Before Ang Lee headed out into the wilderness with Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger to film what would become the award-winning Brokeback Mountain, the project had experienced some major hiccups.
Gus Van Sant (Milk, Good Will Hunting, My Own Private Idaho) was originally slated to direct the film, but in a new interview he reveals that of all the “big names” he approached for the lead roles, “nobody wanted to do it.”
Speaking to IndieWire, he said: “I was working on it, and I felt like we needed a really strong cast, like a famous cast. That wasn’t working out. I asked the usual suspects: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Ryan Phillippe. They all said no.”
Related: Pedro Almodóvar Says His ‘Brokeback Mountain’ Would Have Had “A Lot More Gay Sex”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Producer and screenwriter Diana Ossana, who along with Larry McMurtry adapted the original Annie Proulx short story into a screenplay, seconded that sentiment in an email to IndieWire.
“Yes, all those young gentlemen (at the time) turned down the project, for various reasons,” she wrote.
Earlier this year, Ossana spoke at a Q&A about the same problem around casting. She also mentioned Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg as two stars who turned the project down. ““They didn’t give us any real excuse why they wouldn’t. I guess they saw it as too difficult.”
To make matters even more difficult, Ledger wasn’t even a top choice to play ranch hand Ennis Del Mar.
Related: PHOTOS: Take A Trip To Brokeback Mountain With These Rugged Aussie Cowboys
“Nobody wanted Heath but me and Larry. The studio felt he wasn’t macho enough,” she said.
He went on to be nominated for an Academy Award for his work in the film, as did Gyllenhaal.
Eventually, the casting difficulties made Van Sant lose some of the passion he felt for making the film.
“What I could have done, and what I probably should have done,” he said, “was cast more unknowns, not worried about who were the lead actors. I was not ready. I’m not sure why. There was just sort of a hiccup on my part. There was something off with myself, I guess, whatever was going on.”
Chrisk
Yeah, and look how Phillippe’s career skyrocked. Well, if you don’t take into account the occasional Queerty gushing stories of his new bod. Lol
Pitt, DiCaprio, and Damon I kind of get though. I’m sure they were never in short supply of great offers.
[email protected]
I don’t know why Ryan Philippe would turn down the role. His first role was a gay teenager in a soap opera. I believe he was married to Reese Whiterspoon at the time, so I don’t think anyone would had thought he was gay. Gyllenhaal needs to come out of the closet.
JED08
Thank god Mark Wahlberg turned it down. That would have ruined the film for me. Agreed it would be nice if Jake would bust down that closet door, but it’s his deal. I like him in or out.
geb1966
Probably because Philippe didn’t want to be typecast. That’s the reason a lot of actors give after playing a few gay roles. For example, Ryan Carnes played gay on Desperate Housewives and in the movie Eating Out and left his role as Lucas on General Hospital after they decided to have the character come out, for fear of being typecast. He must have gotten over his fear, though, because he finally returned to the role in 2014 and has played him ever since.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Ugggh ..Anyone else agree that Brokeback was one of the worst movies ever?? Was not a “love” story, but rather story of two miserable closet cases with the most unhappiest ending… I’ll take Love,Simon over BB any day….
Paco
In 1963 Wyoming, everyone was a closet case.
jimstoic
I thought it was beautiful, but it’s not easy to watch repeatedly.
Mkiel
totally Agree
geb1966
BBM was set pre-Stonewall. It was very common for men to be closeted & have downlow affairs. Love Simon is set in the 21st century where it is not unusual for kids to be out in high school. You can not logically apply today’s standards to something set in a different time.
As for being a love story, love comes in many forms. I think Jack was more in love with Ennis than Ennis was with him. Ennis’s fear kept him from committing to Jack the way he may have wanted to and his fears were manifest in what happened to Jack at the end.
Juanjo
Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s I have to disagree with you. Closet cases in a time period when not being a closet case could find you arrested, fired from a job, disinherited by your family, completely excluded from all “polite society”, physically assaulted, and far too often, killed. It was very common for gay men to make the decision to marry as a way to pass. It was poison to be labeled a “confirmed” bachelor. Life was very different back then.
