If We're Handing Out Imaginary Oscars, I'd Like to Nominate Harrison Ford

No disrespect to Tom Cruise

Raiders of the Lost Ark: Paramount Pictures; Oscar: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; Photoshop magic: Author

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 F1 or Thunderbolts than any Wes Anderson movie.¹ 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.

After some quiet reflection, I’ve landed on two categories, which perfectly aligns with the honorary Oscar’s mandate. Because I’m stealing their nomenclature.

Extraordinary Distinction

My interpretation: What movies have you been in, and were you any good in them?

I’m going to tackle the second part of that sentence first. And, since we’re talking about Oscars, we have an easy on-ramp: Academy Awards nominations.

Cruise has earned 3 acting nominations.

• 1990 Best Actor: Born on the Fourth of July

• 1997 Best Actor: Jerry Maguire

• 2000 Best Supporting Actor: Magnolia

Meanwhile, Ford was only nominated once.

• 1986 Best Actor: Witness

Ford lost to William Hurt for his role in Kiss of the Spider Woman, a movie about a smoking hot superhero. The movie is about how she solves crime by running around in ridiculous spandex outfits. It was rated NC-17 for obvious reasons.

Marvel studied the film closely as they prepared to bring the Incredible Hulk to the big screen, a character who spends most of the runtime half-naked. They wanted to steer toward the PG-13 demographic and sex-down the inherent allure of a giant monosyllabic green man dressed only in a tattered slip of cloth. It was all wasted effort, however, as they later discovered the Hulk has no bulge. Crisis averted.

No wonder Bruce Banner is always angry—he’s like a Ken doll down there. Image: Walt Disney Studios

I made up everything I just said, btw. I’ve never actually seen Kiss of the Spider Woman. I like my version of events.

Back to the topic at hand.

Cruise has three nominations to Ford’s one. Case closed? Not exactly. I think Cruise’s best performance was as a sociopathic hitman in Michael Mann’s Collateral. This underscores the ridiculous underlying premise of the Oscars. How do you define “great?” Winners are based more on the overlapping tastes of the voters than agreement about why one performance is more deserving than another.

At the same time, I’d argue Ford is a steadier hand. He’s always reliably great. Usually. I still have no idea what he was doing in Return of the Jedi. Let’s chalk it up to sci-fi apathy and a ton of cocaine. I have a dog in this fight though, so we’ll give the nod to Cruise just based on having more nominations.

Comparing their filmographies is a bigger lift. Rather than go through dozens of movies, let’s narrow this down a bit.

Iconic Roles

Minimally, you have to know the character’s name to qualify. A Few Good Men is a great movie, but do you know the name of Cruise’s character? Probably not. So it’s not iconic. Also, Cruise is majorly shaded by Jack Nicholson. No shame in that, but you can’t be second fiddle in your own movie.

Cruise iconic roles:

• Pete “Maverick” Mitchell

• Ethan Hunt

• Jack Reacher? Would we remember the character’s name if it wasn’t also the name of the movie? I think this is a no.

• Lestat? LOL

It’s an okay list, though I think Maverick and Ethan Hunt are the only real iconic characters. Jerry Maguire and Charlie Babbitt were in the mix because they’re memorable, unforgettable characters, but I wouldn’t exactly call them iconic. But don’t worry, we’ll come back to them shortly.

Ford iconic roles:

• Han Solo

• Indiana Jones

• Rick Deckard

• Jack Ryan

• Dr. Richard Kimble

Ford also played the president twice. Frankly, I’d give this go-around to Ford just based on Han or Indy. Cruise has yet to play a character in the same league. Maverick or Ethan Hunt also lack the rough edges and humanity that make Han and Indy compelling characters.

This is all just a way of quantifying what we knew for fact at the time: Harrison Ford was the biggest movie star in the world for 20 years. I don’t know how you account for that in terms of imaginary points for consolation Oscars, but it should count for something.

Point, Ford.

Iconic Movies

Now we’re going to try summing up a lifetime of work into a couple of paragraphs. I think the easy way to do it—if a bit morbid—is to think about what films would be mentioned at the top of their obituaries. Let’s limit it to 4.

Cruise obituary film list (in order of importance):

1. Top Gun (still his most iconic role)

2. Mission Impossible franchise (the stunts! moves into the top spot if Cruise dies making a Mission Impossible)

3. Jerry Maguire (maybe his best movie)

4. Rock of Ages Toss-up between A Few Good Men, Rain Man, and Risky Business

An argument could also be made for any of the films that earned him an Oscar nomination or Eyes Wide Shut. But I think I’ve got it right. An obituary highlights what they’re most well-known for. Example: The subtitle of Robert Redford’s mentioned All the President’s Men, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting.

Ford obituary film list (in order of importance):²

1. Indiana Jones trilogy (gets the nod because you can’t separate Indy from Ford)

2. Star Wars trilogy (much as Ford hates it, he knows it to be true)

3. The Fugitive (not gonna say it’s his best movie, but it’s a great one)

4. Toss-up between Witness and Blade Runner, with Shrinking as a dark horse candidate

These lists are hard to contrast, and rather quickly we’re comparing apples and oranges. I think Ford’s top 2 are far stronger, and Cruise’s last two are clearly better. We’ll call it a tie. So where does that leave us?

