MovieChat Forums > Mia Wasikowska Discussion > Directors, please don't cast her in futu...

Directors, please don't cast her in future movies!


As I've already written this long post (almost an essay) about Mia on the Crimson Peak board, I wanted to share it here as well. I don't need to read any positive answers about her under MY thread, so just spare your opinion and go to another thread! Thank you.

I actually didn't want to write on any boards here, since there is only a small amount of people writing here...but I could not resist (look at all the poor criticism she got)
Especially because there are A FEW people here on this board who try to change the opinions of 100 people and make me believe that they don't have a *beep* life, because they are 24 hours on this board and you can see them in almost every thread where they underline their low opinion ever single time, as if they have done this *beep* movie. You know del Toro likes to hear different opinions and it amuses him, but those users? I mean just write your opinion 1-3 times, but on every thread??? They are surely going to open 20 other threads just to give the appearance that their opinion is shared by many others, because they are surely unemployed.
If you want to read sophisticated interpretations about the movie and not repetitive bulls** statements, then go back to the posts after the movie was newly released.

Back to the topic, the reason why Mia was cast in Crimson Peak was due to her role as Jane Eyre (she was a terrible Jane Eyre, it almsot made me hate my favorite novel), but to cast someone for a role (Edith) which is almost exactly the same? That does not include anything positive to the filmography for this person, except that it is of course easy for her and she can make easy money.

Before anyone is going to ask me: Did you watch her in that and that and that? Yes, I did. Poor me. I'm not a person who judges someone without knowing much about him or her, so I gave this pale girl 14 chances and watched her in 14 different roles. She is IN EVERY MOVIE always the same. The only thing that changes is her looks, but nothing else. Always the same low voice that NEVER gets louder, always the same gaze(permantently looking confused and pissed off)and when she laughs(thank god, she prefers to close her mouth)she looks like an old man.
In Crimson Peak she didn't have any chemistry with any actor, although Tom H. is a superb actor, they both couldn't deliver the romantic scenes, because their chemistry was statically like a brother-sister relationship. And their sex scene is a disaster. Playing a Victorian virgin, her expressions just showed boredom and not any feeling of passion, anxiety, excitement or pain while having her first sex.

I've come across comments of dense people about her that she must be a good actress, because Meryl Streep or Tom H. praised her, but guys, BE RATIONAL! Meryl Streep is a humanist, who works for about 40 years for diversity in Hollywood movie industry for women and SHE WOULD NEVER EVER say anything bad about a young girl who is new to the movie industry and who plays a feminist role (Jane Eyre) and everyone who knows Tom Hiddleston must be aware that he also never says anything bad to anyone. There was even a video of him where a little girl changes her voice to sound like a fairy and he praised her so much that you would think that she delivered an Oscar-worthy performance. So please people, don't be so narrow-minded and brighten your imagination and intelligence!

When you watch her in interviews or red-carpet videos, you actually think that she plays exactly herself in every movie, so is it right to call her an actress when she reflects herself in her roles? People call it "realism", but when she gets so much money for acting, what does she actually do for preparation and how is the end product of it? Almost every movie she is in doesn't do well in the box-office. Her first blockbuster(which had NOTHING to do with her, except the hatred it got afterwards) was Alice and the second one will be the sequel, I suppose.
I share the opinion of many others that she should always act in independent films, so that her small fan group is pleased, as well as the majority is pleased by not seeing her much in trailers and posters as we had to endure during the promotion of Crimson Peak.
I liked her statement about herself in the Charlie Rose interview along with Jessica C. and Tom H. She called herself a "low-brow", since she didn't study anything that has to do with drama, which is obvious from her lack versatility and in another interview again with them both she said that she got to work with all those directors, because other actresses were not available! LOL.. that sums up her whole career.

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

That's a veeeery long rant but I agree with you. I think she's overrated as an actress. And she was an awful, awful Jane Eyre! Jane is one of my favourite book heroines: strong, compassionate, kind. Mia played her as basically angry all the time. And no chemistry with Fassbender (which I also didn't like) at all.


Look at this signature. Good. Now you'll remember me.

reply

You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree on both counts. Loved her in Jane Eyre and Crimson Peak but I don't see that she didn't have chemistry with both male leads but then if you don't think Fassbender was right for Rochester you are clearly seeing films in a very different way to me. She brings sensitivity to her roles and a quiet understated presence. You don't have to be in someone's face to show strength. If you watch her in Tracks or Stoker you will see what I mean.

reply

I admit I haven't seen her in much, only Jane Eyre and Alice. I didn't like her in both.

The major problem with Jane Eyre (2011) was the rushed script / lenght of the movie. Too short (even at two hours) for the amount of book material they used. Then Jane and Rochester's love comes out of nowhere.

I understand the sensitivity and quietness necessary to portray Jane, but I still don't think Mia was a good Jane.

However, what would be of the film and TV industry if everyone had the same taste for everything? :)


Look at this signature. Good. Now you'll remember me.

reply

I TOTALLY agree with you ;)

"Make love, not war. Unless you're Loki, which in that case: do what you want". ~ Tom Hiddleston

reply

Alice is not a good example on which to base your judgement of her as it's a very niche film, very stylized and quite frankly dreadful.

reply

I love Mia! She is, in my opinion, wasted in period dramas. I think her talents are better suited to modern roles (The Kids Are All Right, The Double, Stoker). It is true that she plays angry/angsty a lot but I think that's a result of typecasting. She was very dynamic in her role on In Treatment. The character she played, Sophie, was hostile, but also by turns charming, depressed, adorable, and vulnerable. I would love to see her play a lighter character.

reply

Absolutely agree. I don't understand the praise she gets. She is wooden. The only film I have liked her in was Only Lovers Left Alive. She was actually good in an otherwise boring, pretentious film.

reply