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?