Seth Mecklenburg | Arts & Life Co-Editor
Recently I went to see the film “Prisoners”. I had been looking forward to the film since seeing the first trailer and was particularly interested to see Hugh Jackman play a father, whose child is abducted with her friend and the moral decisions that arise throughout the story. I was ecstatic to see him stretch his acting muscles, as opposed to his actual muscles as Wolverine.
His character, despite all of his anger issues, was anything but one note. But the other main star of the star-studded drama included Jake Gyllenhaal. For some reason, I felt like Gyllenhaal was an actor that had an eye for good material but was never a stand out. I thought that until the first time I saw Gyllenhaal and was instantly absorbed by his character.
After the film, I thought about Gyllenhaal’s career and why I would have been so off base. Then it clicked. I had been thinking of his more well-known films like “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” and “The Day After Tomorrow”. Both of those films are over budgeted funfests that are meant for a certain audience. Not to say that they are necessarily bad (although I would argue that point for “Prince of Persia”), but they are not films that you watched to see an amazing performance.
This made me think of other films Gyllenhaal has made. After taking a look at his already lengthy career, it would be fair to say that Gyllenhaal is one of the better and more consistent actors working today. Since the 1990s, his films have been mostly very well received, just not blockbusters.
Gyllenhaal’s first experience leading a mainstream film was quite successful. It was 1999s “October Sky” where he starred as Homer, a high school student obsessed with space and rockets. The film, based on the true story of NASA engineer Homer H. Hickam Jr., made 32 million dollars on a 25 million dollar budget and garnered excellent reviews; it has a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.
He next starred in the 2001’s cult classic “Donnie Darko”. The film cost next to nothing to make for a studio film: six million dollars. Unfortunately, it only grossed $500,000. This is where the trend begins; it was a major flop in his career, the first of many that also had great reviews. “Donnie Darko” has an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Gyllenhaal’s performance singled out as part of its greatness. In fact, the director’s cut of the film has a 91% score, with critic Leighton Walter Kille of the Boston Globe saying, “What remains unchanged is the realization of just what a superb actor Jake Gyllenhaal is.”
Other greatly received Gyllenhaal films include 2007’s “Zodiac” with an 89% Rotten Tomatos score, “Source Code” at 92%, and last year’s “End of Watch” at 85%. None of these films were anything close to blockbusters yet had outstanding reviews. For example, “Zodiac” cost 65 million dollars to make but only made 33 million in the US.
All of that being said, Gyllenhaal doesn’t seek out projects that are designed to make money; he strives to make emotionally impactful films, every now and again doing a big budget extravaganza. We shouldn’t expect his films to make a lot of money, right? Well it would be better if they did. “Prisoners” itself opened to a successful $20 million on its opening weekend but has not been able to keep its audience momentum.
Some may chalk that up to some tough competition from “Gravity” and the upcoming “Captain Phillips”, but “Prisoners” had several weekends on both of those pictures and has an 80% on Rotten Tomatos. It’s a film that is at least worth a viewing. It’s not for everyone, with its very dark material and heavy moral complications, but the film is a very good, well-executed piece of cinema, and I hope more people see and enjoy it.
The more money these films make, the harder studios will try to make good films. And somebody like Gyllenhaal, who always tries and often succeeds at making great pieces of entertainment, deserves our full attention.
Photo by Tyson Domingo