The movie was wonderful and painful in so many ways.
Ed Hawkins
You must be younger than 35. Simon is a great movie about many teen-age gay men coming of age in 2018. Brokeback is about gay men in their young adulthood in 1963. It was a different world for gay men back then and Brokeback powerfully shows it. I can appreciate why younger gay men wouldn’t like Brokeback – the old days were horrible. But BB does what art is supposed to do, in my opinion anyway: it gives an honest picture of a bygone era.
Robert-in-Seattle
geb1966: Totally agree. You should not apply today’s open (or MORE open) standards by those of the time in which the story takes place. It’s too easy to forget that this opened – to whatever degree – is on something like 39 years old. Pre-Stonewall, the story that Ennis relates that his father showed him, and the fate of Jack were very real possibilities. And it wouldn’t make the evening news, such as that of Matthew Shepherd or any of the recent transgender murders. It wouldn’t have been talked about. Everyone would know, but no one would talk about it out loud. THAT’S the real difference between 1963 and 2018. And today it feels like we’ve moving backward to the 20th Century and the tight-lipped silence we broke out of with such abandon.
EZinHTown
Thanks guys, you said it all for me in your replies. Times were different, it’s a shame that today’s youth know so little about our past.
patricklee5150
Wow, I can’t believe we saw the same movie. I saw it with a straight friend of mine and he had tears in his eyes by the end. Of course they were in the closet, it was 50 years ago and they lived in Texas and around there…you know…country folk? It was actually quite true to life, in my humble opinion and my personal experience.
Tony1129
I didn’t think it was a bad movie, it was reality for that time period. And BrokeBack reflected that.
roth99
One must be young to attack the script portrayal of the two men as “miserable closet cases”. I was brought up in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Gays had no protections at all. One could be fired, and we were for even the suspicion that one was gay. I served in the military and people were not just kicked out but given jail terms and bad conduct discharges. Then there was that box that employers had on job apps that asked your military status. Even today, thousands of rentboys are getting paid by lonely older and some younger men wanting the companionship of other men.
Yehonatan
The stupidity of writing “Was not a “love” story…” is like asserting the same is true of Romeo and Juliet. One can dislike either or both stories but claiming they aren’t love stories because they have unhappy endings or involve conflict is just plain dumb.
billygfa
No I don’t agree. I loved it. I think it was eye opening for many people. I do have to say I LOVED Love Simon but that’s a different movie for a different audience and time.
Doug
I also thought Brokeback Mountain was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t meant to be a “happy” gay film.
GourmetGuy
But “Plays Well,” that’s the whole point of “Brokeback,” and the way hundreds of thousands of American gay men were forced into fake marriages or into just suffocating in the closet needs to be explored even further, because–don’t kid yourself–it’s still going on today, in numbers larger than we realize. You wanted a different movie. Personally, I consider “Brokeback Mountain” to be one of the best American movies in the last 20 years.
Mick406
I fully agree with you. In fact, it left a lasting mark on me.
I’m one of those who shields my sexual identity. I wouldn’t go watch the movie here where I live because I was afraid someone would see me and ‘talk’ and spread gossip.
I was in the Army Reserves attending a weekend drill 200 miles away from home when some of the women in the unit asked if I wanted to go see a movie with them. When we got to the multi-plex I saw BM was one of the 6 playing and wished so bad I had come alone. However, the females all agreed they wanted to see it and I was shocked. They said they wanted to see what all the gay stuff was all about. I pretended I was reluctant to go watch it, and they kept urging me on to stay with them. I told ’em I just didn’t want any label being put on me, because in the Army, it was okay for the women to see gay men in a movie, but I could be scorned and ridiculed unmercifully by my fellow male soldiers.
When we returned, I was right about the ridicule. When the guys asked the four women what they saw, they mocked them and acted like it was a travesty for them to see that movie. Fortunately, the women protected me and didn’t say I was included.
