Screwed

I'm trying to remain positive about this. (Being positive about anything at this hour when my mood has not yet risen to a completely functional elevation is daunting, so hopefully you'll understand if I fail to sound enthusiastic.) There's more news this morning, courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter, about that mysterious project Variety mentioned the other day. According to them, both Jake Gyllenhaal and Jessica Biel are "attached" to Nailed, a "risque political satire" to be directed by David O. Russell.

Risque political satire.

That sounds refreshing, actually. Except the political part. I love Jake's selectivity and principled choices, but he's already being pigeonholed by some critics as too political. Anyway, that's not the point. The point I was gonna make has to do with HR's description of the plot.

Biel would play Sammy Joyce, a socially awkward small-town receptionist who has a nail accidentally shot into her head by a clumsy workman, eliciting wild sexual urges.

The uninsured Joyce goes on a crusade to Washington to fight for the rights of the bizarrely injured. She meets an immoral congressman (Gyllenhaal) who takes advantage of her sex drive and capitalizes on her crusade as Joyce heads into her own career in politics.

Ugh.

For those who are wondering why I'm not on my knees thanking god or whatever powers responsible that Jake is guaranteed to have a sex scene if this movie happens, please allow me to explain. No, actually, I think this Cinema Blend post effectively demonstrates it well enough. I'm not saying I make the same assumption that Josh Tyler has, only that his take is completely reasonable and probably not unique.

But I said I was trying to be positive, so here goes. First, Jake's potential role sounds smarmy and somewhat villainous, which would be absolutely delicious. Second, yeah, the probable (I hate to jinx it by saying inevitable) sex scene(s). Yes, I really did mean to put that second. Because as much as I fantasize about Jake and would love to be helped along by some new material, the context does matter to me. And third, satire. That's even better than a romcom, if you ask me, as long as it's well-written and directed. So, my intrigue at the floated title has grown into guarded optimism that the project will not be dismissed by critics based on its synopsis and will actually become something keen and titillating at the same time.

That is, if it happens at all. I don't know what the rules are in Hollywood. What needs to transpire before someone can say an actor is "attached" to his or her project, anyway? A phone call to someone's agent to see if they're interested? A pie-in-the-sky wish? HR clearly states that no contracts exist, yet.

Meanwhile, there's confusion about whether Brothers has already begun filming, like, last week, or today, or when. IMDb still says principal photography begins on November 27, while posters to the site's message board say trailers for the actors are already setup onsite at the College of Santa Fe in New Mexico. That Jake suddenly shaved off the beard he's been telling everyone was grown specifically for this movie has certainly added to the confusion. My friends know I always thought the beard was premature anyway, probably half for some kind of Brothers pre-production and half for the orneriness of keeping it when everyone seemed to be complaining. Whether the beard was only needed for scenes that have already been filmed, will reappear soon, or was never meant for the movie to begin with (maybe he just said that to stop people from asking about it), it's nice to have something vitally important to debate again.