MovieChat Forums > The Twilight Zone (1959) Discussion > Making the actors younger than they are....

Making the actors younger than they are...

posted 7 years ago by Xonioc (76)
14 replies | jump to latest

So I have watched two episodes lately.

Sorry I can't recall the exact titles. One I think is called A Stop at Willoughby.

The other, err, cannot remember, as I am watching a whole bunch of these episodes at night.

My point is, the actors are often reported to be much younger than they are. Like the guy in Willoughby, he looks late 40s, maybe 50. Yet in the episode he's supposed to be 37, or 38.

Another episode a guy is supposed to be early 20s and he'd never see 37 again!

Was this an ego boost for the actors or something? Why not hire actors who were really that age????

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

In the case of Gart Williams, considering how deeply unhappy and stressed out he's suppose to be -- both at home and at work -- I think it's ideal they cast someone who looks a lot older than the thirtysomething Gart. I would look weathered too if my boss and wife were that odious.

What episode are you referring to you where someone on the wrong side of forty is playing a kid in his early twenties? If I had to hazard a guess I would say "The Chaser" with George Grizzard. Am I right?

[–] Jennie_Portrait (804) 7 years ago

People actually did look older then their age back then. Check out high school year books from the 1960's. All these teenage girls look like Jackie Kennedy (who was like 33 back then). All that smoking and drinking didn't help either.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

People in their forties nowadays do everything in their power to be a twentysomething again. This entails wearing what their youthful counterparts wear, talking how they talk, listening to what they listen to, and binging whatever Netflix series they're currently binging. And if none of this is enough they might even avail themselves to surgery. Subsequently, they may not look younger than previous generations they just have different priorities than previous generations (those from the sixties wanting to look older or just their age -- plus they didn't have access to the sophisticated means of mangling their faces all so they could relive their younger days that we are blessed with today).

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 7 years ago

Good points made, although I do think that, despite the obesity problem in the US, it's arguable people in their 40s and up are generally healthier nowadays and tend to age "slower" (appearance wise) than previous generations. One major thing I believe factors into this, is drinking and smoking, which... today is definitely not what it used to be.

Anyway, what you said makes me think of a certain episode...

[Closing Narration of the Number 12 Looks Just Like You] - "Portrait of a young lady in love - with herself. Improbable? Perhaps. But in an age of plastic surgery, body building and an infinity of cosmetics, let us hesitate to say impossible. These, and other strange blessings, may be waiting in the future, which, after all, is The Twilight Zone."

The was certainly prophetic as it rings true now more than ever (inevitable with social media and everything). But humans being obsessed with vanity+age, and wanting to change their looks and image by whatever means, is something that's been going on for a while.

[–] godewey (16472) 7 years ago

I'm sure they wanted to go with more established actors back then.
There might not have been the same number of actors to choose from back then.

It's been established that in those days men were often put in roles that were younger than what they were
and with women younger than they were.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Looking over other people's posts, I really don't have too much more to add other than the fact that at 61 years old, I look far younger than a 61 year old woman looked back in the late 50's/early 60's.
Must be something in the water.....

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Some people like yourself are just blessed that way.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

I don't know about that. I see a great many people who are in their 70's now and still look younger than a 50 year old did back in the 5o's and 60's. They aren't actors either.
I believe that we now know how to take better care of ourselves these days.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Well, I never had looks to lose so aging has never been a pressing concern of mine.

I drink Diet Dew which pretty much guarantees when I'm in my seventies I'll make Walter Jameson just before he's a pile of dust look like Channing Tatum and Ryan Gosling combined.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

I never said anything about good looks. I was never a beauty queen. All I know is that people don't age the way they use to.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Yeah, I didn't phrase that quite right. Sorry about that.

You're certainly right that we take better care of ourselves now than we did then. The current movement afoot to better educate children and adults on what is and is not permissible in a healthy diet is definitely contributing to that.

[–] Jennie_Portrait (804) 7 years ago

Well, I am an oil painting that never ages.

A really good example of the "folks aged differently back then" is the film All About Eve. It was made in 1950, when Bette Davis was all of 42 years old. But looking at it, she looks way way older-- like 10 years older. Anne Baxter plays the young ingenue and at the time she was 27 years old, but again, she looks way older than that. Maybe it was all the smoking and drinking that did them in.

[–] kr-1959 (110) 7 years ago

Martin Sloan in "Walking Distance" was supposed to be 36, but I'd put him a lot closer to 46.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

I believe he was 46 at the time.