Jake Gyllenhaal Fends Off Restroom Photographer
An odd encounter at South By Southwest yesterday between Jake Gyllenhaal, a urinal bank and a guy who had his camera aimed at the actor's crotch:
The world premiere of Duncan Jones’ “Source Code,” which kicked off this years’ South By Southwest film portion on Friday night, is being overshadowed by a strange story involving Jake Gyllenhaal, a camera, and a men’s room.
Twitter exploded with accounts of a scuffle between Gyllenhaal, who plays a soldier in Jones’ sci-fi thriller, and a guy who tried to take his photograph … er, mid-stream.
“Gyllenhaal apparently grabbed the dude mid-photo, threw him against the wall and was like, ‘are we really gonna do this right now?’” Tweeted Cinematical’s Erik Davis.
And JoBlo, who reportedly was in the men’s room when the “fight” occurred, updated, “Guy just tried to take Jake Gyllenhaal’s picture while he was taking a leak. Cops came. Brouhaha ensued.”
Guess these photos weren't enough for him.
UPDATE: Gyllenhaal confirmed the report to EW — "That’s true. I think it’s an appropriate space to keep privacy. I hope that people wouldn’t disagree with me on that."
Poor Jake,
can't play with guys in public toilets while working!
Posted by: MM | Mar 12, 2011 2:10:50 PM
Celebrity or not no one should be harassed in the mens room. And how hot that Jake was so butch about it? Wonder if he had time to tuck it in before he tossed the camera guy into a wall?
Posted by: Tone | Mar 12, 2011 2:14:54 PM
Tone,
"grabbed the dude mid-photo, threw him against the wall" never happened, Jake called cops to protect him.
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/sxsw-review-jake-gyllenhaal-stars-in-lively-entertaining-sf-source-code
Posted by: MM | Mar 12, 2011 2:35:54 PM
"Wonder if he had time to tuck it in before he tossed the camera guy into a wall?"
I'm hardly the kind of guy who would get physical, but if I did, I'd keep peeing, just to ruin the guy's shoes.
Posted by: BobN | Mar 12, 2011 2:42:48 PM
Wouldn't nearly anyone react the same way?
That guy deserves a knuckle sandwich.
Posted by: Matt | Mar 12, 2011 2:59:33 PM
MM--why do you say "never happened"?
Nothing in the article you linked says that Jake DID NOT push the guy against the wall. In fact, it say Jake "made" him delete the picture.
Posted by: JeffNYC | Mar 12, 2011 3:02:59 PM
What a creepy thing to do!
Posted by: The Iron Orchard | Mar 12, 2011 3:08:44 PM
@BOBN: I get the feeling that having Jake Gyllenhaal pee on his shoes or any other part of his anatomy would not have deterred him. I know it wouldn't have stopped me. In fact, under the right circumstances I would revel in it, but that's neither here nor there. Point being, he would still have the peen shot he was after.
Priceless!
Posted by: mytwocents | Mar 12, 2011 3:11:34 PM
"Brokeback II: Golden Showers of Love"
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Mar 12, 2011 3:19:09 PM
Good for Jake. That's completely unacceptable behavior.
Posted by: The Milkman | Mar 12, 2011 3:45:41 PM
It's become really hard for me to care about Jake. I can't think of a movie he's done I've really enjoyed---and yes, I'm one of the apparently bitter guys who didn't like Brokeback Mountain. He didn't deserve this intrusion, but I just find him dull. And a hypocrite, but that's another story.
Posted by: Paul R | Mar 12, 2011 3:47:18 PM
Definitely on Jake's side in this case. I would've reacted the same way.
Posted by: Joseph | Mar 12, 2011 3:48:09 PM
@PAUL R, I don't think disliking Brokeback makes you bitter. I didn't like it either and I'm definitely not bitter: I just don't like chick flicks. They are ALL the same.
Two people meet who shouldn't fall in love, but they do.
Secret passion ensues.
Somebody dies.
Somebody cries.
The end.
The fact that it was two guys I don't even find attractive didn't change a thing.
