Firstly, I mean no offense but, i seemed fairly clear from the footage at the end that the producers choose much mre attractive women to play the machinists than reality.
Do you think it would have made a difference to the movie to have had plainer women in the roles?
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Unfortunately I think it would, as audiences do seem to like to see "cleaned-up" versions of characters, but they still cast a remarkable and "fairly" subtle cast. I mean, they didn't insult us by casting someone like Julia Roberts in the lead. Even the ultra gorgeous Rosamund Pike was not out of place.
shareThis is not a documentary and actors are generally better looking than the rest of the population. No doubt Charlize Theron will play JK Rowling in her biographical movie.
shareThe events happened in 1968. The ladies recalling events at the end were filmed in 2010. Women's appearance can change in 42 years. I was very glad to see that Geraldine James appeared to be wearing no makeup, no botox, no silicone injections, no hair dye and no bleached teeth.
shareOK, 5 years late but...
blaircam is referring to the strikers in the archive footage taken at the time.
Not the interviews taken at the same time as the film was made!
this is common practice in hollywood, and a lot of talented people will never get a huge break cause someone told them they don't look good enough for hollywood, despite the talent they may have.
as for this movie, except 2 girls that went to talk to the minister in the end (the blong one and the other one who always dressed in skirts), i don't think Rita and the other lead woman were good looking. they are already older, not like they are hot or something. (not trying to insult their looks but they look average at best) i think they are realistic choice especially the lead woman.