MovieChat Forums > The Accused (1988) Discussion > Why did all those actresses turn down th...

Why did all those actresses turn down the role??

posted 9 years ago by fiatlux-1
9 replies | jump to latest

I'll never ever understand why so many actors & actresses turn down obvious good roles.
Especially the ones who work/worked VERY seldom! For example, Kelly LeBrock was offered the role of Sarah. Now, granted she'd not be well-cast. But still, SHE turned it down.
Why?? She basically had 1 role she was ever famous for, in 1985.
You'd think actresses like her or Ellen Barkin or others mentioned would jump at the film chance.

I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

[–] ofuoku71 9 years ago

According to Jonathan Kaplan, a lot of the actresses who auditioned didn't want to do the rape scene.

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] keyser_soze_smokes 9 years ago

They were all too busy being sexual objects in other movies. Didn't want to burn the catch, so to speak.

=======================================
Happy birthday to the ground!!!

[–] liamforeman 7 years ago

I take that claim with a grain of salt. Maybe some actresses like to lie and say they turned it down just to keep their ego because they were on the losing end of the role. I mean, seriously would someone who looks like Kelly LeBrock or Kim Basinger make sense for the role??? If it was high class callgirl rape maybe but anyone that looks like them would never be seen in such a dumpy beer joint. Jodie had a lezzy earthiness and toughness that fit this role. I can't even think of an actress in 1998 who was famous who could be better for the part. Maybe Jennifer Jason Leigh?

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 6 years ago

Performers can also turn down a role because it conflicts with something else they're already committed to. Or, the producers wouldn't meet their salary demands. But Yes, half the names you read about in the imdb trivia sections (or at notstarring.com) were never offered particular roles. Perhaps they READ for a role, or turned down an AUDITION for a role...but who is actually offered a role is usually kept quite hush-hush. Because producers don't want the actor who eventually accepts a role to know they were really 4th choice.

And it's also considered bad form as a performer to say yourself that you turned down a role, because that's humiliating to the person who took it...and usually the first choice for a role is NEVER available; so actors kind of cover for each other in that way, and don't usually speak up about roles they turned down

(Okaaaaaay...was that long and rambly enough?)
.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

maybe because it was controversial but they did the right thing because this role is beyond embarrassing looking back.

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 6 years ago

Can't say I blame them. The role is too extreme.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

it is, and so gross.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

How so?

I thought the role was really powerful and honest.

I could have done without the lengthy and graphic rape scene though. I appreciate that the filmmakers wanted to hit home how awful rape is, but it makes it a hard film to watch, and I'm sure it could have been edited in a less graphic, but still quite rightly disturbing, way.