Thursday, 31 May 2007

Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon photographed separately again

On 30 May Jake Gyllenhaal visited a friend's house in LA, after which he and Reese Witherspoon left in separate cars, with Reese following Jake back to her house in Brentwood. That's what we're told and yet again the 'evidence' comprises photographs of Jake on his own, a shot of Reese through the window of a car, and a picture of two cars driving down the street - although handily these cars have been labelled 'Jake' and 'Reese', just so we can recognise 'proof' when we're given it.

Considering the number of paps who must be following Jake and Reese around LA and who, no doubt, had time to gather outside this friend's house yesterday, I've got to say 'Is this the best you can do?' When their sole mission is to supply the tabloids with that one picture, and with all that state-of-the-art equipment at their disposal - not to mention the humble phone camera - I'd expect more (as would the editors, I'd imagine). Of course, if there's nothing to photograph... The game continues.





Photographs from IHJ.
at

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous31 May 2007 at 17:57

    I don't quite get the degree of skepticism these sightings generate. I don't mean skepticism about the relationship - there are people who will never buy it and there are others who'll lap it up. But the sightings are probably legitimate. Why on earth would the photographers make up the story that Reese and Jake were together?

    If it's a PR move, then they'd be available to be photographed together. As it is, I think the paps just aren't quick enough for Jake and Reese.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wet Dark and Wild31 May 2007 at 18:28

    Hi Anon, thanks for commenting.

    I've always been interested in the media and the way it attempts to drive public opinion or expectations. For me, the interest here lies not in the endless and dull question of are they/aren't they? but in the way the tabloids have been playing us in their frustrated attempts to give us what they think we want.

    What got my attention with this was the fact they would issue pictures of cars with name labels as if that constitutes 'proof'.

    I'm not skeptical about Jake and Reese, but I'm very cynical about the role of the media in creating all this interest and presenting every stage of a romance in its magazines without a single picture.

    WDW isn't about gossip but if I see something that interests me in the media's portrayal of Jake then I'm not going to ignore that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous31 May 2007 at 18:55

    The only interest I think the rags or the paps have in this is the Reese angle, becasue frankly as much as I love Jake, I don't think he rates for this kind of attention. The sightings have to be legit becasue I would think they would have far more interesting things to do then make up sightings, it isn't all that interesting outside of Jake and Reese's fandom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous31 May 2007 at 19:43

    "Why on earth would the photographers make up the story that Reese and Jake were together?"

    Simple. It sells magazines.

    "If it's a PR move, then they'd be available to be photographed together."

    In HW, the paparazzi want pictures more than press reps and stars want to provide them.

    "As it is, I think the paps just aren't quick enough for Jake and Reese."

    Yes, they must be channeling The Flash because they've never been photographed doing anything affectionate or intimate ever. I guess that being seen near doctors office is the new way to court someone. Who needs dinner, candy and flowers anymore?

    They are friends and colleagues. And that's it. He's already said so. Apparently the paparazzi don't believe him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1 June 2007 at 00:19

    I don't recall Jake ever saying that nor Reese. When was the question asked? Not during his Cannes stint because we would have heard about it, they didn't ask him any personal questions. No he has not commented, maybe if the paparazzi would leave them alone if they actually issued a denial.

    ReplyDelete