Natalie Portman’s 8-year-old Western was a disastrous box office flop

If there was no bad luck, some films, just like people, would have no luck at all. One such film (particularly recent) is the Western produced by Natalie Portman and starringJane has a gun. The production seemed cursed from the start. Directors came and went. Bonafide movie stars signed up, but then dropped out at the last second.

Natalie Portman tried desperately to save Jane has a gun before falling apart. She succeeded. However, the film’s backer, Relativity, went bankrupt before the film could be released in theaters, leading to the ever-controversial (and monstrous) Harvey Weinstein stepping in and overseeing the film’s theatrical release. When the film finally hit theaters, the worst news of all came: a complete box office failure so bad that the film almost failed to break $1 million in North America.

What is “Jane Got a Gun” about?

If you want peace, prepare for war

It takes place a decade after the American Civil War. Jane has a gun tells the story of a woman named Jane Ballard (Natalie Portman), who lives with her husband Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) and their young daughter in a remote house in the middle of the Midwest desert. The couple lives in relative peace until one day Bill returns home with multiple gunshot wounds and shockingly whispers the phrase:

“The bishops are coming.”

With her husband’s injuries leaving him powerless, Jane takes her daughter to a woman she trusts, then rides into town to seek help from her ex-fiancé Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton). Much to the audience’s surprise, Dan, who seems more than bitter when he sees Jane, refuses to help. So Jane rides into town and prepares to defend herself by purchasing a firearm. As she leaves the store, she is attacked by the Bishop gang. When Dan shows up at the last minute, Jane has the time she needs to overpower her attacker and kill the outlaw.

As Jane and Dan prepare their home for a possible attack by Bishop’s gang, flashbacks reveal that Jane and Dan were already engaged before Dan went off to fight in the Civil War and was captured by the enemy. When the war ended, Dan returned to look for Jane, but she had already left. He desperately traveled across the country to find her until he discovered that she had traveled west in a wagon train led by a man named John Bishop (Ewan McGregor). Eventually, Jane and Bill left Hammond Bishop’s group, and when Dan finally found her, she was already married to Bill and had a child.

But there are parts of Jane’s story that Dan never fully understood, and when he learns the truth, everything he thought he knew about his former love changes. Will Dan, Jane and Bill all survive the onslaught when the Bishop gang raids the Hammond family home? Or will these two former lovers be enough to save everyone from certain death?

Why did Jane Got a Gun seem doomed from the start?

Some films merely adopt the darkness, others are shaped by it

Sometime Jane has a gunSays Natalie Portman’s heroine, somewhat prophetically: “It’s hard to remember what things looked like… when you know how they actually turned out.” And if so Jane has a gun If there was a log line detailing the production process, that would certainly be it.

There is no doubt that at some point, very early on, it was Jane got a gun Life cycle, the film was very promising. In May 2012, news broke that Natalie Portman had teamed up with director Lynne Ramsay (who had recently directed Incredibles). We need to talk about Kevin) to bring this new female-centric Western to life. The industry was so excited by the prospect that it sparked a bidding war at Cannes.

Once the ball kept rolling Jane has a gunthe momentum continued to increase. In the summer of 2012, Michael Fassbender was hired for the role of Dan Frost. A few months later, Jole Edgerton joined the film to play John Bishop. Everything went as it should. Then, at the beginning of 2013, the turning point came.

Initially, Michael Fassbender left because he had scheduling conflicts X-Men: Days of Future Past. Lynn Ramsay thought quickly, recast the vacated role with Joel Edgerton and hired Jude Law for the role of John Bishop. Then, all of a sudden, Ramsay ended production just days before it was scheduled to begin, after a reported three-day standoff with producer and financier Scott Steindroff. This in turn would lead to a legal dispute between both parties, but more on that in a moment, because believe it or not, Jane has a gun The production drama wasn’t over yet.

Following Lynne Ramsay’s departure, director Gavin O’Connor (warrior) was announced as her successor the very next day. Buried elsewhere in the depths of that press release was the news that Jude Law was out of the picture, having originally only signed on to work with Ramsay. So O’Connor replaced Law with Bradley Cooper. Less than a month later, Cooper also dropped out of the film due to scheduling conflicts American hustle and bustle. A few days later, Ewan McGregor agreed to play the role of John Bishop and things finally reached a manageable stage where production on the film began. Not that the drama is over.

Due to Lynne Ramsay’s sudden departure, the film’s producers filed a lawsuit against her, claiming that her leaving the set amounted to a dereliction of duty that led to production delays. They also claimed that the Scottish-born director was “repeatedly under the influence of alcohol, abusive to members of the cast and crew, and generally disruptive.” At the same time, she also suggested that she was negligent in observing safety rules for handling firearms on set.

As expected, Lynne Ramsay categorically denied these allegations and was ready to take the case to court. Luckily it didn’t come to that. Both parties reached an agreement that resolved the situation to their mutual satisfaction. Then when it was time to release Jane has a gunThe film’s financier, Relativity Media, filed for bankruptcy just days before the film’s scheduled release. This prompted Harvey Weinstein to step in and secure distribution rights Jane has a gun finally hit theaters in North America in early 2016. Not that anyone cared.

Has public opinion of Jane Got a Gun changed since its release?

Not really, but there’s always time for a re-evaluation of timeless filmmaking

There is no way around it Jane has a gun felt like a cursed production from the start. Unfortunately, all the bad luck followed the film well into its release and it became a box office bomb. The film only grossed $1.5 million in the United States and Canada and $2.3 million from the rest of the world. That’s a return of just under $4 million on a budget that reportedly cost $25 million. If you look at these numbers a little more closely, things don’t get any better. Average, Jane has a gun only grossed around $691 per theater on its opening weekend. It became the worst debut release ever for The Weinstein Company.

The reviews weren’t much better. While Natalie Portman’s performance was (of course) almost universally praised, critics described the rest of the film as cheesy and simplistic. You’re not entirely wrong. First and foremost, Natalie Portman is fantastic in the film. She has always been one of Hollywood’s most experimental actresses, and her refusal to be pigeonholed has led to some unforgettable performances. Her role as Jane may not give her Mount Rushmore, but it’s a respectable performance that’s more than up to the task of carrying the film.

Elsewhere, Jane has a gun is quiet, classic filmmaking. Despite the film’s misleading title, it’s more of a historical romance than, say, a fast-paced Western, and it’s definitely more concerned with reconciling the aftermath of something as horrific as a nation recently devastated by war than it is is an entertaining, pointless film. Many will take one look at the film’s marketing and immediately dismiss it as a “feminist” film, but as Natalie Portman herself told Elle shortly after filming wrapped:

“The fallacy in Hollywood is that if you make a “feminist” story, the woman will kick ass and win. That’s not feminist, that’s macho. A film about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows that to a real person. We can empathize with her.

If that’s the message Natalie Portman was trying to convey Jane has a gun, Then the film is finally successful, at least in that respect. It’s just a shame in almost every other way Jane has a gun became one of the most disastrous box office disasters in recent memory.