with some interesting results. IIRC that's what Michael Mann did with Miami Vice -- a movie that for all its flaws, I found to have a very compelling look, partly because it was unlike anything I remembered seeing in a movie. BTW it's been a while since I watched The Matador. Were there strong colors throughout the whole film, or only in the Mexico City sequences? I know it was filmed partly at the Camino Real Hotel in western Mexico City, a notoriously brightly colored hotel.

And I totally feel the same way, but as far as their dancing abilities, they were both awfully good!

Absolutely right malkat. I witnessed what a rape did to a classmate in college, it's about the most horrifying thing that can happen to someone short of murder. Maybe some people just aren't sensible enough to understand that.

kubrick, I am going to say this as politely as I possibly can. If you think it's so funny, then go and experience it yourself. I'm sure you will be laughing out of your a**.

It's OK, malkat. Maybe this person has been pretending to be a Kubrick buff all along when all he really is sick in the head.

Well if you think it's so funny, go and get yourself in that situation, and see how funny it really is.

There is nothing funny about rape and I don't think Kubrick's intent in Clockwork Orange was to make fun of that situation. Well said!

Still doesn't make it a comedy. A good example of a black comedy would probably be The War of the Roses.

Absolutely right malkat.

Well said (again) lzcutter. Clockwork Orange has moments of dark humor but that doesn't make it a comedy. By definition, a comedy has to have a happy ending...

Any comedy that involves a high-spirited musical number based on the Third Reich would definitely qualify as black humor. :0

Absolutely malkat, the similarities in the dark humor of all 3 movies is quite apparent.