Author Topic: Jake  (Read 46489 times)

Offline souxi

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,300
  • sex on legs
    • bats belfrey
Re: Jake
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2008, 10:47:00 am »
No, no one is saying Jake must make a statement, but like the Royal family after Princess Diana's death, sometimes society's expectations of the behavior of public figures takes precedence.  Jake will make a statement, sooner or later, it's inescapable for him being who he is and his connection to the Ledgers. 

The only reason that our Royal family eventually made a statement about Princess Diana was because they HAD too. There such a public outcry over the lack of response from the Queen, she really didn,t have any choice.
Jake will say something about Heath eventually. Bless him, he must be heartbroken. I know most of the focus is naturally on Heaths family at the moment, but I still keep thinking about poor Jake, bless him.  :'( :'( :'(

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Jake
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2008, 12:15:46 pm »
I agree with you, Natali.

And you know what infuriates me (among other things) thinking about all this now?  That poor Jake probably would have liked to have gone to the funeral home and/or to Perth to pay his respects, but his fame and the media make that all but impossible for him.  Think about it - if he showed up at either place, it would become a media circus, and his appearance there would become the punchline of several assholes' jokes, just as apparently Heath's death has.  All because they're shameless homophobes and because the two of them happened to star together in a movie that not only depicted homosexuals *realisitically*, but that gained critical acclaim and was widely viewed because of that.

Again, it infuriates me.

And not only does Jake not have to make a statement, he must know he shouldn't, because this same bullshit will happen all over again.  It's not self-preservation - I'm sure he's thinking of the family.  But it really, really sucks.

You're probably exactly right, barb, but as nutmeg says, he can always go later, on a private pilgrimage so as not to add to the family's woes.  On the other hand, the family might not care, in a great 'bugger off' to the media, invite him anyway.  I don't know what Australian laws are on family privacy at funerals and such.  Thanks to bottom-feeders like Phelps and family, we recently had to pass laws to keep what most decent people thought was sacred - a funeral - free from picketers and morbid hecklers.  Plus, I don't know of course, but they might cremate him for all we know and scatter the ashes somewhere which would greatly help keep the privacy of the family.

siouxi,
Quote
The only reason that our Royal family eventually made a statement about Princess Diana was because they HAD too. There such a public outcry over the lack of response from the Queen, she really didn,t have any choice.

Exactly.  Poor Jake.  He's in the same boat.  He would probably like to keep his thoughts and grief to himself and his close family/friends, hence his current media silence, but he cannot escape the media in his profession and will be forced to present his grief in a soundbite - accompanied by the close-up of the interviewer nodding sympathetically - eventually  :P  >:(

Offline RedAzaelia

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 16
Re: Jake
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2008, 01:07:15 pm »
Dontcha just want to run over to Jake and hold him and say :"C'mere, S'alright"......   :'(

I know I do. My first inexplicable reaction was an urge to cover him in warm blankets and feed him fresh home-baked cookies, and just hold him until he's ok. Poor guy.

I hope the press leaves him alone. He has no obligation to say anything at all to them, if he doesn't want to.

I just want him to be ok. :'(

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: Jake
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2008, 01:17:56 pm »
It just struck me...

It's fortunate for Jake's sake that he hasn't been nominated for awards this season, and doesn't have to do the interview circuit. At least he will have time to grieve, and to decide what he wants to say when the time comes. (Eventually he will have to do interviews, and someone will ask about Brokeback and Heath. But I'm glad he isn't being forced to do it now, when the grief is so raw.)
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Jake
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2008, 01:51:07 pm »
He cannot escape the media in his profession and will be forced to present his grief in a soundbite - accompanied by the close-up of the interviewer nodding sympathetically - eventually  :P  >:(

Ugh. I squirm at this image - but of course you're right.

Quote
From Mel
At least he will have time to grieve, and to decide what he wants to say when the time comes. (Eventually he will have to do interviews, and someone will ask about Brokeback and Heath. But I'm glad he isn't being forced to do it now, when the grief is so raw.)


I'm wondering though, in regards both quotes above -  for eventual talkshow appearances and more organized types of interviews, if Jake continues to lie low for a while - can't he make it a condition (if he so chooses) that they not ask about Heath? I'm pretty sure other stars of his caliber have made similar "topic non grata" demands in order to appear. (Hugh Grant comes to mind, for entirely different reasons). I know David Letterman tormented the inane Paris Hilton for nearly a whole show appearance about her prison stay - I really can't see him doing the same to a respected actor who's made it clear in advance he wants to be allowed to grieve in private. But perhaps I'm just being naive and gullible in thinking there is some miniscule bit of decency left in the entertainment industry.