After viewing the movie, I wasn’t the same all weekend. It was all I could think of. These guys were a lot like me. A country boy who had had some ‘adventures’ with other guys, but it was secondary to how we functioned out in the open. My heart broke for them. While most of us don’t spend long periods of time out in the wilds sleeping with sheep, this story is an “Every man” story. How many people do we know who could have easily been thrust in that same situation where loneliness, close friendship, and forced togetherness can unleash our passions.
I thought Heath was absolutely perfect in this role (except for some of his mumbled dialogue), and Jake was a great choice too. How can anyone say Heath Ledger wasn’t manly enough for this role?!!!
While it took a long time for them to finally ‘mate up’ in the tent, I’m glad the movie wasn’t real, real graphic with the sex scenes because I was hoping the ‘normal’ people who might watch it would perhaps be able to better understand how two people can become emotionally and physically involved with each other regardless of their gender. The long build up to the tent scene made the situation much more plausible and hopefully understood better by the non-gay viewer. The only thing I didn’t agree on was such a rapid transition to anal sex. I think in real life, two males during the ‘exploration’ part of a relationship usually start off much tamer. I heard some moans and groans in the theater when Jake socked it to Heath. There were a lot of married couples in the audience. I reckon the wives dragged the men to see it, and I would think a lot of those men were sitting there thinking, “If my wife only KNEW what me and my cousin used to do!”
I reckon I’m being persnickety here, but to me, there should have been three graphic scenes to better depict gay activity. I would have had a ‘discussion’ scene talking about past experiences and sitting around a campfire with it all hanging out and each one masturbating themselves. Then a scene of ‘swapping out’ of hands, and the third scene could graduate to the anal stuff. I think that is more realistic, but who am I to judge?!
I’m very glad the movie was made. Somehow, it made me more accepting of myself to see how two other guys were in the same boat I was in.
geb1966
Mick 460
1) it was Heath who “socked it” to Jake.
2) This wasn’t a planned sexual encounter. It was supposed to be spontaneous…a point where neither could deny what they wanted any longer and they couldn’t help themselves. They simply gave in to the heat of the moment. Any discussion prior would have taken away from that. The suddenness is part of what made it such a powerful sympathetic scene.
Robert-in-Seattle
Mick406: There never could have been a “discussion” scene, or anything other than what happened. They couldn’t even talk about it between themselves. Yes, they did it, but the were taught not to talk about it. They learned not to talk about it. Society is a hard teacher. Oh, and BTW, it was Heath who socked it to Jake, not the other way ’round.
Donston
The movie was just too lowkey, even considering the time it was depicting. There was no real development of a supposed “love story” as they barely interacted with each other, especially after the first one-third of the film. I never really got the sense that there was genuine passion and desire between the two either yet alone romantic love. It works as a movie about frustration, repression, self-hate, anger, etc. But it’s not really a “love story”.
Donston
Also, most entertainment is still obsessed with telling us that the majority of “queer” relationships are tragic, insubstantial and/or generally f-ed up. So, while BBM was important in some ways it still didn’t move the meter a great deal forward.
roth99
I agree with your view completely. The movie was 20 years ago now. There was enough lovemaking to show all these fellows were deeply in love and in the closet. I think some activists younger than 30 think we lived as gay men as one could today! We had the AIDS medical crisis to weather where homophobes used this situation to mercilessly attack all gay people. The situation today is totally unlike that of 20 or 40 years ago. Two men kissing can be seen on the internet every day and we have gay marriage rights. People of all ages were and many still are in the closet. Some married to opposite sex mates all the while wanting gay sex!
sailingsam
The film was heart breaking and the performances by Heath and Jake were outstanding. The sex scenes could have been hotter but maybe for DVD extra..Ang Lee did an excellent job and the music was outstanding as well as the Cinematography.
Donston
They went to Mark Wahlberg, really?
I think ‘Brokeback’ is a solid movie about repression, confusion and frustration. But it’s hardly the “love story” that they tried to market it as. Ledger and Gyllenhaal had very little chemistry. And their years long affair was not very convincing to me. Gyllenhaal I felt was just not very good. Maybe he was still too young and didn’t feel entirely confident in the role. Even during press for the film he came off much more awkward and uneasy than the rest of the cast.
rextrek
I saw on an Interview Mark Wahlberg asked his “Preist” if he should take it…..and he told him NO, its a SIN……..seriously! so he went on to do a Movie about a Foul Mouth Misogynistic bear instead…
Mister Dawson
Thank for mentioning Mark Wahlberg. The guy is a punk who never took responsibility for beating up and near killing a man when he was a street punk. He has tried a couple of times to get his record erased and to this day has never made amends to the innocent guy he beat up.
