Unless you're Emma Thompson, you simply cannot get away with being a young, virginal Austen heroine if you're over thirty! What the heck gives? One was born in 78; the other, in 80. Ridiculous.
shareWell, it's a modern adaptation - I doubt that this Elinor and Marianne are 19 and 17 respectively. I reckon they could get away with playing them as people in their mid-twenties.
"I wish you to know that you have been the last dream of my soul."
Like the other poster noted, it is a modern interpretation. Minor adjustments are bound to be made. I too think the actresses can pass for early twenties, especially Marla.
Also, something tells me that this isn't exactly a big budget production and if it is indeed a smaller film it probably makes sense *not* to hire actual teenagers for the roles. Child labor laws. Isn't there a set amount of time a minor can be on set and once they've put in X amount of hours they can no longer be there. They're either whisked away home or to the on set tutor or something. It's probably easier and less costly for the film makers to simply age the characters a tad than have to fret every day over how long this shot or that shot takes because their teen actors only have X amount of hours left in the day before they have to go home. With adult actors you have more time to work with.You're probably able to get things done a little more quickly with less stops here and there and that most likely helps keep the budget low, allowing them to put the money saved elsewhere.
That's just my two cents. :)
They didn't have to hire teens but the one girl was supposed to be just graduating college-even if she did say she didn't finish in 4 years, 5 or 6 wouldn't make her over 30 and they both look like they are pushing 40. They both had wrinkles.
share[deleted]
The point of the book/plot is that they are grown women who have to marry. Perhaps in Austen's day, this meant 17 & 19, but not today. In order to be the slightest bit realistic for modern day, the girls will have to be in their 20's.
Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
it was a cute update version of the original - i thought it was a cute concept; pls don't take it so seriously bc it was a made for tv movie afterall..
shareYour wrong. The idiot, moron, democrat ideals of you MUST screw around before ever getting married - and do it as young as you can - are REDICULOUS!!!!
Yet another reason democrats must be removed - complete lack of morals!
And you, my dear, need to learn how to spell... "You're," not, "Your," and "Ridiculous," not, "Rediculous." *sigh*
At any rate, this was a cute movie. My only issue with it, was in taking the father and making him a "bad guy." He wasn't a villain in the book, he was merely suffering from the laws at the time. If he'd had another son by his second wife, they wouldn't have been in the situation they were. And because this version is modernized, there are about a thousand different, and BETTER ways they could have had the Dashwoods lose their money, than the father stealing money.
Other than that, it played very well, and was nicely done. I'm not usually a fan of updated versions of movies like this, but this one was done rather tastefully (with the exception of the father).
I didn't like how they switched the roles of Brandon and Willoughby.
shareYour wrong. The idiot, moron, democrat ideals of you MUST screw around before ever getting married - and do it as young as you can - are REDICULOUS!!!!
Yet another reason democrats must be removed - complete lack of morals!