Divergent - older actors playing kids

[empther]

I haven’t seen the movie or read the book,
but apparently the story is about teenagers who are classified in one of five emotional categories when they become sixteen.
The trouble is, the lead actress is 22, and the leading actor is 29. :bigyikes:

Yeah. Right. The audience won’t notice the difference, hunh?

21 year old Jennifer Lawrence didn’t look or act like a sixteen year old in The Hunger
Games either.

If somebody made a movie about teenagers starring genuine teenaged actors,
it could become a classic rather than a cartoon.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

That’s as old as acting itself.
Leo Gorcey, star of the old Bowery Boys comedies was in his forties when the series came to an end. Henry Winkler turned 30 when he started playing the high school dropout Fonzie on Happy Days. Donna Douglas was far older than Elly Mae on the Beverly Hillbillies. Radar on MASH.
I could go on, but you get the point.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

In my opinion, it’s the actor’s abilities that should get them the role, not whether they physically look like the character they are playing. Maybe there was a sixteen year old that tried out for the part, and she looked exactly like the character. But maybe her acting skills weren’t so great. I’ve heard that the actress playing the Divergent girl was excellent, though.

But yes, I know that not all adults being cast as teenagers get the role for their great acting skills. Us teenagers want to look like young adults, so some movies use adults for their good looks.

The best of both worlds would be nice, though.

 

[Catholic1954]

Did anyone believe the “Welcome Back, Kotter” Sweat Hogs were really high school teenagers? :ehh:

 

[FrenzyJen]

The first time I watched Grease, I was a few minutes in and paused it. “Mom, they’re in high school, yeah?” “Yes” “Then why do they all look 45?”

 

[empther]

Maybe there was a sixteen year old that tried out for the part, and she looked exactly like the character. But maybe her acting skills weren’t so great.

Then we have to consider what we mean by “acting skills”.

When 21 year old Lauren Bacall co-starred with Humphrey Bogart in some movie, there was a scene in which Bacall had to walk about twenty feet to answer a door. So she walked to the door just like any real person would. Bogart told her, “Don’t walk across the floor like a fashion model. You gotta have an attitude.” So she adopted an attitude. The bell rang, she snapped her head around in sudden alertness, assumed a frown, and walked with a stomping walk to show she was ready for a fight.

Some people call that acting. Maybe, but it wasn’t doing it just like any real person would.
Experienced old guys like me can tell the difference.

Now, if the character’s part is a sixteen year old girl, I don’t expect her to act like Demi Moore in GI Jane. I expect her to get all flustered by challenges like I and everybody else did at that age.
I don’t expect her to kill fellow teenagers with no reaction like Katniss in The Hunger Games. I expect her to be in shock at what she’s done. Even seasoned male cops are put on easy duty for a while after killing somebody in the line of duty until it can be determined that they haven’t been permanently ruined for duty.
Theresa has several meltdowns in my story. “They had to have seen my breakdown. Well, what did they expect!” ( page 325 )

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Then we have to consider what we mean by “acting skills”.

When 21 year old Lauren Bacall co-starred with Humphrey Bogart in some movie, there was a scene in which Bacall had to walk about twenty feet to answer a door. So she walked to the door just like any real person would. Bogart told her, “Don’t walk across the floor like a fashion model. You gotta have an attitude.” So she adopted an attitude. The bell rang, she snapped her head around in sudden alertness, assumed a frown, and walked with a stomping walk to show she was ready for a fight.

Some people call that acting. Maybe, but it wasn’t doing it just like any real person would.
Experience old guys like me can tell the difference.

