Warm fuzzies

Happy birthday to Jake's big sister, Maggie Gyllenhaal! Maggie turns 30 today.


This makes me happy. Esquire calls Jake Gyllenhaal's performance in Rendition one of six Performances of the Year in their December issue.


Looks like Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere would have gone with option number three in my poll at right.

It's not that Gyllenhaal plays his Egypt-based CIA guy badly or ineffectively, but that Egypt-based CIA guy is written as such a revoltingly passive wuss....For me, Gyllenhaal's inactivity is infuriating. He's not just a guy doing nothing, but an emblem of do-nothing types the world over.

He sounds like he's blaming Jake for Douglas's actions, or inaction, as the case may be, which misses the point entirely. If you found him infuriating or revolting, Jeff, then he kicked ass, because you were supposed to feel all those things. And Wells's statement about what Douglas's character lacks expresses precisely why Jake's was an incredibly difficult role, and why his performance was that much more worthy of praise. I'm glad the editors of Esquire recognized that, even if Wells doesn't.

Something else that makes me happy: seeing Jake happy. IHJ has posted those photos from Jake and Reese's recent Napa Valley visit, and while the level of paparazzi interest in this relationship still bothers me, seeing Jake so obviously at ease and happy literally brought me to tears. Even Reese smiled at the camera this time. That's the way I like to see them.

Meanwhile, it looks like Jake's about to become the subject of a sniping showdown. Slash writer (it's amazing the things you can learn while browsing around Jake's fandom) royandronnie's opening bid remains the only one so far, and the auction ends at 6 pm EST. At least, I'm sorta hoping it will be sniped. Well, I mean, I totally will understand if no one can afford to bid $5,500, because I can't, but I guess I'd like to see the promise of his company bring in more than the bare minimum for the charity of his choice. Plus it would be fun to watch and see just how crazy Jake can make people.

Update: Well, here's another nice treat I hadn't seen before. This transcript, which the source claims to be from the Los Angeles Rendition press conference, has lots of priceless Jakeisms. I don't understand why I'm just now finding this. This stuff is gold and should have been all over the 'net by now. Some examples:

Reporter: You and Peter shaved your heads in Jarhead. Now, you both have beards.
Jake: Peter and I are dating (laughter). I can see the headlines now.
~~~
Reporter: What qualities do you admire in Reese, as a person and an actress?
Jake: She can grow a mean beard, that's for sure (laughter)! I don’t know if you’ve seen her beard--it's amazing!
~~~
Reporter: Will you comment on rumors that you are dating Reese?
Jake: No. Apparently, I am dating a lot of people, not only of the opposite sex (laughter)--it's very interesting and amusing.
Reporter: The first time we interviewed you, you talked about not having enough sex...
Jake: Are you offering or what? (Laughter)
Reporter: You talked freely during that interview. You have become a star since. So, has your sex life changed?
Jake: I've become an ascetic--I live in a cave now. That's why I am growing a beard. I have no sex, so I’m much more interesting!

Damn, Jake. Could you be any more lovable?

Photo of Maggie thumbnailed from The Internet Movie Database; all others from IHJ.

Be nice to me

Yes, I'm going to talk about what I thought of Rendition.

First, go read this interview with Jake from the Telegraph, done while he was in London. On the one hand, it has terrific elements than any good interview should: description of Jake's posture, clothing (guess which well-worn, big-necked ensemble?) and oh god, voice ("gentle with dark undercurrents"--can I cut that phrase out and put it under my pillow?), evidence that the writer has actually done some research, and questions pertinent to the reason they're both there: Rendition. On the other, it's full of extraneous stuff; recycled facts from that research I just mentioned, and a completely unnecessary probing into Jake's sexuality that proves the interviewer is one of those people who...well, he's one of those people. Plus either transatlantic flight made Jake two inches taller, or this guy just guessed it wrong. Everyone does says he seems taller than they imagined.

