Kate Mara and her character... - Ironclad (2011) Discussion

[–] syntinen 11 years ago

I don't think it was really KM's fault through. She was given a lame unconvincing character to play, clunky lines, and a truly terrible fetish gown to wear. No actress could have done much with that other than say the lines, bank the money and hope for a better role next time.

reply

[–] filmbuff1974 11 years ago

"No actress could have done much with that other than say the lines, bank the money and hope for a better role next time."--syntinen

LOL! Yes, point well taken.

Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realize Your Dreams!

reply

[–] Jakethemuss 9 years ago

True, the actress basically did her job as she was supposed to. It was her character in relation to the story which left a sour taste in my mouth. I just made a post on another thread about how I thought she was unnecessary and in some ways did more harm than good.

"cook the man some eggs!"

reply

[–] kaskait 11 years ago

Come on, it could have been worse...it could have been better. But she didn't ruin the film. She didn't write nor direct it.

And is her character so unbelievable? She is a young woman stuck in a loveless marriage to an old man...her castle is under siege and everyone in it is starving. That she wants a moment of joy with a man she loves so awful under those circumstances? Especially since she thinks they will both die?

reply

[–] den1003 10 years ago

I found not even the smallest spark between Mara and Purefoy - just didn't work with them.

reply

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

He was more attracted to his horse from what I saw.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply

[–] CrystalisK 10 years ago

agree her interest for Purefoy and the development of it was so horribly done. But most importantly her character was more obsessed with quenching her lower regions than surviving thebattle. Completely cringeworthy. The movie was good for the first 30 minutes but turned into a trainwreck when her story arc begin all the way to the end of the film.

reply

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

She was also far too clean for the times ... she should have been dirtier, in the courtyards they essentially walked in manure all the time... and that's just for starters ... let's not even start about the days before shampoo was invented ... ha ha

reply

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

But shampoo (in the sense 'a preparation designed for washing hair with') *had* been invented, and people washed their hair and themselves. They weren't Neanderthals. In fact, posh people at that time did more than just wash their hair; they curled, scented and even sometimes bleached or dyed it.

Nor did they 'walk in manure all the time'; the shovel and bucket were commonplace technology, and everyone knew that animal droppings were (a) a bad thing to have underfoot, and (b) an excellent thing to put on your vegetable plot. Horse manure was just too useful to leave lying around getting trodden on.

reply

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

I think that is all too romantic and innocent an idea about the past. But whatever ... the ladies still looked far too clean. The men at least looked dirty and unshaven enough to be believable ...

reply

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

No, it's your ideas about the past that are romantic. I have a degree in medieval archaeology and I'm afraid I'm here to tell you that most of what people think they know about 'Everyday Life in the Middle Ages' is rubbish, and the notion that nobody washed is a prime offender.

(Another is the notion that castles were miserable draughty places with bare stone walls, as shown in Ironclad. The director admitted that they actually knew that was all wrong, but thought that authentic castle interiors with brightly-painted plaster walls and snug draughtproofing tapestries would look too comfortable.)

reply

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

I never said they 'never' washed. Only that the ladies looked too clean - especially given the circumstances of being under siege. I see modern day people who look far worse than the ladies in the movie, and the moderns should in theory all have modern amenities for hygiene and washing.

I live in a 16th century house. So, in theory more modern than an 11th or 12th century castle. Before being refurbished and fitted out with modern appliances and fixings, it was a miserable place, unheatable and dark because of the narrow streets outside. It was anything but snug and warm, despite having 18th century windows with real glass. Toilet arrangements were a hole in a small closet without water. You had to bring your own. That was common in old refurbished houses in the neighborhood. Many didn't even have an outlet to the sewers, but waste would accumulate in the cellar and be scooped out later.

Anyway, I love old architecture, history, old buildings, whatever. I suppose some rooms in some castles or fortification were not the threadbare military utilitarian places we think them to be. But with open fireplaces only and few people being able to afford tapestries of any kind (let alone the draught-proofing kind) I am certain they were miserable places to spend a winter, dark and cold to say the least, especially in a country like England.

reply

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Being under siege would be no reason not to wash and do your laundry as normal. Every castle needed a plentiful water supply, and would keep several month's stock of the necessaries of life stored. Being besieged was a fairly routine event for a castle, and life just carried on.

No, what really makes the character look implausible is the ludicrous off-the-shoulder leather-fetish corset she puts on as siege wear.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 8 years ago

I agree. This film would've been infinitely better without her character or a romantic interest.

reply