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

[–] minia 12 years ago

Actually she wasn't too old... They usually cast folks in their late teens and early 20s to play teens in movies... I think this is because they don't want anyone whose going through that awkward teen phase... Have you seen some of Hollywood's finest's HS pics? They always look a hot mess...

I ACTUALLY think the problem here is that they hired Ann-Margret to play with ACTUAL teens who were going through their awkward stages... Like her close friend Ursula... They should have hired folks in their early 20s also to play with her so she didn't stand out as "old..." Her boyfriend in the movie was like a year younger than her in real life and I thought they "matched..."

You people are the disease, but I've got the cure. ~Morgan on "Chuck"

reply

[–] Mayesgwtw39 12 years ago

Wow, that's an amazingly weird assessment.
There's not line, wrinkle or anything on her to indicate she's older than a teen.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

How about Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate? He was 30.

I don't feel we need to demand a hyper-reality, where every actor need to be exactly what the character should be. Otherwise we could complain about an Italian-American playing a Jew, or whatever.

She was wonderful in the film, one of my earliest movie crushes.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

reply

[–] crood 12 years ago

It's one of the many Hollywood standards to cast young adults as teens. It enables them to work longer hours and perform more adult scenes. It's actually gotten to the point where when they do cast someone who is the correct age, audiences view them as too young.

Another common thing is to cast a teen character with an actor who is considerably shorter than the one playing their parent, even if the character is 17 or 18 and should be much closer in height to their same gender parent.

reply

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

crood,

You hit the nail on the head. Far more important than whether the actors look young enough to actually be that age is the studio avoiding long shut-downs caused by child labor laws. Underage actors can work for maybe 4 hours, movie productions film 12 hours a day and longer--it would cost horrifically high amounts to shut-down while actors are tutored. Makes no sense. Throwing away $$ that can be better spent on big name salaries or better sets, costumes, director, etc.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I agree with you, lubin-freddy.

She was great in the part, just like Henry Winkler was great as Fonzie. (He was also about 30 when he started on Happy Days.)

Have you seen her in the Grumpy Old Men series? She was super in those two movies. Very talented lady!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

In that case, Henry Winkler was too old to be playing Fonzie, but he did it anyway.

It's common for high school students to be played by older actors. At least, it was common up until a few years ago.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

[–] denis-38 11 years ago

She was 22. She looked just fine. She ACTED, sang and danced like she was a well-worn 30.

In any case, she was sizzling hot here, and it seemed she was ready to inherit the late Miss Monroe's sex-symbol mantle. But too many movies in too short a period of time, too many bad movies, killed her movie career before it really had a chance. When she finally came back in "Carnal Knowledge" (with an Oscar nod) she and her "people" smartly knew to keep in in Vegas, on TV, and in interesting supporting roles. That career planning kept her active for a long time. (I think she doesn't care so much anymore, but I still see an Oscar in her future--she'll show up for 15 sensational minutes in a great movie. Like Judi Dench in "Shakespeare In Love.")

reply

[–] crood 8 years ago

A good deal of that was the same reason for the changes in the story. They were looking to make her the next big female star. They staged it so she'd be sexy and seem older because it was less about this film than launching her career as a starlet.

They didn't want her to act a teenager.

reply

[–] norway-jm 8 years ago

Also, if she were really 16, it would be far too creepy to have a lecherous older man kissing her until she faints (it was bad enough it happened to her 16-year-old character). Not to mention that they specifically had her behave in a seductive/sexual manner, which, again, would present a big creepiness issue when all the adult males watching find themselves lusting over a young girl... and being encouraged to do so. It's inappropriate to sexualize someone who's under 18, and was even more so in 1963.

reply

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

Norway, good points. For example, Patty Duke who actually was 16 at the time certainly could have played the part but it might have seemed creepy.

reply

[–] Lt_Zogg 11 years ago

Girls mature faster than boys.

reply

[–] mel2000 10 years ago

Girls mature faster than boys.

No kidding. There were girls in my high school who looked older than Ann Margaret in BBB.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] willjohn 8 years ago

Mickey Rooney played Huckleberry Finn when he was 19.Huck was supposed to be 13 or 14.

In a skit on "That's Entertainment" Mad Magazine had a cartoon picture of a group of actors & actresses at a banquet. It had Mickey Rooney saying "Here I am, 30 years old & I am still getting a child's portion!"

reply