Tom Cruise is one of the last actors, Hollywood stars, who approach cinema as a spectacle. His films may be more or less commercial, Top Gun, Collateral, Mission Impossible 1, 2,… but there is one thing that is always guaranteed: he immerses you fully in them and the quality, at the very least, is remarkable.
Having said that, I don’t think there is an actor who has been more attacked by the media, by social networks, they have made devastating biographies about him. In short, what is being questioned is his sexual orientation, pointing to a possible and clear homosexuality, his membership of Scientology, for some a religion among the many that exist in the USA, for others a dangerous sect, possible marriage contracts with secondary actresses who have ended up becoming famous, his bad character, manic and tyrannical on the set due to a desire for perfectionism and demands, and so on and so forth.
And all this is probably true. Or not, but reports abound to that effect.
The point is that Tom Cruise, beyond what may affect him personally, for which he must have trained considerably, i.e. to become hardened in these battles, has not moved him one iota from his objective.
He, more than anyone else, represents resilience, that ability to take advantage of and learn from negative circumstances and to stand firm in the face of everything that is said about him, whether it is true or not.
Because does anyone believe that he could be the actor he is, with that international projection, if all that were true and he said it openly? Or what would happen if that happened to some famous football player?
What is the game of cat and mouse? To publicly destroy him to the satisfaction of whom?
Of those who hate his tenacity, perseverance, strength, ambition, creativity, determination, courage, etc.? He does not live in a lie; if he has created one, it is exclusively a screen to protect what he decided to become: one of the great artists of cinema, in its most classic sense.
If you look through biographies, I always insist on the subject, you will realise that most of the people, men and women, who have done or produced significant acts or works throughout history come out of the pack:
They tend to have complex lives, complex sexualities, contradictions, internal conflicts, arbitrariness, lovers, existential doubts, wealth or poverty, the odd addiction, compulsive infatuation, and so on and so forth.
And this is so because if you are already well with everything that surrounds you, why are you going to start sculpting the David, painting The Garden of Earthly Delights or composing The Ring of the Nibelungs?
You stay at home with your partner, eat whatever you can, work at whatever you’ve been given, have sex when you can, and laugh or have fun with your friends.
But as long as there is a certain emotional turmoil, creative needs, personal yearnings, etc. and you are not born to be mystics, there will be those who create a character to everyone’s liking with the intention of masking themselves, like the aforementioned pack, and will go on with what really interests them.
We should ask ourselves, each one of us, if we learn better from those who move in the most absolute and predictable routine or from those brave and resilient people who, even if they deceive us for our peace of mind, have the courage to be and do what they have set out to do.
I have always liked Tom Cruise, he is complex but brilliant, and a certain light emerges from him when he appears on screen, and much more than all those conscientious actors who make gestures of solidarity and make speeches in a pedagogical and unbearable way to then go to some party to snort some substance or other, something I am quite sure, given his personality type, that Cruise does not do.
Those of us who are not so complex and have simpler, though not necessarily simple, lives should be a little more humble in judging others, because those others, in addition to doing what they do to our delight, have to become people of apparent formality so as not to shake up our schemes.
And what can I say, I’d rather have a cigar-smoking, depressive, champagne-drinking, gluttonous, contradictory Churchill than a vegetarian, dog-loving, meticulous dieter like Hitler.
Beware of the very upright and normative, under the carpet they can hide corpses.
And that could be the end of this article, but let’s give it a twist.
Apparently we like to believe things this way, but it turns out that when we meet someone, either personally or through their appearances in the cinema, on television or in the media, we begin to know more about them than the objective data we have, or even about the “person” (the mask in Jungian terms) that is presented to us.
And those data that our psyche captures, through body language, intuition or unconscious observation, offer us a more complete reality than the one that reason gives us.
And it is on this basis that we feel sympathy, indifference or antipathy for someone.
If sympathy is because we empathise, because we connect with some aspect, even if we don’t necessarily share it.
Antipathy is because it represents something that for some reason causes us rejection, either because it is in us in a latent form and we avoid it or because what we detect connects with some circumstance we have experienced or some person who was unpleasant to us.
If we want to have some more information about who we are, let’s look at those public figures that we dislike, let’s try to find out why and we will find some very interesting answers about ourselves.
Perpignan, 24 May, 2022