while she didn't look 12, she definitely didn't look like a lady going on 27. she looked more around 16 - 18, which i didn't mind at all, and i found julie harris to be quite convincing in the role and she gave a brilliant performance.

Just watched the movie early this morning. I had seen parts of it before, but this was the first time I watched it from beginning to end.
Right in the beginning of the movie she proclaims she is 12 years old, and I thought yeah right! I thought she was joking.
That certainly changed the way I watched the movie. I don't know why they couldn't have edited the screenplay slightly, to say she was 16. That would have made the movie much more watchable for me.

She looked old, but It was great to see her recreate her legendary stage role. What about the people in "Grease"? Stockard Channing was about thirty playing a seventeen-year-old.
"I love corn!"

I know Hollywood has used older stars to play people who were younger than they but this one was ridiculous and unbelievable.

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

No argument there, she was terrific as Berenice.

Ethel Waters is the one who should have got the oscar nomination. She was terrific.

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.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

yes, elizabeth taylor and her like looked totally age appropriate.
some girls just mature far younger than others. it has nothing to do with the time period.

And I was mistaken for a store employee when I was 10, but we're talking OUR lives, not 55 years agoback then when a girl looked older, like Deanna Durbin, it wasn't because they had large breasts.

Are you kidding me? Many girls have breasts at 10 years old. I was often mistaken for a high school/college student when I was 12.

50 years ago they didn't, they didn't have those damned hormones in the food, girls got their periods at 12-13 and the rest followed from there.

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).

This message has been deleted.

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

Actually she was 27. In the close-ups she looked 27! She looked older than the girls she kept yelling at.

I was convinced, although all the dialogue she spouted was a bit much for a 12 yr. old. I guess you guys are right! LOL
"Long days and pleasant nights"
King

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.

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.

im gonna play Frankie in a play version of the movie and im gonna be 16 playing a 12 year old. haha, and i thought i was too old for the part!