So, Rendition.

I wish I could rave about it, say that it was unequivocally the best movie I've seen since Zodiac, but this isn't that kind of movie. I attended a Friday night showing and left the theater somewhat unsatisfied. Thinking it was probably due to all the pent up expectation, and the vaguely arctic temperature in the theater that made it hard to focus, I decided to see it again this afternoon. Besides, I really wanted another, undistracted look at Douglas Freeman. Hey, I'm nothing if not honest.

On second viewing, I did feel more involved in the story, but not as much as I thought I should have been. Maybe that's because I wanted it to be something it couldn't: a revelation. Unlike the majority of the intended audience, I have already read enough about the policy of extraordinary rendition and its purported place in the defense of national security. Rendition didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. At least this time, I did feel moved by several scenes, and my overall impression is that this is a movie that will grow on me with each additional viewing, much like Jarhead.

What I can enthusiastically endorse is Jake's performance. My bias notwithstanding, it's a Hollywood irony that while few critics seem to know what the film's motives were, the role of Douglas Freeman struck me as typical Oscar fodder. WDW was right in that this really is Jake's movie, despite its trying to be so much more. His is the character that makes the biggest connection, who reveals multiple dimensions to the audience. All the performances were excellent, but for me no one shone like Jake with his flimsy professional facade after the bombing and barely-contained self-loathing during the events that follow. More than anything else, what I walked out of that theater feeling this afternoon was an intense pride. As with most of his movies, the box office numbers will be irrelevant; Jake Gyllenhaal has proved again that he is a phenomenal actor, and he'll have work in Hollywood for as long as he wants it.

All photos: IHJ.

Release

Another twelve hours before I will finally watch Rendition. That is, if I don't get sent home from work early for doing everything wrong because I am mentally elsewhere. Would that be a good or a bad thing?

Ellen DeGeneres is one of the kindest, sweetest people I've ever seen, so hearing her call Jake Gyllenhaal her friend gave me such a warm mushy feeling I almost cried.* I know that's because of my hormones, but it still made me very happy. Hearing her say what I already knew--that he "might just be the perfect man"--didn't feel bad, either.

Oh, so much to savor in this visit with Ellen, I haven't even absorbed all of it yet. Jake conceding that he'd take off his pants before he took off...what? His shirt? Let the speculation on why begin. Jake dangerously playful with a big knife; Jake like an excited kid in the kitchen, grabbing at the chicken in the refrigerator before the clock started; Jake sounding absolutely sincere when he gushed "I've always wanted to do this!" Jake ordering Ellen around like Gordon Ramsay, only charming; Jake eagerly grabbing the wine and gulping it with both hands on the glass.

Sigh.

There's so much I want to say today, but I'm afraid to keep going on and on...I may never stop.

Ten and a half hours remain now until I see Rendition.

Vanessa Farquharson's interview with Jake finally was published this morning at the National Post. Even if she hadn't declared in so many words her crush on him, she revealed the level of her interest by referring to his "perfectly formed" hand. This is the kind of talk that goes on in the fangirliest of forums, like here, here, and here. I know because I'm one of the fangirls.
(Update: I just noticed that Vanessa has erroneously identified IHJ rather than the brilliant Jake Watch as the originators of the Jake in '08 campaign. Is there no justice for PG and bpb? Should I write to the National Post?)

Following on the heels of these two items in the Washington Post is a similar Q-and-A with Peter Sarsgaard. I'm sure this means there's more with Peter elsewhere in the paper, and I'll go find it later.

What am I avoiding here?

The truth: I am afraid of not liking this movie. This is a rotten side effect of my constant pursuit of news that contains the name Jake Gyllenhaal, because just about every reviewer has indicated their opinion within the title or opening line of their review (as is good practice). No, I don't usually take the word of film critics on any movie, but I have to admit having been affected by the negativity I've exposed myself to over the past week.

