jessica chastain
good choice for beverly
shareYes, but I think Amy Adams would be a better choice.
share
MovieChat Forums > It Chapter Two (2019) Discussion > jessica chastain
Yup. Several months back the director of “It” pretty much handed the role to Chastain. He said if she wanted the part, it was hers (this will be the second time they work together). Now here we are.
Whilst Amy Adams definitely bears a stronger resemblance to young Beverly, Jessica’s casting is awesome. She should be great in the role.
I don't see it. Adams has a much more free spirited personality to her the same as young Bev does. Chastain is much more melancholy in comparison.
shareI don't think you know your Chastains... She hosted SNL last season and she was far from melancholy. And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over something silly like who is the better actress...let's just agree that both are fine actresses and either could be up to the challenge.
shareI didn't know there was more than one Jessica Chastain. I know her plenty fine from the work I've seen her in and yes, she's melancholy. If you didn't want to get into a pissing contest, maybe don't invite one. You didn't see me challenging your opinion did you? You could have just left my comment as it was and the idea of "agree to disagree" still would have applied.
share❤️️
That melancholy you mention may just be the perfect ingredient needed for the grown up Beverly. While she is a successful business woman, her personal life is one sad mess.
However, I do think that Amy Adams would have been a closer match in looks.
Your comment invited a disagreement (I don't think Jessica Chastain is predominantly "melancholy") so I'm not going to apologize for anything. And you didn't need to get pithy about what I implied was there being "another" Chastain since I meant this in the sense that I think she's talented and capable of hitting the right multi-facets that complex, three-dimensional characters demand.
If you wish I bring this discussion (this IS a discussion board, after all) back to a more agree-to-disagree playing field, all I'm saying is don't dismiss a casting choice of a talented actor for a role just because you feel she's unworthy compared to who you'd rather have playing that role.
"Your comment invited a disagreement (I don't think Jessica Chastain is predominantly "melancholy") so I'm not going to apologize for anything. "
I didn't ask you to apologize for anything, I simply told you that your contradictory opinion didn't need to be shared with me in the antagonistic manner it was. You took it as a personal attack. For reasons unbeknownst to me.
" And you didn't need to get pithy about what I implied was there being "another" Chastain since I meant this in the sense that I think she's talented and capable of hitting the right multi-facets that complex, three-dimensional characters demand."
Given the tone of your reply, I felt it was more than fitting. Whats good for the goose as they say...
"If you wish I bring this discussion (this IS a discussion board, after all) back to a more agree-to-disagree playing field, all I'm saying is don't dismiss a casting choice of a talented actor for a role just because you feel she's unworthy compared to who you'd rather have playing that role."
Why? That's the whole point of casting isn't it? Casting directors turn down talented prospects all the time for the actors they want in the movie. Explain to me why what I'm doing is any different. I could easily spin this around on you and say the exact same thing in regards to Adams. Why dismiss Adams just because you feel she's unworthy compared to your choice of Chastain?
"Explain to me why what I'm doing is any different. I could easily spin this around on you and say the exact same thing in regards to Adams. Why dismiss Adams just because you feel she's unworthy compared to your choice of Chastain?"
I NEVER dismissed Adams, or dissed her either, for that matter. I am proceeding from the fact Chastain has already been cast so that is a done deal. I wouldn't have been adverse to Adams being cast in this role, whereas you seem to be adverse to Chastain receiving it over Adams.
My initial reply to you was not antagonistic, I believe it was a reasonable plea to basically give Chastain a chance in the role despite your casting preference for another actress in that role. That fact that you seemed resistant to that made me infer that you had some negative bias toward Chastain, perhaps due to your coining her acting mode as primarily melancholic, which I read as a dismissal of her as a "one-note" actress. From personal experience of having read books or seen remakes of films and having had preferences for certain actors/actresses to play a role, I've been pleasantly surprised quite often to find that someone I initially thought was totally wrong for a role turned out to very good in it, enough to make me take back my initial resistance to their casting. That's all.
Your very first reply said you weren't going to get into a pissing contest. Implying there was one. And implying you weren't going to contest with me. That's antagonistic. You already came into the discussion with an attitude. Why I don't know. All I did was share my preference for Adams over Chastain citing the reasons why I disliked the choice, of which you felt the need to "correct" because you saw her differently from her skits in SNL. Not enough in my book to alter an opinion. So again, implying we were in a pissing contest over who was better was not needed. We weren't contesting. Even though you implied differently.
shareAs I said, I didn't want to get into a pissing contest...you, however, apparently do based on your beating-a-dead-horse attitude toward this discussion. So there's really nothing left to say except...
I'm looking forward to the chapter 2 of IT with Jessica Chastain in the role of the adult Beverly. Since you are not, my advice to you is just skip watching it. Or do whatever the fuck you want to do. I don't care.
"So there's really nothing left to say except..."
'Sorry for the misunderstanding' would have sufficed fine...
Considering what these kids went through in part one and having read the book, I would say that the actress being "melancholy" fits the personality of Beverly after what she went through as a child.
shareWhen I first watched "It", I started thinking about casting possibilities for the sequel, and the thought, "Oh, no! What if they cast Jessica Chastain as Beverly?" suddenly popped into my head. I then went on the Internet and searched to see if the cast for the sequel had been announced yet, and sure enough, my fear had come true.
In short, I think that she's severely miscast for this role.
For one thing, she has a certain coldness about her face and overall screen presence. This makes her well-suited to playing emotionally cold characters, but Beverly Marsh isn't supposed to be a cold character.
Secondly, she looks nothing like Sophia Lillis. Her appearance is so drastically different from Lillis' that the difference can't be explained away by a 27-year age difference. Sophia Lillis has a delicately-shaped chin and full, rounded cheeks with no visible cheekbones. Jessica Chastain has a very pronounced chin, a huge Kirk Douglas-esque chin cleft, very sharp cheekbones, and gaunt cheeks. The two also have very differently-shaped mouths and eyes. Nothing short of massive facial reconstructive surgery could cause such a change in a person's facial structure.
I think that Amy Adams would have been the best choice (she both looks a lot like Sophia Lillis and has a warm screen presence), and casting her would have also made Isla Fisher an excellent casting choice for Audra.
But even Bryce Dallas Howard would have been a good choice, as she bears barely enough resemblance to Sophia Lillis to be believable, and has a much warmer screen presence than Jessica Chastain. Oddly enough, casting Howard as Beverly would have made Chastain a good casting choice for Audra, since there's a slight resemblance between the two.
Love jessica! But not for this role👎
share