Just last year he held up production when he refused to refilm scenes after Christopher Plumber was brought in to reshoot scenes from Kevin Spacey in “All the money” while everyone else did it for scale. He “ONLY” donated his share when it became a P.R. nightmare for him and only after there was a big issue with Keven Spacey and the “Me too” movement.
Now he is saying he should not have made “Boogie Nights” because it goes against what he believes. Ya, this is the film that made your career and now you want absolution?
As you said he has no problem with the movie “Ted” and even made a
“Ted II”. I bet you made a big effort to go to your priest about this one. You can’t change your character Mark. You are and will always be a punk.
DCguy
And a coke addicted porn star.
Donston
I feel kinda bad for Gyllenhaal. I mean, he’s still rich and goodlooking. I suspect that he is indeed romantically and sexually homo-leaning. But he grew up in the industry, probably went through some sh*t, likely got clued in early on that being out is not gonna work for someone’s career and then spent years trying to be a prototypical leading man. He’s only recently started to come off as someone who is comfortable in his skin.
beachcomberT
The final scene of Ennis clutching Jake’s jacket has to be one of the most heartbreaking cinematic moments ever. I hope it taught both straight and gay youth something about the price paid for not taking a chance on love.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
A whole thread where there was intelligent polite discourse, and no one spewed any epithets at anyone!! Is the still Queerty?
My point was that this was not a true story, but a scripted first mainstream theatre Gay themed feature film. It COULD have had a happy ending and shown being Gay doesn’t mean living miserable ever after.. .
Donston
But that wouldn’t have been realistic considering the two characters, the era they lived in, the area in which they lived their lives and their general circumstances. I do feel that swiftly killing off Jack at the end was perhaps an unnecessary and maybe forced reach for tragedy.
I don’t like that Hollywood continues to make movie after movie about gay/homo-leaning people who live tragic or miserable lives and are never able to find fullfillment and contentment in a same-sex relationship. But it does reflect just how many gay/homo-leaning/queer whatever people, particularly in the entertainment industry, contend with depression, self-resentment and tampered egos. And I don’t feel one movie should have to pay for everything that came before and after it. It’s a good film in and of itself, not a great one in my estimation, but still a good and important one. While things are slowly changing as far as the stories that are being told, slowly.
Luvstoread
I agree. Why can’t there be a happy “gay” ending. Guess that’s why I prefer books. Most, if not all have a HEA!!
jrh311
You do realize this was based on a book, right? The ending was already written for the filmmakers.
tennisteacher2
It was truly a GREAT MOVIE…I believe it was CHEATED out of anowhere OSCAR as best picture by the HOMOPHOBES in Hollywood…
roth99
The location and time set of the movie would have made a happy ending for thee two gay men impossible. I guess they could have given up their horses for a life in WeHo. It was a very realistic movie even today for many men. We lived in fear and in the closet. Holding hands in a bar or using a public toilet could mean arrest. And that was in a very homophobic West Hollywood of the 60’s! It is not ancient history to me. I was 24 50 years ago when we had no rights as gay people and no support. Now my Junior Hight School in West LA has a gay-straight alliance! In 1958 when I attended that school, had I proposed such a group I would have been sent to a shrink down the street to UCLA! Being single and celibate or active and fearing AIDS was not fun or a happy time. Where to meet others in that day?? Only gay bars subject to police raids!
DCguy
Wow, THANK GOODNESS Mark Wahlberg didn’t do it!
roth99
He was a good actor but I doubt he has the necessary tenderness to bring to the screen for either of these parts.
karljordinson
I think at the end of the day Jake and Heath were amazing they came across with a beautiful passion and heart mark and Damon are two butch lads lads!