by switters - October 24, 2007
Cruising: Controversial Movie Star Outs Own Hair In London
So... Have you seen it lately? Tom's hair? It's kind of hard to describe. It's longer on one side, combed over, but not in any effort to hide a bald spot (that we know of). The sideburns are non-existent. And he's gone back to his pre-Risky Business bangs. And that's the key, I think.
Tom's fighting his age, his personality, and his zany beliefs. Katie's nowhere to be seen. (Presumably she's back at the TomKat compound teaching young Suri how to communicate with alien space zombies telepathically so that when the Invasion Of The Hubbard Snatchers hits our planet in 2045, as predicted in prophecy, she'll be the obvious go-between. Everybody wins.)
His demeanor is way toned down, as are his "looks". Gone are the tight-fitting black Ts that defined his physique and made him so popular with the gays. Gone are the equally tight-fitting black Guess jeans that made him so popular with the Aqua Net crowd. Gone are the couch romps and hysterical laugh attacks that made him so popular with large, powerful black women who give away cars and endorse falsified memoirs. (And with alien space zombies orbiting our solar system unbeknownst to [most of] us earthlings.)
And, again, gone are any semblance of sideburns. I can't stress that enough. It's almost as if he's trying to go through puberty all over again.
But man. That hair. Does he think he's losing his edge? Because if he keeps it up with the fitted suits and slightly too-short slacks with nappy ties and chunky shoes, then grampa twink needs to just go ahead and come kicking his way out of that closet, like, ASAP.
Add the fact that he's signing every autograph he can get his hands on within a 5-mile radius like he's writing bad checks at the liquor store, and word on the street is that there's not a little desperation in his latest manifestation.
Tom's in London promoting his new Redford-helmed and starred-in movie, Lions For Lambs, taking a page out of Clint Eastwood's script. Apparently the Prada devil lady's in it as well. And dang it if it doesn't look like a pretty good movie. Sort of a call-and-response sequel-ish sendup of A Few Good Men.
But in interviews, Tom's making the huge mistake of coming just short of branding it not as a political thriller but as a political statement, a "think piece". That's brain cancer of the career in Hollywood, unless you're George Clooney. And believe me, Tom Cruise couldn't be George Clooney even if George Clooney were a closeted gay man in his mid-40s selling a fake religion at the state fair barkhouse.
The problem is there's currently about 74 other political films showing at the local multiplex. He's not setting this movie apart from any of them, like he's basically doing with his hair. That hair is definitely not saying, "Hey. It's me. Tom Cruise. I'm not crazy. I'm normal, just like you. See? Look at this hair. Would an abnormal person have hair this normal?"
Answer: No. But only if said normal person were 11 years old and it's 1988.
Still, he's so reticent, so quietly intense this go-around he's nearly unrecognizable. Which has always been part of his genius, though accidentally so. While Cher and Madonna have reinvented themselves more times than IBM, and with better results on Wall Street, Tom's just sort of been "along for the reinvention" ride about every 3 years or so, almost without exception on the coattails of a new movie and an even newer obsession. (Calling Brooke Shields a pill-popping, manic depressive cunt who wanted to kill her kid and herself by swerving into oncoming traffic because she's insane probably didn't go a long way in boosting the War Of The Worlds' box office numbers. But you never know.)
But here's the other problem, and you're not going to like it. Tom Cruise is a great actor. He is. The Firm, War Of The Worlds, Minority Report. He's nothing short of fantastic in these films. And his stunning "T.J. Mackey 'I Will Not Apologize'" scene from Magnolia should be watched by every up-and-coming waiter each evening 5 times in a row, the 5th time just to watch how he works that pony tail alone. (It's the scene studies, stupid!)
Don't get me wrong. Tom doesn't have Johnny Depp's depth or versatility (best actor of his generation, it'll turn out). And Matt Damon's Jason Bourne is slowly redefining for my generation what an action hero is the same way Bruce Willis did with John McClane for his. But John Anderton's drug addledness and the curse of mourning a kidnapped and probably dead son isn't played with a simple chip on the shoulder or a worn-on-the-sleeve affectation that it surely would've been in the hands of a lesser actor. No. It's tacit yet scourging, as if you can actually feel it eating away at his stomach lining.
But the real issue that's concerning for me, but not for Tom, is that while there is a Johnny Depp and a Matt Damon, there isn't a Tom Cruise. It's just a role he plays. I don't know if he's always been that way, but he's definitely not there anymore. Makes me wonder if that's the key to his being such a fine actor. And an actor with ever-evolving hair.
So Tom's back in this current incarnation, for better or worse, whatever it turns out to be. Or he's gone for good. But mark my words: Lions For Lambs will make or break the man's career. If this one doesn't take, then it's a one-way ticket on the Soft-Core Gay Porn Express straight to Rimjobville, population: Salad Shooters!
Here's hoping he catches a break. And let's hope that hair catches on fire. Think of the kids.
switters also blogs at The Outer Sanctum. He lives somewhere that he insists on calling "The 'Ham" and claims to be gainfully employed.