At least Jake Gyllenhaal’s reinvention didn’t involve twerking.
For young stars, crafting a more mature image can sometimes be difficult. Just ask Miley Cyrus and her foam finger.
Gyllenhaal got into the business at a young age, and despite now being 32, has never quite managed to throw off his past and enter comfortably into adulthood. For some reason, he still seems like that teenager in 2001’s “Donnie Darko,” with his sad eyes and — as “Moonlight Mile” co-star Aleksia Landeau once said — “poetic soul.”
But there are signs that he is finally growing up. Prepare for the coming of a more mature Gyllenhaal.
Good sign #1: He dumped Taylor Swift. Sorry to say it, but it must be said. When you’re a celebrity, your relationships are public and play a major role in shaping your image. Taylor is probably a lovely person, but a serious actor and an adult can’t be caught up in all that high-school drama BS that constantly swirls around the 23-year-old pop star. She’s a girl; you wanna be a man.
Good sign #2: And this is the big one. The actor appears to have gotten a handle on the kinds of movies he’s interesting in making.
And by most accounts, they’re quality ones. His latest, “Prisoners,” has drawn raves and some early Oscar buzz for both Hugh Jackman and Gyllenhaal. Last year’s gritty police drama “End of Watch” earned similarly positive reviews. Both come after Gyllenhaal made an ill-fitting run at becoming an action hero in duds — 2010’s “Prince of Persia” and 2011’s “Source Code.”
Now he appears to be back seeking interesting projects with art-house talent (albeit with smaller paychecks).
“I think that Jake, at one point, felt betrayed by the studio system,” says “Prisoners” director Denis Villeneuve.
“I think that unfortunately ‘Prince of Persia’ was not a super-nice experience for him. I don’t know the details, but I feel that after a big, big, big, major studio movie, he needed something going back to his roots and his love of acting.”
Villeneuve and Gyllenhaal have become good friends and also made the forthcoming “Enemy” together. The indie director says he appreciates Gyllenhaal’s honesty.
“It was a bit scary for the crew, because we can say harsh things to each other, be angry and yell at each other, hate each other, then love each other again,” he says.
During one scene, Gyllenhaal complained that Villeneuve wasn’t pushing him hard enough because the director was too worried about sticking to the schedule. Villeneuve agreed and proceeded to shoot 35 takes.
The only downside of working with Gyllenhaal was that he was too muscled to play an every-man cop. Villeneuve made the actor wear a winter coat in most scenes to hide his bulk so that the audience would feel see him as a man, not a “hero.”
Experts agree that a non-heroic Gyllenhaal is the way to go.
“When he makes the choice to act in smaller independent features, his character work makes him stand out, and he is far more interesting of an actor,” says one longtime producer. “For certain actors like Jake Gylenhaal, appearing in big-budget, visual-effects-driven films, where an actor’s performance is the least of the director’s worries, there is a tendency to be overwhelmed by the sheer size and scope.”
Casting director Joanna Colbert, who worked with Gyllenhaal on 2002’s “The Good Girl,” says the actor would do well to stick to “small, intimate films” with strong directors, such as David O. Russell or Miguel Arteta (of “Cedar Rapids”).
And none with a magical dagger.