MovieChat Forums > An Unmarried Woman (1978) Discussion > Right age for lead actress?

Right age for lead actress?

posted 16 years ago by hakof
15 replies | jump to latest

Jill Clayburgh is a great actress, but did anyone else think that her age was a little off for this role?

The plot description reads, "Erica (Jill Clayburgh), is unmarried only temporarily in that her successful, wealthy husband of seventeen years has just left her for a girl..."

This movie was released in the spring of 1978. Jill Clayburgh was born in April 1944, making her 34 years old when the movie came out. If she had been married for 17 years, she/her character would have gotten married at the age of 17!

Yes, I know it's a movie and we're supposed to have "willing suspension of disbelief." But the premise of the movie should still be believable.

If she had been 40 at time, the role would been move believable for me. (Married at 23, more or less out of college. Married for 17 years and then divorced at the landmark age of 40. A woman turning 40 and looking for herself.)

Any thoughts?

[–] rrb 16 years ago

The fact that Clayburgh was 34 doesn't mean her character was 34. And Erica says she'd been with Martin for 17 years, not married to him for that length of time. She could've met him in college at 18 or 20, & married him later.

You need to listen to the dialog vs. reading someone else's idea of what the movie says in an IMDB plot description.

[–] jonieblon 16 years ago

This once again...is a Hollywood rule of the age of women. She absolutely was supposed to be 34...Just like Mrs. Robinson (the wonderful Ann Bancroft) was considered OLD at 36!!! She was 36 in that film, in both real age and character.

While now hollywood actresses in their 30s are running around like they are still in the teens....the ageism we have now is that old coots are routinely paired with women 20 years younger then they and THAT is considered a contemporary pairing. Diane Lane and Richard Gere (in fact..that was applauded at the time as a real pairing..when in fact Diane Lane is a good 20 years younger than Richard Gere)....Harrison Ford and anybody!...etc.

[–] hakof 16 years ago

Thanks for replying to my query, but based on your post, I am not clear if you think Clayburgh was age-appropriate for the role or not.

It does seem to me that you are saying that some Hollywood casting executive thought he was placing an "old" woman into the role by picking a 34-year-old actress for the role of Erica.

Just to be clear . . .
I do agree that there is plenty of ageism in Hollywood.
I think that it's absurd when a 25-year-old actress is paired up romantically with a 55-year-old actor (either in a film or in real life).
And I think that an *older* actress would have been more appropriate for the role of Erica in "An Unmarried Woman".

[–] jonieblon 16 years ago

I agree..what I was saying...is Erica (back in the 70s) was what Hollywood considered the age a woman would be to find herself..alone..child raised...having to start all over again...perhaps the character was not 34 as Clayburgh was in real life...but even stretching her to late 30s, early 40s (which there is no way she could pass.she clearly was a young woman)...I think it does not translate well into modern times as a woman having "to start all over again." Now a days..women in their late 30s and early 40s are just starting to marry, have children, etc.

It could be just that the film is quite dated in that respect. However, I was pointing out the casting of 36 year old Ann Bancroft as the "older woman" to Dustin Hoffman (who in real life was like what..four years younger than her?) is very much a sigh of the times....and would no way stand up against today. I am not even sure a 36 year old qualifies for "cougar" status... Isn't that like aerly 40s?? Kind of funny.

I like that woman nowadays can prolong their sexual viability way past the age of 29...I just wish they did not have to feel the need to dress like a 19-year-old...kind of makes them look desperate.

[–] hakof 16 years ago

I agree that casting a 34-year old as the "older," jilted woman left on her own seems absurd, especially in a big-city environment like New York. I have many girl friends who didn't marry or start their families until after 34.

You are probably right that it was an issue of the times in which in the move was made. It would be much more believable if the jilted wife were 54.

[–] banders46 16 years ago

If she is supposed to be 34 (like her age in real life), it does lessen the dramatic impact of her being "left for a younger woman." He leaves her for a 26-year-old and she's 34, so ... big deal.

[–] noveltylibrary 15 years ago

I didn't know her age but I assumed it was mid-30's...back then that was practically old maid material. ;\

[–] gwbush909 15 years ago

I thought she looked about the right age in the movie - about mid 40's. I was very surprised to learn Clayburgh was in her 30's.

[–] samuri5 15 years ago

To answer your inquiry, IMHO, I think Clayburgh was absolutely age appropriate. Without a copy of the screenplay in front of me specifying her age, the math still works, assuming her character was intended to be 34 years old. Even if it was specified that she was 40, she still made her believable. If at 34, she may have married at 18, had her daughter early, etc.. As pointed out in an earlier post, it works as conveniently if she was indeed that "frightening" age of 40. I prefer to consider whether or not the actress portrays the character believably, and IMO, Clayburgh certainly did, earning a well deserved Oscar nomination.

Perhaps another consideration is the question "Right actress for the age."

I agree with your noted absurdities. Perhaps we're bearing witness to the mid-life crises of producers, writers, directors, etc.. Ageism is obviously still rampant in Hollywood, but I'm not sure how an actress distinguished simply by "age" can turn in a superior performance than Clayburghs. I had opportunity to run across her twice in Los Angeles several years ago, once at the Hollywood Bowl and another at a restaurant. She exudes class, is that rarity who is much more beautiful in person than on screen, IMHO, where often the visual is accompanied by layers of makeup and clever use of what's referred to as the "Doris Day lense," although much to the chagrine of actors and actresses, the advent of HD is providing a true glimpse of the "natural" look of the stars we over-worship on screen and television.

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

[–] MDMizaHolyFool 15 years ago

I always thought she was a little bit younger than she was supposed to be. Especially with the scenes with her daughter.

It also seemed that her friends were a little bit older then she was...closer to their 40's then she was so i thought that looked off as well

aither way Jill was amazing in the role

" How 'bout some chocolate pain, bitch"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jquick99 15 years ago

it does seem young, for today's standards. BUT back in the early 60's, women got married at 17 and 18. LOTS of them.

[–] martin_villafuerte85 15 years ago

Kim Basinger auditioned for the role of Erica but producers turned her down, because she was too young and wasn't known as an actress.
Jane Fonda was originally offered the role of Erica but declined.

Imagine if Erica would be played by Kim Basinger instead of Jill Clayburgh. She would have been nominated for an Oscar, 19 years before she won the award for playing Lynn Bracken in L.A. Confidential.

[–] justinemac 13 years ago

I thought she looked around 36-38 in the movie (JMO) so if you figure her character was that age, then she could have gotten married around 19-21. Especially considering that would have been the '60s (when she got married) and back then people often did get marry younger.

[–] mobocracy 8 years ago

I think both Clayburgh and her friends look to be in their early 40s, maybe one of them closer to mid-40s.

To me this conceptually fits -- married after college, daughter born very early in the marriage. She mentioned going to Vassar, which would have been expensive and prestigious enough to graduate from vs. some state college where you might drop out to marry your older boyfriend after he graduates.

I've read through the forums here and there's a lot of criticism of this movie as being some kind of a boomer-oriented film. I think it's much more representative of the previous generation. If Clayburgh's character was 42, she would have been born in 1936.

She has a kind of formalism of dress and manner that seems too old for a 1970s era boomer, where I would have expected a lot more informal attitude and a lot more nods to hippie fashion and sensibilities.