‘Jane Got a Gun’ Eyes Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, & Jeff Bridges to Replace Jude Law

Published 2 years ago by

jane got a gun jeff bridges tobey maguire jake gyllenhaal Jane Got a Gun Eyes Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, & Jeff Bridges to Replace Jude Law

Making independent films always comes with a certain set of challenges, but Natalie Portman’s planned Western Jane Got a Gun is starting to seem like it might actually be cursed. Before we give you the latest news, here’s a brief history of the project, including its recent series of disasters.

Things looked positive when the project was first announced last spring, with Portman attached to produce and play the lead, BAFTA-winning filmmaker Lynne Ramsay all set to direct, and a script written by Black Listed screenwriter Brian Duffield. A few months later, Michael Fassbender was lined up to play protagonist, Jane’s ex-lover, who is called upon to help her fight off the bandits that shot her husband. Then, three months ago, Joel Edgerton signed on to play the leader of the bandits.

The foundations began shaking a couple of weeks ago, when Fassbender was forced to drop out of the project due to scheduling conflicts. The cast underwent a hurried reshuffle, with Joel Edgerton taking on the role that Fassbender had vacated and Jude Law agreeing to take Edgerton’s place as the antagonist. The film seemed to be back on track, until the first day of production came around and Lynne Ramsay failed to show up. After the director quit without a word, Jude Law also abandoned Jane Got a Gun, since he’d only agreed to the role on the basis that he’d be working with Ramsay. Producer Scott Steindorff did not take the news well, saying of Ramsay’s decision to leave:

“I’m shocked and so disappointed someone would do this to 150 crew members who devoted so much time, energy, commitment and loyalty to a project, and then have the director not show up. It is insane somebody would do this to other people.”

Things began looking particularly ugly later in the week, after FilmDrunk received an anonymous e-mail from someone who’d been contacted by Steindorff’s assistant – begging them to leave positive comments on a Jane Got a Gun news article. The assistant added, “My boss will kill me if it’s not at least 40 comments!” This advertising technique, known colloquially as astroturfing, is often used to create a false impression of grass roots support for a project. Unfortunately for Steindorff, though somewhat predictably considering Jane Got a Gun‘s current run of luck, the attempt at astroturfing backfired and has only led to further bad publicity for the film.

Natalie Portman to star Jane Got a Gun  Jane Got a Gun Eyes Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, & Jeff Bridges to Replace Jude Law

For what it is worth, however, Steindorff and Portman are striving on despite the setbacks. Within hours a replacement director was found in the form of Gavin O’Connor, who previously directed Joel Edgerton in the boxing drama Warrior. Now, the LA Times is reporting that Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire and Jeff Bridges are on the list of actors that O’Connor is chasing to fill the role that Jude Law so suddenly vacated. It’s unclear at this point whether filming has begun or whether the producers are waiting for a full cast before continuing. With the crew, props, locations and equipment already organized, however, every extra day on hold will mean punishing damage to the available budget.

This latest news is somewhat encouraging for those who are looking forward to seeing Jane Got a Gun struggle on towards completion. Westerns have been scarcely produced of late, and Westerns that have a tough female lead are even rarer, so an independent film with such an interesting premise and a great deal of talent already attached is definitely worth keeping an eye on. I can’t help but wonder if they’re filming on a Native American burial ground, though.

Are you rooting for Jane Got a Gun, or do you think the fates are trying to tell us something? Let us know your thoughts on the ongoing drama in the comments.

Jane Got a Gun is currently scheduled for release in 2014.

Source: The LA Times

Follow H. Shaw-Williams on Twitter @HSW3K
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. The fate of this movie may rest with “the self-fulfilling prophesy” of a so-called curse; that is, if we expect the film under a spell then that’s exactly what we will be looking forward to, no matter nuanced, insignificant or inconsequential.

    Regardless of what one may wish for the production (…and Lord knows a great deal of work/energy/time goes into 9 months of prep, not to mention money spent already and that daily meter running) the inevitable Schadenfreude over what has already occurred has made fans of the film’s troubles.

    Now, methink, many are awaiting the “problems during principal photography” and the eventual “HEAVEN’S GATE”.

    Me? I’m a fan of Natalie’s and of a (well-made) western; but mostly a fan of the hard work those 150 people put into this production.

  2. So, for this role, the following have been cast/considered: Fassbender, Law, Gyllenhaal, Maguire, Bridges. This is just sad. They are all vastly different actors. At this point, are the producers even trying? I know it’s a tough situation but come on! Maguire in a role that Fassbender was supposed to play?

    • Fassbender actually would play the role of the ex-lover,but was replaced with Joel Edgerton (who would played the villain originally,and was replaced by Jude Law) when Fassbender had to drop out. And after the director was replaced,Law dropped out. This shortlist is for the villain role.

      Yeah…it’s a mess. I really hope this comes together.

      • Ah, that’s right. I got that mixed up. I’m with you and hope it comes together too. Looks interesting.

    • Thats why they are called actors, they act, make believe.

  3. I’m rooting for this movie!

  4. Movies are an art form, much like what Wagner had in mind with his “Gesamtkekunstwerk” (“total art form”). So actors are artists who are only a part of the big picture. But some actors are like children and very immature, while others are very mature (they seem to fall into one or the other category). These people who quit—except Fassbender who seems to have had a good reason with his scheduling conflict for the new X-Men movie)—seem to be in the children category, and should be forgotten as far as this production is concerned. On with the show. I just hope they find a substantial heavy to fill the role that Law vacated, even better than Law, who purportedly wanted $9 million. The role calls for a substantial countenance, not possible with lightweights Toby McGuire or Gyllenhaall, and let’s face it, Jeff Bridges is too old.

  5. I would love to see where Jeff Bridges could take this. If he agrees and signs on I think this development could make a full recovery. Bridges has the maturity and skill set to fill in all the gaps.

    It would be a shame if this movie was abandoned because of a selfish director and a money hungry actor. Especially since this a Western that we get so few of. Fassbender you’re forgiven.

    Portman and Bridges for the win!