Still, as time goes by and new news stories become the order of the day, there will be less pressure on Jake to make any sort of public tribute... won't there?

But of course, there will be the off-the-cuff (or off-the-curb  ::) ) interviews and questions, and press conferences where all sorts of things will be asked out of the blue... So Jake won't avoid saying something, sooner and later. But for such instances it can at least be brief and there won't be time to dwell on the matter.... for him, or the reporter.

I'm glad for his sake that he's keeping his own counsel now and keeping out of sight. The media frenzy if he appeared now would be rather horrid, I'm sure.


Offline el_wing

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • and bite me too...
Re: Jake
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2008, 02:22:15 pm »
I'm glad Jake doesn't have to deal with the media. He doesn't have to share his pain with the world.
Leaves turn over with the times,
The sun breaks each day with shines,
Hither awhile, then whither back--
It is life that people lack.
     ~el-wing

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: Jake
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2008, 02:39:55 pm »
I'm wondering though, in regards both quotes above -  for eventual talkshow appearances and more organized types of interviews, if Jake continues to lie low for a while - can't he make it a condition (if he so chooses) that they not ask about Heath?

I don't know. I know my favorite interviewers respect sensitive topics. But, on the other hand, Jake is very much a professional who knows how the industry works. And BBM was Jake's breakthrough role, just as it was Heath's. So it would probably be unwise for Jake to make it off-limits. (Personal feelings about Heath's... I won't say it... are another matter, but from now on, BBM will be linked to tragedy in real life as well. It's a movie about tragedy and loss, at least in part, and now even more so.)

Dammit. Heath should be spending another fifty years, at least, talking to interviewers about his newest brilliant role.  :'(
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline LauraGigs

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
    • My Design Portfolio
Re: Jake
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2008, 02:52:17 pm »
Quote from: Mikaela
Perhaps the knowledge that people may subconsciously be looking to him for some kind of closure, some profound statement to - somehow - make some sense of this, or convey some confort, or pay a tribute that becomes the one tribute that remains for the ages -   may make it even more difficult for him to handle his own grief.


Agreed.  How would any of us deal if the world press were waiting on us for a "How-do-you-feel" statement on Heath's passing?  Requiring a perfect distillation of all our emotions into a "workable soundbyte" form, as well as being some kind of perfect emotional balm for millions of grieving strangers?

We may assume that Jake, being an actor, would be better at this than we.  But it's just so unfair to him.


(I do agree that loving tributes from people – when they're ready – are lovely and healing.  Daniel Day-Lewis' statement was apparently that for a lot of people.)

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Jake
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2008, 02:52:39 pm »
Somehow I think Jake might go to Perth. Heath was his friend and he's Matilda's godfather. Of course he is going, and the press need not to find out. He can rent a private plane to fly to Australia from wherever he is. He's got the money for that. Given the fact that funeral arrangements are a secret we may not hear about it but I'm pretty sure he will be there. Jake, his family and a bunch of other people.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Jake
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2008, 02:54:41 pm »
I'm pretty sure other stars of his caliber have made similar "topic non grata" demands in order to appear. (Hugh Grant comes to mind, for entirely different reasons).

What comes to mind about Hugh Grant for me was when he appeared on Leno's show just after he was arrested for hiring a prostitute. He's introduced, comes onto the set, applause applause, sits down in the chair, and Leno turns to him and goes, "What were you thinking?!!" So apparently Hugh hadn't stipulated that particular subject off limits in that case.

I'm going entirely from memory, so I may have some of the details wrong.

Anyway, as you say Mika, Jake's situation is entirely different. I think celebrities often do ask that certain subjects be off limits -- their love lives or pending divorces, for example -- but those are usually topics demanding a different sort of privacy. The specifics of Jake's friendship with Heath are private, of course, but I don't think it's too intrusive to expect that he might want to say something about his friend's passing.

The media absolutely shouldn't harass him in his private life for a comment, or on his way into the funeral, or anything like that. But if he's on a talk show or a press junket I don't think it's out of line for the interviewer to bring the subject up, and I think it would be kind of odd if Jake would refuse to answer. All he'd have to say, at minimum, is something about how sad he is, how much he respected Heath, etc. And Jake seems so comfortable and relaxed in the limelight that I don't think he'd have any trouble with that.

My favorite interviewers respect sensitive topics, too. But good interviewers have to make at least a stab (so to speak) at bringing them up. I once had to interview an author who had endured an extremely painful, shocking and highly publicized family tragedy/scandal a few years earlier. I knew I had to ask her about it, and had dreaded it. She refused to answer my questions, as I'd expected, and so I dropped it. But we both knew the drill, that I had to ask, and she didn't hold it against me, as far as I could tell.