MovieChat Forums > Rachel McAdams Discussion > Choice of roles and main competition?

Choice of roles and main competition?

posted 8 years ago by nano_gal
8 replies | jump to latest

I like Rachel McAdams. She's a good actress, and I think she has a long career (and possibly an Oscar) ahead of her. And unlike some people, she has the talent to carry her well beyond the "ingenue" phase (*ehem*- looking at you, Cammy Diaz). That said, I have a question: why so many "girlfriend" roles?

She's played a version of "the girlfriend"/love interest for a huge chunk of her career (The Notebook, Wedding Crashers, Time Traveler's Wife, Sherlock Holmes, Midnight in Paris, About Time, Aloha, Southpaw, etc...). While she gets top billing, she plays a supporting character within the main character's story.

She obviously has the range and charisma to carry a film, so is this simply a case of there being limited quality roles for women in Hollywood, or do you think this has been a conscious decision on her part? If so, why?

ALSO, which other actresses would you say are Rachel's main competition for roles?

[–] njjoany-183-948905 8 years ago

I agree with you about her roles but it's what's been offered. She was different in Morning Glory, A most Wanted Man, HBO's True Detective, Passion, The Lucky Ones, State of Play & of course Spotlight. She needs to choose her roles very carefully now since being nominated for an academy award.
I think her main competition for roles now are Jessica Chastain, Emma Stone, Rooney Mara, Kate Winslet, . Some of the highest paid are in their late 40s & a whole bunch in their 20s,. She falls in the middle looks like 30 but can act like the most experienced ones in their 40s. She has to grow with each new role because she's at the age where she has to prove her self as a growing actress. I loved her in a large ensemble cast in T he Family Stone. She was perfect in That supporting role.

[–] lmnop25 8 years ago

Would probably add Emily Blunt to list of competition

[–] njjoany-183-948905 8 years ago

Definitely --I included her in my mind with those in their 20s but Emma Stone is in her 20s so I should have mentioned Emily by name. There were a few others I thought about after I posted but can't recall now. I think Rachel appears to be much younger & therefore, I imagine her much younger than she is ( in my mind). Hard to believe
She's almost 38! I think she's baby-daddy hunting now with her new BF, Jamie Linden. I think she hears her clock ticking. All of her earlier interviews mention that she'd like to have kids.

[–] darkknight-79839 8 years ago

she is such a beauty, if she wants beautiful children she shouldn't procreate with her current ugly BF.
Jake Gyllenhaal and her would have made a nice couple
'

[–] njjoany-183-948905 8 years ago

I've already replied once but was reading how Vanity Fair asked her to be on the their cover with Kiara Knightly & Scarlett Johansson & when she arrived she found out it was To be a nude cover & she refused & went home & next day fired her manager. I forgot who they replaced her with but I guess those 2 would be her competition too. I faintly remember the cover. Going To look it up.

[–] TMC-4 (19416) 2 years ago

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/30187043-actresses-who-were-going-to-be-the-next-big-thing...but-weren-t-

Rachel McAdams' bad project judgments (at a pivotal point in her career) combined with her unwillingness to "go along to get along" (the Vanity Fair photoshoot) kept her from going as far as actresses like Natalie Portman/Scarlett Johansson/Emma Stone/Jennifer Lawrence/Margot Robbie.

by Anonymous reply 527 May 25, 2022 3:52 PM

[–] dws100 7 years ago

I think its mainly the number of limited roles for women in the movie industry.
Most movies are male focused, my guess that due to the fact that men spend way more money on movie related stuff.

[–] dopenamehere 7 years ago

I think her and Jake Gyllenhaal look really good together. They had pretty decent chemistry in Southpaw (2015).