"Alicia Vikander was so miscast - mid 20 year old 2nd in command of CIA??"
Perhaps she was miscast, although I didn't mind her. She had an accent, but I am ready to believe that the CIA wants people with significant foreign life experience / expertise and actively recruits such people (e.g., military brats born overseas).
But AFAIK her character Lee was not 2nd in command of the CIA. She clearly deferred to several guys in suits during meetings at various points in the movie.
Lee was the newish head of the CIA's Cyber Division. Bourne read her bio on his cell. She obtained her PhD from Stanford in 2009, formed a Security Research firm called Prometheus, did work in 2011 that brought her to the attention of the intelligence community, then became Director of Research and Development at In-Q-Tel. There was some other work experience mentioned in her bio as well.
If she was such a superstar, it would be consistent that she could have obtained her PhD at age 21 (in 2009). Such early PhDs are exceptional, but not unheard of. I know people myself who obtained PhDs in fields like mathematics and computer science in their early 20s. So if she was 21 in 2009, that would make Lee 28 in 2016. Just about the same age the actress is.
You might say Lee's rise was exceptionally rapid, but that's how it goes for the best of the best. If that is the case, her age isn't that outlandish. Zuckerberg was younger than her when he achieved his wealth / influence. Steve Jobs' estimated wealth at age 25 was $250 million.
In Bourne, Lee's Stanford classmate Kalloor became one of the richest and most influential people (his company had 1.5 billion users) in the world in the same time frame it took her to become a division head at the CIA.
reply
share
TheCharlieMonster
8 years ago
I understood she was head of a division within the CIA not 2nd in charge. What I think most people have a hard time believing is her attempt to maneuver into the director position during her conversation with the Director of NI at the end of the movie.
And comparing her age to the age Zuckerberg and Kalloor are during their success is different. Founding a successful Internet company and being CEO when you started the company is one thing. Trying to become the head of an agency that has many many different aspects to it that you have no experience in (ie field work) is completely different. Zuckerberg and Kalloor owned their creations - they hit the jackpot and made it big. The CIA is a totally different creature. Corporate companies' goals are making money. The CIA is about spying, international diplomacy, world events. Being good at hacking isn't enough credentials to take control of that agency.
reply
share