Posted by: RafiD'Angelo | Mar 12, 2011 4:00:35 PM
Celebrity would be far more interesting if we could contrive to simultaneously increase the fees paid to paparazzi 5,000% and exempt them from all legal protections.
They would become like primitive hominids stalking predators, armed with nothing but sticks, rocks, and bad taste. Talk about the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable...
It'd be the Greatest Show on Earth.
Posted by: Bryan | Mar 12, 2011 4:02:56 PM
@Rafid: thanks. My ex and I almost walked out. We found it horribly trite and depressing to boot. And, in its way, somewhat insulting.
The aftermath was almost as bad, with people whining about it not winning Best Picture (which it didn't deserve) and the stories about Heath Ledger having such a hard time playing gay (if those stories are true). Decent movies with a gay theme or even subplot are so rare.
Posted by: Paul R | Mar 12, 2011 4:20:10 PM
Good for Jake! My admiration for him has shot up dramatically.
Posted by: hank | Mar 12, 2011 4:46:07 PM
Well, I avoid people trying to take a picture of my crotch while I'm peeing by using a stall . . . or I would if it ever happened.
Posted by: james | Mar 12, 2011 4:58:58 PM
@PaulR. I saw BBMtn twice, once by myself and once with an ex-boyfriend. While I did not think it was terrible, I did not understand the fawning over it. Some of my straight women friends really enjoyed it. Said they got the story line. I couldn't understand why these two men didn't just move to Denver or Dallas and make a life together. Rural gay guys were doing that in the 60s and 70s.
Regarding Jake, well, I think he is amazingly handsome and pleasant to look at. But he's entitled to pee in privacy like every other human being.
Posted by: jpeckjr | Mar 12, 2011 5:03:56 PM
I think the fawning was largely because it was a major release with a gay theme involving two A-list actors, a major studio, and a well-known director. The plot was secondary, even if based on a story by an acclaimed author, because that was pretty remarkable for Hollywood.
And yes, they should have just moved. I think a lot of rural gays should move even today. Why suffer? That was the depressing part, along with the self-annhialation, fake marriages, self-denial, etc.
I use a stall 90% of the time and I'm not a celebrity. If I were, it would be 100%. That doesn't excuse the act of the penis paparazzo, but still. And I don't dispute his amazing looks; I'd just like him to do something more impressive than action hero/soldier/romantic comedy movies no one will remember. Maybe this one is different.
Posted by: Paul R | Mar 12, 2011 5:11:41 PM
Good for Jake for standing up for his right to privacy. No matter how famous you are, there are parts of your life that are not within the public perview (or perve view, in this case). Good for him for taking action, and I hope the "photographer" spends some time in jail learning his lesson.
Posted by: Keith | Mar 12, 2011 5:46:15 PM
What is someone doing in a mens room with a camera in the first place?
He should be charged with harrassment & invasion of privacy,celebrity or not.
The very ugly side of paparazzi.
Jake shirtless shots do it for me anyday.
Have a great day JG.
Posted by: john | Mar 12, 2011 8:05:52 PM
Don't take an actual picture of other guys at urinals.
Take a mental picture.
That's what I do.
Posted by: bravo | Mar 12, 2011 8:28:37 PM
That reminds me of a the reason Paul Newman stopped giving out autographs after a guy asked for one while he was taking a leak.
Posted by: jaragon | Mar 12, 2011 9:56:31 PM
"It's become really hard for me to care about Jake. I can't think of a movie he's done I've really enjoyed---and yes, I'm one of the apparently bitter guys who didn't like Brokeback Mountain. He didn't deserve this intrusion, but I just find him dull. And a hypocrite, but that's another story."
HERE HERE.
But, we all have a right to pee in private.
Posted by: EM | Mar 13, 2011 10:15:38 AM
I wish Jake would have knocked the sh*t out of that punk. This b.s. with the photo-fascists who think everyone and everything can be photo'ed then Tweeted has to stop. I would have smashed the little punk's head against the wall and shoved his cell-phone up his @ss.
Posted by: jamal49 | Mar 13, 2011 12:05:37 PM