Even in Hollywood, it must be really hard to find teenagers who can act . . . I can think of only one film I’ve seen where (1) most of the leading characters are teenagers and (2) they are played by actors who appear to be the same purported age as their characters: Sleepaway Camp. (Which was crap even by slasher-film standards.) Are there any others?
The Harry Potter movies are a special case: The lead actors were, I believe, close to their purported age of 12 in The Sorceror’s Stone. But, since each installment is set only a year after the last, and it seems to take an average of two years to make each movie . . .
It’s much easier to find teen girls who can act (or have even become big stars) than it is teen guys. I suspect most of the best candidates will involve movies where the women are in their teens and the men are in their mid-20s.
For example, The Hole, which is notable because Keira Knightley flashes her tits at the age of 16. The cast is playing a bunch of prep-school kids, and the actors’ ages at the time of filming are approximately:
Thora Birch (18)
Keira Knightley (16)
Desmond Harrington (24)
Daniel Brocklebank (21)
Laurence Fox (22)
Dovetailing into a related point I’ve made elsewhere on the boards, despite being several years older, the guys were much earlier in their careers than the girls were, at least going by the number of imdb listings each has that predates The Hole.
Why?
I claim that the same agism that plagues 40-something women hampers teen guys. In short, both sexes get basically the same career shelf life; it just skews older (on both ends) for the guys.
As for why, I think it’s simple biology. Men are attracted to younger women, while women are attracted to older men.
Well there is the Troma film Beware: Children at Play, but there is a mix of pre-teen and young teens.
The kids go berserk and start killing people so at the end there is a slaughter of the kids, by their parents. I love Troma
That reminds me of Larry Clark’s Kids, which is disturbing on just so many levels. I believe every kid in the film was playing their actual age, and I’m fairly sure none of them were of legal consenting age. Much less disturbing despite the introduction of rape was his Bully, though that cast may have been closer to early 20s.
Not Larry Clark, Thirteen was a great showcase for Evan Rachel Wood. Not sure if this qualifies for the OP since she was 15 when playing a 13 year old, but that’s still pretty young.
The best example I can think of is Stand By Me :
Wil Wheaton – 14
Corey Feldman – 15
River Phoenix – 16
Jerry O’Connell – 12
Kiefer Sutherland – 19
Sutherland was a bit older than his character, but still technically a teenager.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the rapidity with which teenaged boys change. Within the 3 or 4 months of filming your star could show up with a changed voice or facial hair he didn’t have at the start.
In Sixteen Candles, two of the main characters were played by Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall, who were both about 16 when the movie was released in 1984. The rest of the “teenagers” in the movie are a mixed bag, age-wise.
Oh. I thought you meant something about girls maturing faster than boys, as translated into relative acting ability.
I’d suspect that’s just as important a factor as audience preferences, but it may not be about acting ability so much as maturity and professionalism. Teenage girls are probably easier to work with than teenage boys.
That may play a part in it as well. Think of child stars who transitioned into successful film stars as adults, and you’ll find a long list of women with almost no men.
Conversely, think of child stars who stunk up the screen, and I think you’ll find an awful lot more guys than girls. The kid from The Phantom Menace, for example.
While there will always be a Rory Culkin or Leonardo DeCaprio to point to, the male list won’t be able to hold a candle to Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley, Kirsten Dunst, Drew Barrymore, Natalie Portman, Anna Paquin, Evan Rachel Wood, Jessica Biel, Mandy Moore, Ellen Page, Winona Ryder, Jodie Foster…the list goes on and on.
Apologies for the hijack.
Oh, no, it’s no hijack, it goes straight to the matter of the thread.
Could it be that more girls are introduced to acting at a younger age though dance, beauty/talent pageants, etc., than young boys are?
They may then have developed their talents at an earlier age vs. the boys who might become interested in acting at a somewhat later age.
Sorry, no T & A unless the actress is at least eighteen.
Now what did you want to make that teenage movie about?
Better Off Dead had 19-year-old John Cusack playing a high school senior, which is awfully close to the real thing; dunno about the other players, but they looked pretty young. (I’m NOT going to look them up.)
The Sure Thing starred a very young John Cusak and Daphne Zuniga–I think they were both teens in it. Cusak was also in 16 candles as a teen. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off might be one, and there were those very early Tom Cruise movies–All the Right Moves and Risky Business were done when he was very young.
Fast Times At Ridgemont High had a bevy of young stars to be as well, IMS.
The one movie that always struck me as odd was Grease–those actors were ALL quite long in the tooth to play high schoolers.
I love that movie! I’ll look them up.
When Better Off Dead was released on 11 October 1985:
[ul]
[li]Diane Franklin (Monique) was 22[/li][li]Amanda Wyss (Beth) was 24[/li][li]Daniel Schneider (Ricky Smith) was 19[/li][li]Curtis Armstrong (Charles DeMar) was 31 (then again, Charles had been going to high school for seven and a half years)[/li][/ul]
Don’t the *High School Musical * pictures have stars who are still mostly teen age?
I’d think that with the talk about teen girls being easier to cast, their movies would be more prominent here.
The Olsen Twins in Getting There.
The Cheetah Girls and their sequels.
Even Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon all those years ago.
Nickelodeon alone must have spawned dozens of these movies. Disney did many more dozens before them. (Raise your hand if you remember The Adventures of Spin and Marty. Your rotator cuff hurts now, doesn’t it?)
The problem seems to be that people are thinking about teenage movies that aren’t really geared to teens, but to college and older audiences (with some high schoolers sneaking in). There are zillions of real teen movies that you have to be a 13-year-old or the parent of one to know about.
BTW, John Cusack was 19 in The Sure Thing but Daphne Zuniga and Anthony Edwards were both 23.
And the huge reason that most “teenage” movies aren’t made with teenagers is that California law requires child actors to work a limited number of hours and have a tutor on set to school them several hours a day. Most films try to avoid that unless they absolutely have no choice.