So, I was watching Stepmom on cable over the weekend (shut up…I was snowbound and there was nothing else good on), and I got to thinking about one of my major movie pet peeves. It really irritates me when they cast an actor in a role that, when you think about it, is inappropriate for their age.
In the case of Stepmom, all I could think was that Susan Sarandon was edging into grandmother territory for the kids that were supposed to be her own. The movie came out in 1998 and Sarandon was born in 1946, which makes her 52 at the time. She was playing the mother of a 12 year old (not a terrible stretch, but at least a little uncommon) and a 7ish year old (having a baby at 45 is fairly uncommon, I would say). I know they were going for contrast between the homebody, perfect Mom character and the hip, young Stepmom character, but I just think she was too old for the role.
I’m sure that there are tons of other examples, but one other one that sticks in my mind was in Sleeping With the Enemy. The woman chosen to play Julia Roberts’ mother in that movie was ancient. Roberts was only 24 when that movie came out, but the actress who played her mother (Elizabeth Lawrence, I think) looked to be at least 70. Lawrence’s IMDB profile doesn’t give her birth date, so I can’t confirm their age difference, but in the movie, Roberts was putting her mother into a nursing home. It was just jarring to me.
Last example…Big Fish, which starred Albert Finney (67) as Billy Crudup’s (35) father and the husband of Jessica Lange (54). The issue of “does having children at that age make sense?” doesn’t really apply here, but it was annoying to me that based on the story, Finney’s character appeared to get married and have children very young…at the very least, by age 25. Yet, he’s 32 years older than the actor playing his son. Plus, he and his wife were supposed to be approximately the same age, yet they chose actors as husband/wife that are 13 years apart (and look it).
So…am I crazy, or do these sorts of age discrepancies bother anyone besides me? Any other glaring contradictions you’ve come across that I can seethe over?
The too-old thing doesn’t bother me. Given what they can do with makeup and costumes, I don’t really have a problem with a 54 year old woman playing, say, a 62 year old woman. There doesn’t have to be an exact matchup between real age and portrayed age, IMO.
What does get to me is when things are flat out not possible. We’ve all seen the bimbos playing the 22 year old PhD or something. Excuse me, but a 22 year old PhD is not exactly based in realism. Sure, there’s the super-genius kids who enter college at 12, but the character isn’t portrayed as that, she’s portrayed as if it’s perfectly normal to have a PhD at age 22.
Don’t even get me started on the 26-year-old CEOs or heads in their field. Sure, they exist in real life, but come on. Chancer are that if you’re the CEO of a multibillion dollar company, you’re at least in your 30s, if not much older. And really, one does learn something with age. In most disciplines, someone with 20 or 30 years experience has the edge on the kid just out of school, no matter HOW pretty and smart that kid is.
Nothing new. The woman who played Cary Grant’s mother in North by Northwest was the same age as he was.
I object more to the obviously 20 somethings playing teenagers. Some actors can get away with it, like Michael J. Fox, but most can’t. I know why they do it, but it is still unbelievable.
I think perhaps the ultimate example of this might be Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz. Dorothy was supposed to be, what, 11 or 12? It didn’t ruin the movie, thank goodness. But still!
Almost any version of Hamlet has a 50 year old playing a sullen teenager. Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh, I’m looking at you. Who’s next, Anthony Hopkins? Ethan Hawke’s version is the only recent memory to even try getting this correct.
I was gonna post [ib]Grease**, but you beat me to it… with details I didn’t have! I think this may be the most eggrious example, but there are some others…
The 1938 Romeo and Juliet starred Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer, ages 43 and 34, respectively. Recall that Juliet is written to be 13…
Same with Angela Landsbury in the only Manchurian Candidate. She was barely older than the guy playing her son.
Hollywood appears to age women faster than men. Just as an example, Tom Hanks has played against Sally Field as his mother in *Forrest Gump * (1994) and as his love-interest in *Punchline * (1988).
Sorry to hijack, but this is one of my hot buttons. There are clues in the text as to Hamlet’s age, mostly in the scene with the old jester’s skull. The skull of Yorick ‘hath lien in the ground these three and twenty year.’ And Hamlet remembers him vividly, so he may have been as old as 7 when Yorrick died. Hamlet certainly acts like a sullen and confused teenager, but he is an adult and should have been his father’s heir.
23? That’s still not 36 (Kenneth) or 44 (Derek). If you’re just arguing that Shakespeare didn’t do enough research on Denmark succession laws, well, I’m trumped.
Normally, it doesn’t bother me when chronological age doesn’t quite fit with the age of the character. What annoys me is when the actor looks way older of younger than the character is supposed to be. You know, like when Gabrielle Carteris and her crow’s feet were playing a 17 year old. (I know the California sun can cause some skin damage and premature aging, but puh-leeze.)
Susan Sarandon doesn’t look like she’s pushing 60. When she made Stepmom she looked to be in her early or mid forties, which would have put the character having kids around 30 or so. No biggie. Now, if Sarandon looked her age, it would be a bit of a stretch, but having kids in your late thirties and mid-forties isn’t exactly unheard of.
When she made “The Graduate,” Anne Bancroft was 36, playing the mother of Katharine Ross, who was 27, playing a college undergrad, and Dustin Hoffman was 30, playing a 22-year old.
I guess this is where we disagree…I think Susan Sarandon does look her age, notably so in Stepmom. When not even a team of makeup professionals can disguise the huge bags under your eyes, you’re clearly past the age where you can pull off middle-aged mom roles.
This bothered me in Sense and Sensibility. The two sisters who the story revolves around are very close in age. If I remember correctly, Marianne is 18 and Elinor is 19. So, Marianne was played by Kate Winslet, who was 20 when the movie was released (and may even have been a year younger when it was filmed), an entirely appropriate choice. And Elinor was played by… Emma Thompson, who was 36, and didn’t look close to being 19.
