Yes No Maybe So: Southpaw
Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 12:00PM 
If this post were a sportsmovie, it would be like the first hint of a redemption arc to come after a downward spiral. Yes, I'm (gasp) over 48 hours late saying "yes" to Jake Gyllenhaal.
It's always "yes" so what's the rush?
The occasion is the first trailer to Southpaw, Jakey's new boxing movie from director of dark violent machismo programmers Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Olympus has Fallen, The Equalizer). In other words, we'd have no interest at all if it didn't star actors we obsess over. But we're already jumping into the Yes No Maybe So breakdown so let's just get the eternal "yes" that is Jake Gyllenhaal and our Gyllenhaalism out of the way first.
The only thing that could make slo mo and fetishisizing body shots of Jake Gyllenhaal's physique better is if his tattoos were more relatable, like...
So let's begin our three pronged breakdown...
YES
• Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal Jake Gyllenhaal
• Southpaw occupies the one-time-only release spot right after Nightcrawler so it'll be fascinating to see how people react to this performance and whether or not Nightcrawler has now completely shifted his acclaim and future awards prospects. Time will tell.
Rachel dies
Jake rages
Jake considers suicide?
NO
• Look we've all wanted Rachel McAdams to die -- that one time we all watched Midnight in Paris, he adds quickly. But this is taking things too far. It's one thing to cast women in the ubiquitous reductive "supportive girlfriend/wife" role and give them no life of their own outside of inspiring/comforting their man. It's quite another, and infinitely more gross, to cast them as the corpse which haunts the man emotionally, giving him depth, and a narrative arc often with either a redemptive/avenging storyline (hundreds of movies) or eternal turmoil (the complete works of Christopher Nolan, plus Leonardo DiCaprio's "dead wives club" trilogy). This trope is so overused there's probably a screenwriting app which loads the entire first act prologue and all of the wifely dialogue for you so you can just concentrate on the manly stuff.
• I realize that men as savage grief-filled beasts is a much faster way to critical acclaim then men as earnest soulful romantics, regardless of the quality of either performance, but I prefer my Gyllenhaal softer with those amazing blue eye-pools looking up... like...
...I need to be kissed.
And I don't feel any shame about it. Jake Gyllenhaal was made for romantic dramas even if he's proved excitingly versatile and flexible as an actor, up for and adept at other things, too.
• Anyway that snaggle-toothed, bloody "LET'S GO" that kicks off the trailer is a great trailer beat, but it's also gross. That makes two movies in a row where Gyllenhaal is purposefully made less attractive. Brad Pitt also pretended to be less than superhumanly gorgeous for awhile and it also worked to get him critical acclaim. "Deglam" is a thing for male actors, too, just far less prominent an awards thing, since most male movie stars aren't primarily thought of as "beauties".
MAYBE SO
• These are some screencaps I took that made me interested in the movie for reasons like from top to bottom: possible dumb humor ("the great white dope" -- his name is "Hope" . teehee), curiousity about how well Gyllenhaal will work with child actors (I think he did in Brothers? Can't remember), and wondering how many shots will be all about Jake's torso:
• As with most movies, it's all in the execution. This could be a random disposable sports movie or a glistening hard sinewy... uh... or... ahhh .. or a strong drama. Let's hope everyone brings their A game so it's not generic.
Are you a yes, no or a maybe so? And why?
Reader Comments (17)
Ugh that Rachel McAdams thing annoys me already so I'm probably a NO.
Was it really necessary to show it in the trailer as well?
ALSO I just thought of this, but a major plot device in Demolition is that his wife dies and then in Everest (SPOILERS? but not really since it's based on a true story) his character dies. Such a glum and tragic year for Jakey.
Can anyone confirm if Brie Larson was ever once attached to this? I could have sworn I read that during early development, but I can't find any evidence of that now.
Aww, so much hate for Rachel McAdams. She may not be the most versatile performer, but look at her past few movies and you can tell she is trying to stretch. Brian De Palma, Terence Malick, Woody Allen...just because they don't use her well doesn't mean she's not trying.
Adams is a fine actress but Nathaniel is right, we've seen this type of storyline play out hundreds of times. This is a VERY spoiler filled trailer but I like boxing movies, Jake and training day so I am a definite yes.
Unless the reviews are over the moon, I won't be rushing out to see this. Not a fan of Angry Steroid Freak Jake, and I don't particularly trust Kurt Sutter or Antoine Futuna to find a new angle - or rather,a *good* new angle - on the boxing genre.
I'm a maybe so to no. I like Sutter and the cast, but fight films are not high on my list of must sees.
I love Jake but this one sure looks tedious. Fuqua really doesn't do it for me, so that isn't helping.
since we've already seen the whole thing in the trailer i'm a no [need to see it again]
Not a fan of Fuqua either and this looks pretty generic. But I'm a maybe so pretty much solely for Jake and depending on reviews.
Jake has so much momentum for an Oscar nod after his near miss with NIGHTCRAWLER, but maybe DEMOLITION is the brightest prospect for him this year, awards wise.
YES, I'm super interested in Jakey's acting, but I'm MAYBE only a little interested in this particular storyline, so, NO, I won't see it in a theater. I'll wait 'til it's available for home viewing and I can turn down the volume on the deafening, bone-crunching, boxing-ring sound effects.
I'm always a yes for Jake, and I'm still hoping McAdams will someday show me more of the dazzling talent we saw in Mean Girls. I'd be perfectly happy to never see Jake in a romcom role again though. His baby blues are best when they are masking an inner world of emotion, and modern romcoms are far too on the nose.
"Southpaw occupies the one-time-only release spot right after Nightcrawler..."
Sorry, can you explain what this means? I can't figure it out.
I'm a Maybe. I really hope it gets amazing reviews because normally I'm all for Jake but like others have pointed out this looks generic and predictable. I hope Jake isn't starting to just pick projects that show off his range rather than finding truly interesting stories, because his career could become a very self-indulgent, masturbatory* march toward a 2nd Oscar nomination ("look how committed I am! Reward me!").
* Yes, I just used "masturbatory" in regards to Jake and it wasn't in a hot or even positive way, but there you have it.
@DJDeeJay - I think the "one-time-only release spot" refers to the first film Jake will have released after Nightcrawler nearly scored him an Oscar nod. The hope is that this will be on par so that his momentum will continue and that he ultimately does get nominated (or wins) this time around. Anyway, that was my take on it.
That trailer spoiled the whole damn movie. Thanks a lot. Saved me $10.
Not sure JG taking on this role is strictly an award-bait. His career's been full of mostly beta-males. Even Elswit emphasized Nightcrawler as the first true vehicle for JG where he's not part of an ensemble or two-hander. A boxing movie with machismo tropes, is as far from his past roles as possible. It's also a hackneyed genre, with a long line of classic performances. To bait awards and critical support, it really comes down to Gyllenhaal's interpretation. It remains to be seen if he fulfills what he teased in a March '14 interview on Canadian radio, about hypermasculinity being a man's downfall (think Whitaker's role does some zen-coaching for "angry caged animal"-boxer, or something.)
Also it's telling that the first "romantic Jake" example comes to mind, is Brokeback. There simply aren't that many similar stories and roles for him. He's shown great chemistry with Kendrick and Russo (which tends to be overlooked by "Jake only excels at beta-men"-crowd.) Those serve as subplot or sinister twist on courtship.
If his mettle is biting off complex psychology, romance plots simply don't offer it (and Brokeback certainly had the walled-in social aspect for complexity.)