Ann Margaret a bit old for the part - Bye Bye Birdie (1963) Discussion

[–] MusicAndMovieFan 15 years ago

If I did the math correctly Ann-Margaret would have been 22 when she did this movie, I just recently watched this movie & thought she could pass for a 16 y/o.

reply

[–] jayhn1111 15 years ago

yeah that's not a big stretch at all. We see all the time people in their late 20's or early 30's playing high school kids. Look at Grease

reply

[–] vpilutis 15 years ago

also lets not forget WEST SIDE STORY

http://www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d6a55744d7a45794e544d3d-2

reply

[–] jayhn1111 15 years ago

Yep that's true. Another one of my all time favorite musicals

reply

[–] vpilutis 15 years ago

Matter of fact back in the days of the double feature (for the younger among you thats two movies on one pgm) One of our locals the STARR had both WSS & BBB

Whats more there were movie houses that would have three and sometime four features at a time, often based on a theme i.e. FOUR Hammer horror flicks.
Now Ben Hur is a four hr film yet they also had a Mr MaGoo Film.

http://www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d6a55744d7a45794e544d3d-2

reply

[–] barryfleckmann 15 years ago

Agreed. Jennifer Grey was 27 when she played "Baby" in "Dirty Dancing," and Stockard Channing was a long-in-the-tooth 34 (!!!) when she played "teenager" Betty Rizzo in the movie production of "Grease." Show me a bonafide teenager who has the talent, skill and poise to pull off a Broadway-style production number? It ain't happening, folks!

"You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

reply

[–] lroy77 14 years ago

I'm almost 48. Now if I get the stray white hairs colored back to the original brown, got my hair cut just so, concealed all the facial imperfects, I could easily pass as a senior in high school (or at the very least junior college).

Seriously people, I don't think (and no disrespect for those of you who have performed respective roles in high school productions), REAL high school-age students could handle a making a big time musical movie. Oh, I'm sure it has been done, but at what cost?

reply

[–] Randy-144 9 years ago

You are off a little on your math. The movie was released in the US on April 4, 1963. Ann-Margret turned 22 later that month. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056891/releaseinfo

At any rate, she was quite slim in the movie with not even the hint of a wrinkle on her face. She said she had a 23 inch waist in 1965.

reply

[–] nateba 15 years ago

While Ms Margaret did a good job I do feel she was a bit too old to be playing a high school girl.

Trust me. Very few guys who first saw that film when it was new were thinking that she was too old for it!

cinefreak

reply

[–] SarahKatherine247 15 years ago

You had a 30-year-old woman playing a 16-year-old girl on the original 90210. Given a 1985 DeLorean with free, unlimited plutonium and no chance of the Libyans or anyone else killing me for it, I'll take the 1963 Ann-Margret over the 1991 Gabrielle Carteris any day. (No offense to Ms. Carteris intended, just my own personal taste.)

reply

[–] nateba 15 years ago

I'll take the 1963 Ann-Margret over the 1991 Gabrielle Carteris any day. (No offense to Ms. Carteris intended, just my own personal taste.)

You'll get no argument from me!

cinefreak

reply

[–] tdoolaard 15 years ago

Same here!!!

reply

[–] jrsl88 15 years ago

Just got another fact. Judy Garland was 16 when playing Dorothy in The Wizard Of Oz.

Celebrating 70 years over the rainbow!

reply

[–] nateba 15 years ago

While Ms Margaret did a good job I do feel she was a bit too old to be playing a high school girl.

Yeah, but guys could lust after Ann-Margaret without feeling guilty about it!

cinefreak

reply

[–] ABetterDay 14 years ago

You are either hopelessly confused or hopelessly jealous. It could be both. God chose to smile upon the male population by bringing us Ann-Margret in this movie. First Vivien Leigh and then Ann-Margret. Yes, it is indeed a man's world.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

reply

[–] bboops23 14 years ago

Just a note, Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz was supposed to be 14, and Judy Garland had been performing in Vaudeville her whole life.

Dustin Hoffman was 30 and was playing the 21 year old Benjamin Braddock in the Graduate. Oddly enough Anne Bancroft was 35.

reply

[–] paulr03 14 years ago

And the dude that played Birdie was 32, top draft age then was 29.

reply

[–] mel2000 10 years ago

Just a note, Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz was supposed to be 14....

So why did they give her the wardrobe of a 9 year old?

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

'Dustin Hoffman was 30 and was playing the 21 year old Benjamin Braddock in the Graduate. Oddly enough Anne Bancroft was 35.'
------------------------
Anne was 36, but she looked too young for the role, and Dustin looked too old. Their acting made it work somehow

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] playbillhound 13 years ago

I didn't really think she looked 16 either, but she did a great job!

reply

[–] BigWhiskers 13 years ago

The only time I really thought she was too old was the scene where they do the "Gotta Lot of Livin to do" dance number. She is in that sexy tight pink halter top with capri pants and acting much more slutty than a wholesome girl of 16 in the 60's would act and look. Nowadays a 16yo could be like that but back then no way.

"So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey"

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Helpfan65 8 years ago

IA, the direction for that number was way too provocative, it came across like it was going to end up as a gang bang.

reply

[–] mojo2004 12 years ago

The main reason Ann-Margret looked too old was the rest of the teen cast actually looked like and were dressed like high school teens. The closest Ann-Margret came to looking teenage-ish was the "How Lovely to Be a Woman" number. As another poster said in the "A Lot of Livin' to Do" number she was dressed like a sex kitten and looked early 20's. Bobby Rydell as Hugo didn't help either. He had a baby face and was so small in stature he look much younger than his actual age of 21 next to Ann-Margret.

I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then I could keep Dracula & Superman away.

reply

[–] singjohn 12 years ago

I always think that teenagers from this era always look older. Maybe it's because their hairstyles and clothes are now associated with older people.

reply

[–] leader-7 12 years ago

Give it a BREAK. She was fine for the part. It was a movie. They call it acting. Did she look appreciably older? NO. Who would you have used in 1963, who had that beauty, talent, and experience? When you get a job as a casting director, come back and let us know.

And, she's exactly one year older than her co-star, Bobby Rydell -- no one's complaining about him being too old to be playing a high school student...

Really. that's why they call the job "acting" and why the people doing that job are called "ACTORS."

Oh -- and Maureen Stapleton? Was exactly the same age as Dick Van Dyke... and she was PLAYING his mother. Too young to be doing so? you decide.

Again: ACTing.

reply

[–] timlin-4 12 years ago

Acting? Why not cast her as Birdie then? I would have like to see her in that outfit

reply

[–] dbrockskk1 12 years ago

really struck a nerve with ya huh?!

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] ridgerunner72160-609-362419 12 years ago

I agree!!! I like Maureen Stapleton, but I always wondered why they cast her as Dick Van Dyke's mother in this movie. I know they aged her with makeup and gray hair and all, but even at that she didn't look old enough to be Dick Van Dyke's mother, unless she was one of those gals who had her first baby at 13 years old...LOL.

reply