More than that, I am irrationally but nonetheless deeply concerned for Jake and his happiness. What shines clear and true through all the interviews we've seen this week is that Jake is very much a genuine, sensitive young man; there is no magical mithril celebrity armor protecting him from the bullshit of Hollywood, he is not slick and polished. He is consistently shy when complimented about his physique and sincerely uninterested in impressing anyone with his own political opinions, preferring to focus on his job as an actor. In short, he appears to be a vulnerable, sweet, uncommon human being. I don't know any men like this personally. None who are available, anyway. Which is why I've been alone all my life.

About nine and a half hours to go.

Perhaps the very thing that I know to be causing all this artificial (yes, I recognize it for what it is) angst will actually help me tonight when I sit down in the theater. I'm so emotionally susceptible right now, it's probably the best time to watch Rendition, because even if it sucks, I'll be swept away.


*In fact I did cry later when Ellen told the car jumper about his Nike deal. I am seriously at the mercy of my endocrine system.


All photos: IHJ.

Monday morning wake-up call

I discovered something about my obsession this morning: I have not lost all capacity for reason. Here's how I know. There will be a sneak preview of Rendition at University of Miami's Cosford Cinema in Coral Gables tomorrow night at 9 pm. And I'm not planning on going. Coral Gables is about 90 minutes from my home, and it's just too damn far and too much trouble to justify. I can see the movie a few days later as planned if it saves me a trip to south Miami. I'm so proud of myself for being able to say that, it's rather frightening in itself. Let's not focus on it.

In addition to the Supreme Court decision on the ACLU case of Khaled El-Masri, the movie is getting free press courtesy of Amnesty International, who want us to watch Rendition and then go sign up at their Unsubscribe Me campaign site. Will it make any difference? Who knows. But not doing anything will make even less difference.

Also, I found this wonderful discussion with director Gavin Hood about his choices in making the movie and what he hopes to accomplish with it. Bravo, Gavin.

Jake's (mostly) fabulous visit with that wacky Jonathan Ross on Friday is still reverberating through the internet. Posts like this one on the YourLondon Calling blog, entitled "OMG! How cute is he?" are a reminder to me that there are still folks who had not yet succumbed to the Gyllenhaal charm. It's like a revelation to them. Yes, Jake is funny, and adorable, and sexy, and natural, and a cutie, as assorted bloggers have all declared since witnessing this interview. Welcome to my world.

Meanwhile, in case there's anyone else out there who, like the Splash blogger, didn't get it: no, Jake would not want to be a farmer if he weren't an actor. It's called humor. Very dry, deadpanned humor, delivered perfectly as most of his is. Perhaps these folks could benefit from more exposure to Jake's wit. Well, really, who wouldn't?

And we'll all get our next chance tonight when Jake returns to chat with David Letterman. Once again, live blogging is promised over at Jake Watch for those of you who don't receive U.S. broadcast television, though Prophecy Girl warns she may just end up waiting to hit "post" until it's over. Am I the only one who sees phenomenal potential in the scheduling of 50 Cent as the musical guest while Jake's there? I mean, it's not Kanye, but who knows what delicious insanity may transpire. I haven't felt like this since Christmas Eves as a kid. Bring it on, baby, I'm ready.

All photos: IHJ.

Gray matter

This is the stuff I've been waiting for. With each new interview, we never know if Jake will be articulate and intellectual, or full of baffling circular phrases and self-interruptions that suggest confusion or avoidance of a subject. Clearly Jake was at the top of his game when he sat down with CNN's Showbiz Tonight and faced the toughest question with lucid fluidity.

Oddly enough, the transcript for the September 12 show is the only one unavailable on CNN's transcript page as I write this. It's a damn good thing I took the time to transcribe the first part of it myself before I left for work this morning.

Jake: I believe that governments, and I think, presidents, should act as parents to a country, you know? And I think that there are things that that country needs to know, and there are things that it doesn't. But I think that honesty is first and foremost, and I think people know when someone's honest or not, really deeply inside them.

