'Hunger Games' Director Talks about Casting Jennifer Lawrence in the Lead Role
Ross has an interesting take on the character
Earlier today it was confirmed Jennifer Lawrence will indeed play the lead role of Katniss Everdeen in Lionsgate's adaptation of Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games. It wasn't much of a surprise so I didn't think it needed to be mentioned since that one sentence right there pretty much covers it and her involvement seemed pretty much a sure thing.
However, director Gary Ross (Seabiscuit) spoke with Entertainment Weekly about the decision, which is a bit more interesting than just a confirmation alone.
The obvious question came up regarding Lawrence's age since she will be playing a character that's 16-years-old in the book. As far as Lawrence being cast, I wasn't in on the auditions so I have no idea what they were looking for or what she brought to the role, but I can't say I necessarily agree with Ross's comments on why they went for a 20-year-old instead of someone closer to the character's age:
First of all I talked to Suzanne extensively about this. Suzanne saw every single audition. And not only did Suzanne not have an issue with Jen’s age, she felt you need someone of a certain maturity and power to be Katniss. This is a girl who needs to incite a revolution. We can’t have an insubstantial person play her, and we can’t have someone who’s too young to play this. Suzanne was incredibly adamant about this. Far from being too old, she was very concerned that we would cast someone who was too young. In Suzanne’s mind, and in mine, Katniss is not a young girl. It’s important for her to be a young woman. She’s a maternal figure in her family. She’s had to take care of Prim and in many ways her mother since her father’s death. She’s had to grow up pretty quick.
What Ross is talking about above has nothing to do with age, it has to do with maturity. The fascinating thing about the Katniss character is that she is only 16 and does "incite a revolution" and does have a "certain maturity and power." She's a 16-year-old with the maturity of a 20-year-old, which apparently he read as meaning a 20-year-old needed to play the part instead of finding a younger actress that could pull it off.
Perhaps there weren't any actresses that fit the mold. I can understand that, I have no problem with casting the role the best way possible based on who auditioned. I'm just saying it seems like a strange interpretation of the character. At no point while reading the book did I envision a 20-year-old young woman, I saw a strong, mature 16-year-old girl.
I just wonder now if the character will be referred to as a 16-year-old or if they will be adjusting the narrative to make up for the ages of the actors involved.
Ross says Lawrence begins archery classes next week as the film is expected to shoot early summer for a March 23, 2012 release.
You can read the entirety of Ross's review at EW right here.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 6 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I am excited about Jennifer Lawrence being cast she was my favorite from the beginning. I don't think that the age is gonna be a big deal honestly. It's 4 years I mean it's not like she is 26 or anything. Plus they will probably keep the age at 16 since that is the whole point of the book.
I haven't chimed in on this issue since I haven't read the book and don't know much beyond what I read on this site, but I pretty much agree with some of the other views that have been posted here. I agree with you Brad that Ross's interpretation seems counter-intuitive and that a mature teenager would seem to be better for the role (the term "mature teenager" instantly brings to mind Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit). Of course it's more likely that he's covering up for the reality that the part was always probably going to someone eighteen or older, for couple reasons. One is sex appeal; they're obviously targeting a wide audience including teens so there will likely be at least a little sex appeal (male and female characters) in the marketing, and you can't really do that with minors unless it's very subtle. Two is the Hollywood Censorship Board/MPAA. They've stated they're going for a PG-13 rating (obviously to make more money, even if it's at the expense of the material, though to be fair I can't really judge that without having read the book). Teens (of legal age) and twenty-somethings get killed off gruesomely in horror films all the time, so I'm sure bloodless violence against that age group would get a PG-13 without question. But the same bloodless violence against minors (to be clear I'm talking about the age of the actors, not the charaters) would probably be more frowned upon and give the film a harder time getting a PG-13.
While I do not mind either way, as any of the actresses mentioned for this role would have worked for me, I do see the point of many who have covered this casting process. Although it's too early to tell, this could possibly turn out to be another "Cruise as Lestat" type casting or very well be a "Christianson as Anakin" (or "Lloyd as young Anakin") situation.
Wonder if Brad has ever done a list of Worst Casting? Would be an interesting read, no?
Have you seen 16 year old girls now days? they look 20 plus sometimes….So I dont think they actually had to pick an actress that was actually 16; if you catch my drift.
This is a very well written article Brad! You share my thoughts.
You know i like jennifer … but I think that you could have done better to find a girl out there who can relate to the character and can really put their fellings into katniss's role because this movie is going to sky rocket and if its not done right then theres no point. You should really try to do the book justice!