If you’ve been online in the last few days, you probably noticed a viral post going around from online publication the Free Press criticizing Jacob Elordi‘s current press run around Wuthering Heights. For several reasons, we can’t embed it — but if you’re curious, you can watch the entire clip here.
If you want us to sum it up instead: In the clip, writer Isaac Grafstein asserts that “This guy is obviously famous because he’s hot, but he insists that he’s some sort of misunderstood brooding artist.” The video continues with clips of Jacob talking to multiple press outlets while Isaac hems and haws about his own personal grievances regarding Jacob’s career and current omnipresence. “Jacob Elordi, please stop pretending that you’re a philosopher poet who’s above the industry and touch some grass,” Isaac concludes.
Now, let’s get the obvious out of the way here: Isaac’s argument is, on its face, poorly-sketched and impossible to take seriously. You could easily put forth the notion that he himself is guilty of the same things he accuses Jacob of — needing to “touch grass,” being desperate for attention, and possessing a mistaken amount of self-importance. These qualities are also more than familiar to anyone who’s ever encountered a “hot take” on the internet, and if you want to argue that my engaging with Isaac’s video is also part of the problem in that regard, I wouldn’t push back on that assertion.
But, for the sake of argument, I’m going to give Isaac the benefit of the doubt and examine the finer points of what he’s saying. First off: If you’ve spent any time watching Jacob Elordi’s career evolve over the past decade, you’ve probably come to the conclusion that he’s a very good actor. For starters, his star turn on Euphoria was genuinely terrifying and possessed a physicality that few other actors would’ve been able to match in that role.
Since breaking out on Euphoria, Jacob has shown an impressive sense of range as well as a willingness to take on roles that have allowed him to push his acting abilities into unexplored territory. There’s a reason why he snagged an Oscar nom for his performance as “the Creature” in Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein: He brought a sense of humanity and soulfulness to the role that stood opposite to hammier performances from costars Oscar Isaac, Mia Goth, and Christoph Waltz.
Having just seen Wuthering Heights last night, I wouldn’t say that it’s Jacob’s best performance, but it does demonstrate what makes him such a capable and increasingly respected actor: Specifically, his willingness to service the material he’s given and fully commit to what’s being asked of him. Jacob’s Heathcliff is brooding, mean-spirited, and burning with a hot-blooded passion — in short, exactly the kind of Harlequin-cover performance that writer-director Emerald Fennell was clearly looking to bring out of him.
Clearly, Jacob Elordi takes acting seriously — and why shouldn’t he? If anything, given the absolute deficit of young Hollywood stars that are actually good at acting, shouldn’t we celebrate someone who is committed to their craft and aiming to give performances that speak to something beyond their IG follower count? An argument against that notion is an argument that actors should simply look good and give us nothing — which, popular culture is full of those types already. We really don’t need more people to clutter that crowded category.
But wait — let’s zoom in a little closer here in regards to the initial argument, which is that Jacob’s press run has taken on a “sanctimonious” (Isaac’s word, not mine) air. One of the clips used as evidence is Jacob telling the Wall Street Journal — with a smile on his face, suggesting that he’s being a little facetious — that he turned to acting because, otherwise, people would have to “lock [him] away somewhere.” Another clip features him talking about his dog to Vogue, straightforwardly saying, “My dog is my hero.” Now, if loving your pet is sanctimonious, then we are all in serious trouble.
In the end, you could argue that calling Jacob Elordi “sanctimonious” is itself a sanctimonious act. And not to get all “Webster’s defines” on y’all, but Webster’s does define ‘sanctimonious” as “hypocritically pious” — essentially, holier-than-thou. To that end, if we’re criticizing Jacob for cooking too hard, then what are we requesting to be brought to the table as a replacement? What’s worse: Someone caring too much about what they do, or someone not caring at all?
Anyway. If you’ve got opinions of your own on this discourse, feel free to let ‘er rip in the comments.