Now, if the character’s part is a sixteen year old girl, I don’t expect her to act like Demi Moore in GI Jane. I expect her to get all flustered by challenges like I and everybody else did at that age.
I don’t expect her to kill fellow teenagers with no reaction like Katniss in The Hunger Games. I expect her to be in shock at what she’s done. Even seasoned male cops are put on easy duty for a while after killing somebody in the line of duty until it can be determined that they haven’t been permanently ruined for duty.
Theresa has several meltdowns in my story. “They had to have seen my breakdown. Well, what did they expect!” ( page 325 )

It just depends on the movie, I suppose. I just hope no casting director limits the age for auditioning for a role. Give everyone a chance, I say.

 

[mexolic]

The first time I watched Grease, I was a few minutes in and paused it. “Mom, they’re in high school, yeah?” “Yes” “Then why do they all look 45?”

The cast of the movie The Lord’s of Flatbush were in their 20’s in 1974. Sylvester Stallone, Henry Winkler and Perry King. Does having a ducktail hairstyle and wearing a leather jacket really make a man appear as a teenager? :nope: Just sit back and enjoy the movie.

 

[empther]

The cast of the movie The Lord’s of Flatbush were in their 20’s in 1974. Sylvester Stallone, Henry Winkler and Perry King. Does having a ducktail hairstyle and wearing a leather jacket really make a man appear as a teenager? Just sit back and enjoy the movie.

To be a great movie it has to touch your heart.
To do that it has to be realistic to the nth degree as if you yourself where there standing next to the characters.

Movies such as…
…er…
…er…
…can anybody think of any?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

To be a great movie it has to touch your heart.
To do that it has to be realistic to the nth degree as if you yourself where there standing next to the characters.

Movies such as…
…er…
…er…
…can anybody think of any?

There is no such thing as a “realistic” movie or tv show. Even the “reality shows” so popular today involve actors, directors and scripts.

 

[empther]

There is no such thing as a “realistic” movie or tv show. Even the “reality shows” so popular today involve actors, directors and scripts.

Sounds like you’ve experienced nothing but television and the phony movies of recent decades.

There used to be realistic movies.
Like “Old Yella”. The story line wouldn’t sell today. Tastes have changed. But when I was a kid that movie made us cry.

Nowadays kids are like robots because they’ve never seen anything that touched them. It’s all phony.

The recent so-called “Young Adult” :bigyikes: movies like Hunger Games** and Divergent have an “edge”. If the story’s characters don’t have an “edge”, movie producers aren’t interested.
Really? Is life like that? Would you want it to be?

 

[mikekle]

There is no such thing as a “realistic” movie or tv show. Even the “reality shows” so popular today involve actors, directors and scripts.

Yea, Its amazing more people dont recognize this, I tend to think there are alot of people out there that actually believe much of what they see on TV…now that is scary!!!

The so called reality shows are all heavily scripted, all the people in them are actors, networks will never just stick anyone on TV that has no experience and no skills, the trick is though, to make it appear that way.

Ive even read a few articles in the past that said the old ‘to catch a predator’ shows were all scripted, fake complete with actors…after watching a couple re-runs, I saw how scripted it was! Police were not even real! LOL

 

[Phalanx]

There is no such thing as a “realistic” movie or tv show.

Band of brothers?

 

[SalesianSDB]

If the story’s characters don’t have an “edge”, movie producers aren’t interested.
Really? Is life like that? Would you want it to be?

That’s the point. Theatre and film are supposed to be unrealistic. It is supposed to put the audience in situations where they think, “I’d hate to be that guy, but let’s watch!” I know my daily life. I live it. When I turn on a movie, I want something that isn’t real life, where the stakes are incredibly high and where I can say, “I’d hate to be put into that situation, but I can’t turn away from watching.”

 

[empther]

That’s the point. Theatre and film are supposed to be unrealistic. It is supposed to put the audience in situations where they think, "I’d hate to be that guy, but let’s watch!" I know my daily life. I live it. When I turn on a movie, I want something that isn’t real life, where the stakes are incredibly high and where I can say, “I’d hate to be put into that situation, but I can’t turn away from watching.”

