why would they cast a (then) 27 year old as a teenage girl. she didn't even look like a teenager. anyone else agree?
shareTotally.
I mean, she did do full-frontal a few years before this, which in hindsight, made it a bit creepy to watch her in Flicka.
Thank God for Obama!
Foster M. Wolf
I do not have a problem with that . . . I wouldn't have a problem casting someone of any age to play any character age. But obviously, some casting given any possibility might be very odd--an 80 year old to play a 4 year old, with a 14 year old playing their parent, etc. But I like odd things. At any rate, it's acting, it's an artwork, and actors do not have to be the same in the actual world as whatever it is they're playing on screen.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
She was only 25 when she filmed the movie and if any 25 year old can play a teenager convincingly it would be her.
clear emotions guide / to the gates of open mind / leave the shame behind / peace is by your sideshare
I disagree. I think she looked incredibly young.
Big Gay Al, it has recently come to our attention that you are gay.
You should see her in "Matchstick Men" she looks about 13-15. She looks really young and she's tiny and she can play young convincingly. I don't understand why people think that only people who are the age of the character should play the character...it is called ACTING after all. They PRETEND to be a character.
Only the shell, the perishable passes away. The spirit is without end. Eternal. Deathless.
I thought she was really unconvincing as a sixteen year old. It didn't help that the parent's were cast so close in age to her either.
share