AJ Hammer: So in some ways, it can be justifiable, if the ends are proper?

Jake: Yes. I think that's the debate in the movie. I think that's the extraordinary scene between Peter Sarsgaard and Meryl Streep, when they meet and Peter says, 'You're torturing somebody,' and she says, 'But we're keeping five thousand people alive by torturing one person.' So I think the debate is what it's about, I think the debate is what it's always about. I think that that's what makes, you know, that, you can come to a resolution that way, some interesting resolution, whereas, you know, one person takes a stance, just demands that that's how it goes, and then, like, imposes it on the rest of the world.

Already, his fans have begun to debate whether Jake was saying Yes, I believe in torture or Yes, you've asked what the movie asks. I'm thrilled because it's a far more engaging and important topic to discuss than whom Jake is or isn't sleeping with this week. As an amateur psychologist and sociologist, I'm fascinated by the concessions that some folks have made regarding Jake's comments. Why exactly is it more acceptable to believe that Jake thinks the value of torture is open to debate than that he thinks it may have its place? Doesn't the first imply the second? It seems to be all about the morality we personally wish to ascribe to Jake, and for some people there is enough ambiguity in the first interpretation to make it sound like an expression of neutrality on the subject.

For the record, I believe Jake meant exactly what he said: torture can be justifiable. He did not elaborate on under what circumstances he thinks this true; he wasn't asked to do so.

I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how I feel about this answer, and I keep coming back to a single thought: to say that torture is never justifiable would be as arrogant and unconsidered as it would be to say that it is always justifiable. In that sense, Jake has given the only answer that an intelligent man could give.

As if the contemplation of the validity of torture weren't ugly enough in itself, I found a couple of reactions to Jake's comments that disturbed me even further. Someone suggested that because of his answer, "Jake Gyllenhaal might be cool." (Sadly, this blogger appears to have missed the irony behind Fight Club.) Another strangely complimentary post proclaims "Jake Gyllenhaal Talks Like a Hetero Man." With points of view like these, it's easy to understand why a woman like me has a hard time finding a compatible man. How exactly does an acknowledgment that torture is not a black-and-white issue translate into a social perception of masculinity and heterosexuality? I may just die alone, after all.

Photos: Rendition official website, via IHJ.

Green, with envy

This morning I've found the blog of a journalist at Toronto's National Post who has tipped readers that she will be interviewing Jake Gyllenhaal on Friday. You all may want to take her up on her offer....

if you have any pressing questions for Jake Gyllenhaal, feel free to post them in the comments section below

I'll be coming up with my best efforts on the drive to work. If anyone leaves Vanessa a comment/question about Jake, please post it here, too, so we can all go back later and see whose questions she used, and which ones Jake actually answers. Won't that be fun?

I'll be back soon. Work calls. Bleh.

***
As I drove, I tried to refine the list of questions that are ever-present in my head, narrowing it to those I think a spunky journalist might really ask him given the chance. I reviewed some questions that I had jotted in my green velvet journal back when my obsession was new, and discovered that most of those rather basic issues had been answered (dogs vs. cats; Mac vs. Windows/PC; etc.--these are essential details that reveal quite a bit about anyone, seriously). Ultimately I only sent Vanessa one of the longtime questions in my list. It's the one about cilantro. I hate cilantro. Here's what I've sent, so far.

Wow...not sure you know what you've opened yourself up to here. ;) I think you'll take care of the basic Rendition questions (What's his opinion on the policy of extraordinary rendition, and has making this movie affected his views on it) so I'm going to suggest questions that we Gyllenhaalics would love to have answered. Number one on that list is:

What is his next project? And when will it begin?


Additionally...

Has he accepted a part in the (now-Broadway) play Farragut North?

Does he ever read anything about himself on the internet?

