I'd second that. Some people take to acting quickly and they're great even at a young age, but even they tend to improve as they go along. If you're looking for a lead to handle the depth necessary for a complex character (like Napoleon) it would be harder to find a young actor with the prowess to bring it to life.
Adding on to that, box office draw is a factor. If a studio is going to green-light an epic biopic that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, they'd rather that the director not grab, "Promising, young, 'The Next Brando'" They want a guy like Joaquin Phoenix, who is established and still hot off of his Joker success. While younger actors can have some draw, an older actor is really going to sell it.
Finally, you've touched on "image fit" - for lack of a better term - where the actor has to be perceivable as the character, particularly by the target audience. The audience for Napoleon are older, film-savvy types, and there's a bias towards seasoned veteran actors. They don't like - as you say - Timothee Chalamet. They want Beatles, not Oasis or K-Pop.
I think that the first factor is unavoidable. Skill is skill, and it will improve if actors keep challenging themselves over the years.
I do think it's a pity that box office draw is reliant on audiences being unwilling to try something new or unique, and I really think it's a shame that we allow our personal biases to keep us from respecting certain artistic choices. I was one of the only people who trusted Nolan had found the right Joker in Heath Ledger, most dismissed him as "pretty boy," but I found myself guilty of this, too. I ignored or avoided Robert Pattinson until I saw The Lighthouse and realised he was awesome. He had that Twilight stink on him. Was that wise of me? Nope. Twilight might suck, but that's not on Pattinson.
reply
share