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.

Idol speculation

It's always wonderful to be reminded that Jake is on the minds of entertainment types other than the gossip mongers and paparazzi scum. This morning I found a blip by Liz Smith of the Baltimore Sun in which she speaks of a rumored movie-version of the musical-version of Sunset Boulevard:

I spoke with a top movie producer the other day, and he dismissed the latest round of interest in the movie. "Oh, please. Forget the musical....

"I say update the Billy Wilder original. Make Norma a washed-up star from the disco era. Cast Halle Berry and Jake Gyllenhaal."

Thanks, unknown top movie producer. Your random selection of Jake for the role once played by the iconic William Holden brightened my morning. Many of us Gyllenhaalics like to toss around ideas for future parts, especially remakes as they provide known characters from which to select. While I must sadly confess it has been many years since I saw the film, Joe Gillis does seem like an absolutely perfect fit for our man. But unlike the greedy and visionless studio types, I don't believe every movie needs to be remade. Modern remakes have gotten completely out of hand, to the point that Hollywood is revisiting films made in the mid-80s. Fortunately, Jake has so far demonstrated superior judgment in most of his choices, and I'm never really worried that he'll participate in something of such poor quality as to damage his impressive reputation.

Then there was the suggestion by the writers at IGN that the newly released BioShock game might make a great movie starring Jake. Okay, they mentioned several potential leads, including Jake's Brokeback Mountain costar Heath Ledger. But the fact that Jake popped up on their list along with Mr. Forbes' Ultimate Star Payback himself, Matt Damon is definitely not a bad sign. Their comment: "Is Gyllenhaal ready to carry a big budget flick like BioShock? We think so." I guess this impressed me most because IGN is, well, a network for gamers, and my impression is that, like their audience, its contributors are largely male. This is a vote of hetero confidence that confirms my belief in Jake's universal appeal. No, I would not be particularly thrilled at the prospect of Jake's appearance in a video game movie, but again, I trust his judgment; he'd do it only if it was worth his time.

While neither of these remarks holds any real implications for Jake, and we remain in a lazy summer limbo wondering what his next project will be, at least I am reassured that he has not been forgotten by all but the tabloids (and of course, we, the Gyllenhaalics).

Photos: IHJ.

Impenetrable mysteries of the Gyllenverse, part I

A few days ago, some new-but-old photos of Jake out biking were posted by the diligent and invaluable Stephanie at IHJ. As usual, the man looks outrageously attractive while exercising. There should be a law against this. Where's the sweat, Gyllenhaal? Anyway, these pics reminded me of something I've noticed before.

We all saw Jake's naked head in Jarhead. His skull is perfectly shaped, if somewhat large. Why is it, then, that every time we see him in a bike helmet, the thing is tilted ever so slightly to his right (our left)?







It's not so much the fact that it's not straight that niggles at me; that seems reasonable enough. But it's always to his right side. Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at some evidence. I am so not kidding here. Since I have nothing better to do, I've developed a few theories to explain this consistency.

1. It's intentional. Jake likes to be a little goofy.
2. He put it on that way because he really can't tell where the top of his head is without looking in a mirror.
3. He makes a lot of steep right turns every time he rides, and centrifugal force pulls the helmet off-kilter.

I may never know the truth behind this phenomenon, but the important thing is that I recognize it exists and appreciate it as a part of the endless quirkiness that makes me a Gyllenhaalic. Jake: the man, the enigma, the goofball.

All photos: IHJ.