This message has been deleted.
-
msilva7-1 — 16 years ago(January 12, 2010 12:01 AM)
THE TRUTH IS SHE LOOKED OLDER THAN 27, EARLY THIRTIES IS WHAT SHE LOOKED LIKE. SHE HAD PINK SKIN AND FRECKLY, THESE TYPES ALWAYS DON'T AGE WELL CAUSE OF THEIR SENSITIVE SKIN THAT WRINKLES QUICKLY. THIS IS THE WORST CASTING I'VE EVER SEEN, NO SANE DIRECTOR SHOULD HAVE EVER CASTED JULIE IN ANY ROLE THAT NEEDED HER TO PLAY AN AGE LESS THAN 20. TO CAST HER AS A 12 YEAR OLD IS UNREAL AND SHE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN OSCAR WORTHY. THIS FILM BECAME A TOTAL DISTRACTION WITH THIS ISSUE AND WAS AWFUL.
-
parisel — 19 years ago(January 21, 2007 10:35 AM)
I totally agree. Julie Harris is a wonderful actress, but she's not right for every role. She might have gotten away with it with the distance between the audience and the stage, but can't possibly fool the camera. It makes the movie unwatchable and is an insult to the viewer. She was too old in East of Eden as well.
She looks years older than the other girls, and even the bride. Small stature is not enough. In that case, why not have cast Ruth Gordon or Helen Hayes..L There were good young actresses around then who were at least much closer in age. -
mastro726 — 19 years ago(March 18, 2007 05:20 PM)
yes your supposed to believe, that is what movies are all about, James Dean didn't really "look" like a 17 year old in Rebel, and yet a 17 year old could have looked like he did and a twelve year old could have looked like Julie Harris in this film, get over it and recognize a great performance when you see one
-
jtyroler — 18 years ago(February 28, 2008 05:04 AM)
12 year olds don't have breasts? I remember a few classmates when I was 10 or 11 that had breast development. With the presence of various hormones in the beef and milk supplies, girls are starting puberty as young as 8 (I knew someone who had to take her 8 year old for hormone shots to delay the onset of puberty).
-
-
key_grip — 17 years ago(August 24, 2008 09:27 PM)
All of this is ridiculous!!! Who cares about the size of her breasts??! Really?
Yes, she was 27 when the movie came out. She was 23 when she began rehearsing the play. She wasn't trying to fool anybody.
In the theatre, particularly in the 30s, 40s and 50s, before TV and TV stars, real live actors played on the stage and we were all able to suspend our disbelief and accept the reality of the play. That's what the theatre is about.
At that time Julie Harris was giving a performance that was considered new and boldmuch like the early performances of Brando and Dean and Kim Stanley.
I don't want to see some TV-fed phony, skinny 12-year old brat playing this partI'll just watch the WB if I want to see that kind of acting. It is highly doubtful that a 12 or 13 year old girl could give the role the fully realized performance it needs. It takes an older actor to have lived through those aching adolescent years to be able to do the part justice.
The film needs to be seen in context. This is called heightened reality. It's a filmed play. It's supposed to be theatrical.
If you watched this movie and think that the film makers were trying to trick you into thinking Julie Harris was actually 12, then you missed the point. If that's what you took away from the film then stick to Hannah Montana and all of those movies about fat, ugly, horny teenage boys. There is not a short supply of that crap out there. -
wtl471629 — 18 years ago(July 07, 2007 01:37 PM)
I agree with you in that when I first saw this movie years ago that she didn't look 12 at all. It is not to the credit of the Academy that MS Harris got an oscar nomination for it because she was very much too old for the part and they should have given it to a younger actress. Ms Harris is a great actress but this role just wasn't right for her in my opinion. I don't know how Natalie Wood would have done but she was about 12 when this movie was made. Ethel Waters was the one that made this movie and I felt she should have got the nomination.
-
novastar_6 — 18 years ago(July 28, 2007 09:03 PM)
The first time I saw her in the movie was last year, and I missed the first hour, didn't know who she or anybody was, but she struck me as a boy at first. Then when I realized she was a girl, I thought she looked 14 or 1512 that's pushing it a bit, but what can you expect? She had done the same role 3 years before at 24, and the director hired all the original players for the movie, just like they did with the play of Peter Pan. Mary Martin was 47 playing a boy, and she'd done it before at 42 and she did the part very well. Women who are gifted with good looks can often pull off younger roles very well.
-
artistathome — 18 years ago(February 28, 2008 03:11 PM)
For some reason which I cannot imagineeveryone accepted the idea of Julie Harris as Frankie being only 12, even tho she was almost 30 years old! In some ways it made the movie more strange and famous!
This is similar to Mary Martin playing Peter Pan on the tv version and she was 47 We accepted it even tho she looked and acted older than an actual boy.
The audience agrees to suspend belief I guess and accept these women in these two roles. I can't think of any more instances in which this happened. Not well-known roles anyway, because NO ONE would accept it today. I wonder why the producers of these two shows did this?
Nina