Did he know that there is a small campaign by Gyllenhaalics to have him elected President in 2008, despite his ineligibility on the grounds of age?

What would he do first if he were elected?

What does he think Robert Downey, Jr. meant when he described Jake as "wet, dark and wild?"

(These are from the Barbara Walters in me, I guess)

What does he believe is his worst vice?

He's a chef. What does he think about cilantro? (there are quite a few people out here to whom it tastes like soap, including me)

Describe his most recent dream.

(And, on the green side)

Why doesn't he bring his own reusable bags when grocery shopping instead of accepting paper or plastic?

What happened to the (two) Camry hybrid(s) he told the GQ interviewer he was going to buy? We never see him in it.

I’ve pointed other Gyllenhaalics here, by the way. Hope you don’t get overwhelmed.

Don't worry, I see someone else has already suggested she ask him about Boo. I personally don't want to push him on that--if I had to give up a companion animal, which might be what happened, I would rather not be reminded of it. Many years ago my family was forced to find new homes for two cats, and I have never stopped thinking about them.

Anyway, I do hope you all will take advantage of this woman's (probably already regretted) generous suggestion. Even if she doesn't ask him any of our specific questions, hopefully she will at least read them, and thus go into the interview knowing enough about Jake to make her a worthy questioner.

Photos: IHJ.

Interlude: American lies

When I wrote about Rendition being labeled as liberal propaganda, I didn't realize the mud was already flying over at the IMDb message board for the movie. Since Jake has gone back under the radar after his teasing appearance almost two weeks ago with the Avon lady, I am left to entertain myself by other means. Unfortunately, the discussion was not what I'd expected. The thread can be summed up as follows:

Liberal!
Conservative!
Leftist!
Your mother!

For those who decide to visit it anyway, don't say I didn't warn you. Ten points to anyone who can correctly identify my comment. No, I have no idea why I expected any better from an entertainment message board. I won't be returning.

Extraordinary rendition, the subject of the movie, is beyond the petty bickering of people who want to use it as a bullet point in the argument for their side.

Every American should read this article from 2005 and this ACLU description of the process. Know what your government, my government, is up to. Does torture work, is it necessary? Why has our president lied to the world, denying that U.S.-sanctioned torture takes place? This is not some Machiavellian drama; real, living human beings are involved.



Photo: IHJ.

Rendition trailer!

Better late than never.

So, yesterday while I was at work, innocently doing actual work for the first time in about a week, the rest of the world was ooh-ing and aah-ing over the full Rendition trailer, which must have magically appeared as I slept. Bastards. I would have posted these captures and the trailer much sooner, but I sort of couldn't stop myself watching it over and over...and over....

This is going to be one intense role for Jake, from all appearances. Jake has died in a few films, but to see him almost getting blown up in that last bit was strangely exciting to me. Go figure. It looks like Douglas Freeman is a rather locked-down, caged-animal kind of guy. Not just that...Jake looks somehow bigger here; he has a large physical presence, more intimidating than his Jarhead bulk, in my opinion. He's powerful and mesmerizing, and that's with a grand total of about 10 seconds' worth of action. I could not anticipate this release with any more excitement unless Jake were coming over to escort me to a premiere himself. Or maybe to bring me back to a private screening at his home. Ahh, dreams.

I included that last cap because it just makes me all giddy. No less than three Academy Award winners are credited here, but Jake is billed first, at least in the trailer. That's gotta be a good sign, right? I tried to access the movie's advertised home page again, but it still isn't in place as of this morning. Oh well.

My one fear about this film right now is that it will in some way try to justify the process of extraordinary rendition by portraying it as having a desirable outcome. While there is no reason to suspect this, I know that it would be a very effective form of audience manipulation, and in fact to avoid being considered yet another liberal attack on foreign policy, it would be essential. I don't consider myself liberal nor conservative; my interest is justice and human rights, and I wish the leaders of my country were more interested in representing me than themselves.

All captures by me.