• Oscar nominations: Cruise (3 to 1)

• Iconic roles: Ford (5 to 2)

• Obituary films: Tie

So net, we ended up tied. Which is fine. The objective isn’t to prove Ford is more deserving. Just equally so. We’re on track.

Exceptional Contributions

Translation: Box office, but also ‘he improved how movies are made,’ which is harder to quantify.

Box office is largely an indicator of tent pole movies, because movies with lots of explosions tend to draw people to the theater. I offer myself as Exhibit A. I go to the movies 3-4 times a year, and only then if something begs to be seen on a big screen. You may disagree but when I watched Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret at home, there was no loss in fidelity. Great movie btw.

The box office is anathema to the Academy. They famously do not appreciate science fiction films—A New Hope and Dune were both robbed—and are also allergic to anything that hints at being too mainstream. They awarded Annie Hall over Star Wars. Annie Fucking Hall!

I get that artistic nuance can often only be appreciated by those closest to the craft. My bar for good writing is higher specifically because I’m a writer. But sometimes the unwashed masses are right. And the films that bring people to the theater pays for the artsy cinema Hollywood loves making. An honorary Oscar is just the kind of place to right such injustices. A mea culpa for being too uppity.

Worldwide box office as a leading man:

• Cruise: 41 films, $11.1 billion.

• Ford: 36 films, $6.2 billion

Cruise wins pretty handily.

Sort of.

The above numbers are not adjusted for inflation, which is a big deal considering how much damage Ford inflicted on wallets in the 80s and 90s. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope grossed $307 million worldwide in its original domestic release. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $1.6 billion.³

A few more examples:

• Raiders of the Lost Ark: $367 million, adjusted $1.3 billion

• Temple of Doom: $333 million, adjusted $1 billion

• The Last Crusade: $474 million, adjusted $1.2 billion

The list goes on. The other two Star Wars films together add another billion in inflated-adjusted dollars. Some quick math tells me the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies alone add $4.8 billion in inflation monies to Ford’s box office tally, bringing it up to $11 billion.

It’s not like inflation doesn’t apply to Tom Cruise. It’s just not on the same scale. His run of tent pole movies doesn’t really start until 1996 with Mission Impossible. Inflation is still a factor, just not to the same degree.

• Top Gun (1986 release): $176 million, adjusted $524 million

• Rain Man: $412 million, adjusted $1.1 billion (wow!)

• Mission Impossible: $457 million, adjusted $947 million

I’m not doing an entire ‘fun times with box office inflation’ breakdown. Net result, I think Cruise probably still has a slightly higher inflation-adjusted box office but it’s very close. If Cruise comes out ahead, it’s only because he’s done more films.

We’ll call it a tie, though I’m inclined to give it to Ford. But I’m obviously biased.

As for the more nebulous, ‘he made a difference’ aspect of this category… it obviously goes to Cruise. He’s continued to push the envelope on stunts, often risking bodily harm to himself in service to our entertainment. Love to see it, though I’m certain he’s going to kill himself making a movie. On behalf of the Governator’s imaginary board of directors, I salute the effort.

As for Ford—in his own words, he just wants to be an actor. Leave him alone. He’d probably be so pissed if he knew I was writing this right now.

Because this is getting long and I need to remind myself—this category only had two measures:

• Box office: Using inflation-adjusted numbers and back of the napkin math, it’s basically a tie.

• Making a difference: Cruise, easily.

In Summary

So now that we went through this long, made-up process for a consolation prize that Harrison Ford probably doesn’t even want… where did we end up? Did we prove he’s been overlooked by the Governator Awards? Or that he’s at least as deserving as Cruise? Especially since he’s—checks notes—83-years-old?

Based on the preponderance of imaginary evidence, Ford is in the ballpark.

What this exercise really made me appreciate was how deserving Cruise was of his honorary Oscar. I’m happy he got it, especially since it clearly means so much to him.

The real question this line of inquiry raised: If the Incredible Hulk is a metaphor for ED, and Ant-Man is an euphemism for erections, when are we going to get the Hims-sponsored Hulk & Ant-Man team-up teased in Avengers: Endgame?

Look at the smile on his face—those are no ordinary tacos. Image: Walt Disney Studios

1. The funny thing is I am the opposite when it comes to prose. I cannot abide pedestrian writing. Huge turnoff. But if it’s on a screen, my crap meter becomes a lot more pliable.

2. Writing ‘Ford’ and ‘obituary’ in the same sentence had me clutching my chest.

3. If you dig into the numbers, you’ll find A New Hope earned $460 million domestically, but that includes re-releases. The original 1977 run was $307 million. If nothing else, it illustrates how cheap movie tickets must’ve been at the time.

And also how much of a data nerd I am.