Er…

…you sound like there’s only one kind of movie,
one in which the situation scares or horrifies you,
one in which characters suffer, or have to violently fight for their lives, or go through some kind of ordeal which they barely survive with no reward except the survival itself,
something of that nature.

But there’s a different kind of story.
The character is trying to deal with very difficult challenges with extremely high stakes, but not necessarily in danger of losing her life. You watch, not because you’ve overcome your fear, there is nothing to fear. Rather, you watch because you’re fascinated by how the hero deals with and triumphs over incredibly difficult challenges. the** “impossible problem**” . You watch because you have to consider how you would do in a similar situation and so you learn something about yourself.
Such a story should be realistic or else it won’t work. You’re not watching it for some kind of catharsis of emotions like watching a horror movie. You’re watching to learn something about human nature and yourself.
I wrote a story like that. I could have tweaked things to try in all kinds of hair raising situations. I didn’t. That’s not what I wanted to do with the story.
I’ll leave that to Hunger Wars and stuff like that.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Sounds like you’ve experienced nothing but television and the phony movies of recent decades.

I’m a triceritops, I rarely watch modern films or tv, unless it’s British, and even they are imitating American garbage these days.
In theater or film there is what is called a “suspension of reality”. That means for an hour or two hours I accept the make-believe world being acted out in front of me. The secret to its success is whether the story is good enough for me to continue watching. Mel Brooks would say his films mirrored the human condition, if pushed several inches to the left or right. It takes those elements of reality and twists them in such a way that you see it in way you otherwise would not.
Good comedy mirrors reality in a far stronger way than drama. All of us have known an Archie Bunker, a Ralph Kramden, a Basil Fawlty. In the real world, we would hate these people, put them on tv, and we love them, they’re hilarious.

 

[child_of_God85]

Well, I’m 29 an most people think I’m 18/19
You can have older actors get away with playing younger charactors.

 

[migueltojose]

Big Box Office movies, widely distributed, are about making money. It’s supply and demand. They give us what we want. For some time now (decades) it has been ‘escapism’ for a few reasons. Near term reality has more uncertainty than it used to. We would prefer to ‘escape’ for a while.

You are not going to cast kids in those roles. The money is too big and the risk/reward ratio is upside down.

Gritty realistic tough movies such as ‘Cool Hand Luke’ or ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’ or ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ etc. were dominant in the late 50’s and early 60’s at a time of rapid social change.
When a critical mass of like minded people is reached the market will shift to those tastes. Hunger Games and Divergent are flirting with social commentary the likes of which we haven’t seen in big box office releases for some time. This could be the start of something. Similarly, religious themed movies are getting to the big screen and widely distributed.

If you want to see good relevant movies as an interesting art form you need to go to the ‘art’ house theatres. All the major cities have them in the ‘artsy’ areas. There are a lot of really good movies that no one ever sees because they are too real and not entertaining enough for the masses.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I think the tendency to have adult actors play teenagers is probably related to the tendency to cast someone like Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover: apparently the assumption was no one alive today has ever actually seen a picture of Hoover. Movies are more fantasy than reality. Just think, if they were to actually have teenagers play teenagers, they might also have to have at least 60% of their American characters be overweight to reflect that reality as well, which something tells me might not sit well with audiences.

I would be curious to see, actually, if on average old characters/historical persons are generally played by younger actors. I think Ben Kingsley was fairly young when he portrayed an aged Gandhi, for example.

Well, I’m 29 an most people think I’m 18/19
You can have older actors get away with playing younger charactors.

I’m 23 and when I’m clean-shaven people think I’m 16. People tell me I won’t hate looking so young some day, which I doubt.

 

[new_atheist]

If you watched the movie, X-Men: The Last Stand; you will greatly notice that the veteran actors’ faces, Patrick Stewart (who played Professor X) and Ian McKellen (who played Magneto) had been digitally-altered to make them look decades younger especially in the opening scene.
With this technology, they could make the older actors play their younger versions.