Niles Silvers said: "It's interesting that the first thing people come up with in relation to female leads is age."
I think for many of us in this thread, we try to be cognizant of the ageism and sexism regarding actresses and age, but this thread is also dealing with a incredibly beloved character of musical theatre so they'll have strong opinions about whoever is cast. If not age, it'd be something else. But with Streisand, age was a factor. Rose needs to be played by an actress who looks like she could have two young children at the age of...well you know whatever age Baby June and young Louise are as they don't even know and two adult-age children. I think that's why people are harping on the age factor. I think 40 to around 50 (more-or-less) is probably the perfect age and I think 60 is probably acceptable depending. Plus, I think Rose needs to be young enough to really think she still has a shot at the big time and is just coming to terms with "aging out" to not make her completely delusional.
Nowadays with more 70+ actresses being visible and working, it can happen and thank God for it, but we're talking the time of dying vaudeville. Unfortunately, on screen rather than stage, aging out does happen sooner than it does on stage (though the suspension of disbelief is much bigger in theatre as usually untraditional casting may be the point of that particular production of a classic show). However, it seems this film adaptation is more of a straight-forward telling of this story. For film, audiences make a bigger deal about being about to realistically believe the actor they are seeing on screen is what the character is supposed to be. I also have an issue with young actresses who seem way too young and read that way playing older characters with more life experience but Hollywood still casts inappropriately young women in roles that should probably be played by older actresses because women's values still being tied to their age and all.
Some times though, someone is so good in the role that directors are willing to take a chance despite an actor maybe being about 10 years too old for the role like what happened where it took like more than ten years for Spielberg to do Lincoln. Spielberg originally imagined Liam Neeson to be Lincoln and Sally Field for Mary Todd, but by the time he was ready to film it more than ten years had passed and he thought he needed younger actors (Daniel Day Lewis instead of Liam Neeson). At first Field resigned herself that she lost the role, but then decided to fight for it despite the hurdles in front of her and convincing Spielberg she could play opposite a younger DDL. DDL heard she was fighting for the role and was trying to convince Spielberg to cast her that he actually offered to fly in to do a screen test with her to help her get the role and Spielberg ended realizing she was too perfect for the role to not cast.
So yes, maybe we can have a 70+ Rose, but for many of us, it's understandable that we'll need some convincing. My issue with Barbra is that I think she does read too old for the role and I fear I'd only see Barbra in the role and not Rose. She's just so distinct and Barbra-ish now it's hard for me to envision her in-character outside of her Barbra the superstar persona.
Updated On: 2/7/19 at 01:40 PM
