I dont understand what the producers were thinking. She is too modern, her voice too husky, and those red lips and that ridiculous wig was distracting throught the whole flick. Her acting is wooden and stiff.
It seems like the "casting couch" was used in this case.
i think with a better actress, there wouldn't be a problem with being "too modern," looks or otherwise.
there's one scene where you see her arms and she's just way too buff for a woman of that era, regardless of lifestyle. ugh, she was just terrible.
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. The 1920s were a breakthrough period for women in sports and there were many, many women in England, France and America who were sports stars and whose bodies were toned and buff. Look for photos from this long list of well known sports stars who were female, many of whom were admired and emulated:
http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/timelne2.htm
Jessica Biel was splendid as Larita. She incarnated the style and attitude of the era. One wishes she'll do it again in another movie. *smile*
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory]
I agree with you so much! To say she was too "modern" is total crap...HELLO! Larita is supposed to be a "modern" woman!!! LOL! So, I think she fit it perfectly! That was an era of change for women. I think she embodied the character perfectly! And I thought she acted it superbly and subtly! Maybe people wanted more of a drama queen character portrayed in this movie...I for one love the subtlety brought to her performance...bearing every nasty remark, being looked down upon by everyone around her (some exceptions). And I thought she handled the comedic scenes wonderfully as well....like squashing the poor dog! LOL! Hilarious! I just enjoy this movie so much and wish others would stop the criticizing and enjoy it!
sharevery very wrong. it's like casting jennifer aniston in a scorsese film. some things just should never happen. i'm not saying this would've been a master piece if not for the casting of ms. biel. but firth, scott thomas, the setting, seems almost fail proof. why this jessica? even alba would've been better. and this jessica(biel) had the audacity to complain that she can't get roles because of her beauty. no, honey, it's because you're not pretty enough. and can't act worth sh*t. so she's implying charleze theron, halle berry, scarlett johannson, megan fox, angelina jolie are dogs because they get all the roles. wow. this movie would've worked with any one of those actresses. would've been a critical darling. but she single handedly destroyed a movie. can't really blame the producers tho. i'm gonna assume she was like, their 58th choice. they tried all they could.
sharevery very wrong. it's like casting jennifer aniston in a scorsese film.
http://stuffblackpeopledig.wordpress.com/share
I thought it would be better if she was a little more full-figured.
#15
Martin Scorsese IS the best
In the 1920s? If anything, Jessica Biel was too toned and athletic: smart women of the Golden/Roaring Twenties aspired to the languid, waifish look--think Mia Farrow in The Great Gatsby, or even some of the models on the runway.
I don't think Biel was miscast because though she played Larita with a bit of camp, the entire movie was less a Jane Austen/Merchant-Ivory movie of manners, but a film with its tongue firmly in cheek. It took the stereotypes of Anglo-American relations and stretched them to the limit, but ended on a realistic note.
If anything, Jessica Biel was too toned and athleticRemember that she was supposed to be a racing driver. It would be natural for her to have more muscular arms than most women of her age and social class.
The actress should have been more breezy, hard-boiled, athletic, gum-chewing,funny, etc.--in other words, an American stereotype of the time, which is what I think Coward had in mind. From the audience's point of view, the character should have given the family something to dislike . The flat,wooden way that Biel played her, it was hard to see why they instantly took such a dislike to her.
shareOpinions obviously differ, but Coward hadn't breezy, hard-boiled, athletic, gum-chewing,funny, etc... an American stereotype in mind.
I've read his play - it had a very remote similiarity with the film. Fact is - the names and very little of the plot.
If you want to know about Larita in play - we hardly can find anything at all about her in the play. Even where she came from, where she lived before, even her nationality - nothing! She's like a ghost which came from a dark after the first divorse and disappeared because the second divorce, again.
I think in a play Coward was trying to say that a woman once divorced was ruined forever, even if she isn't guilty not in the least.
Maybe that's reason why the play seems outdated after a while and not popular now.
So, in fact Alfred Hitchcock's film "Easy Virtue-1928" is much more close to the play, but not this "Easy Virtue-2008" film.
I read the Wikipedia article about the Coward play. You are correct that in the play the main thing that seems to be wrong with Larita, as far as the family is concerned, is that she is a divorcee. There was no murder trial, no sitting on little dogs, no dancing the can-can, no racecar driving in the play. The article does mention that she is an American. Her character is shown to be poised, witty, and intelligent in order to show up the hypocricy of the family. The play is so dated that changes had to be made in the movie, but I thought they were unsuccessful.
shareI have been watching films since before most of the commentators here were born. Plays, TV, also.So let's clear this all up here because things like this have been boring, annoying me for a long time.
1) I'm oh, so, sorry that people made books, plays and film long before now that you find old because they are of their own time. Life is hard, that's about what always will happen.
2) For this film specifically, Noel Coward - more billiant than most anyone putting thoughts on his keyboard now is from the best I can determine from a rather large exposure - was, by default, of his time and writing of it. For a movie about the twenties to have characters in it acting as if they were in the 2000s would be abysmally stupid.
3) Along with Coward, there was another brilliant Brit author named P. G. Wodehouse (who wrote about the same time period - and whom Biels's re-characterization seems to be based from (the type of American she is written as is quite Wodehousian)).
4) Actually, Biel did quite well in the part- I was very impressed - and did not expect anything like that from her based on her previous work. Both surprised and delighted.
5) I haa nasty suspicion that a lot of the dislike of this film (from those who do) is a heavy lack of ability to follow the lines, the flow and the general happenings in the film. And, insufficient understanding of the amount of adaptation - without destroying the story of the original more than necessary - to turn it more into a comedy today's audiences could follow. They did well.
I rented the movie because Jessica starred in it.
I thought that her figure was eye popping when she did the Tango.
The DVD case's plot summary reminded me of her earlier Victorian era role, as a European in The Illusionist.
Although the movie is filmed in a style that is slanted toward comedy, I thought that actress Kristen Scott Thomas also lent credibility to the story.
Jessica's boudoir scenes advanced the story and fit her character. This film is not the Titanic but I enjoyed the laughs and the scenery including Jessica and her character from Detroit, MI.
I don't have a problem with her tone figure - I thought that was the one thing she had going for her. I also didn't think her figure was out of place, she was a racecar driver, which takes some athletic ability and she was obviously very unconventional and wouldn't necessarily twist herself into the conventional norms of beauty.
My problems with Biel were two-fold: she can't act at all and she was about ten years too young for the role. The character was supposed to be older and more wordly than John - and they reference their age difference at numerous points in the film. But she and John look exactly the same age. And her acting - to call it wooden is not strong enough, because at least a piece of wood could stand in one place without actively detracting from a scene. She literally sucked the life out of every single scene she was in - except for the tango scene at the end - which Colin Firth totally took over.
i thought she was really good!!! she really looked the part and the "casting couch" reference was extremely immature
shareThe whole movie was full of bad acting, but Jessica's was the worst. All of her deliveries were embarassing and bad.
And what was with all the close-ups of her face? All I could see was a butchered nose from rhinoplasty and duck lips. They tried way too to shove her "beauty" down our throats when she's actually kind of butch and uninspiring.
I honestly wonder how she keeps getting cast for roles, especially for anything that takes place longer than 10 years ago.
She really was awful. She managed to both over-act and under-act, sometimes in the same scene.
But even dumber than her performance were the constant references to her being old, when she was obviously the same age as her young, naive husband. And she and Colin Firth were played as though they were contemporaries, when he was clearly much older.
I thought the cast was good otherwise.