MovieChat Forums > An Education (2010) Discussion > Didn't it bother anyone else that Mullig...

Didn't it bother anyone else that Mulligan was way too old?


I believe Mulligan is a very good actress but the overwhelming love for her in this particular movie always surprised me.

When I watched the movie I kept thinking "here is a 25-year old woman acting like a 16-year old who is trying to behave/appear to be an adult". Simply didn't work at all. Usually miscasting agewise is not that big of a deal for me but when the entire premise is based upon a young girl playing grownup but an adult is playing the role, my ability to suspend disbelief went out the door.

It turned out Mulligan wasn't quite 25. She was 22 and 10 months at the start of production, which is still 6-7 years older than the character.


reply

She actually looked much older than 22, so I was somewhat surprised that she was younger than she actually looked. As far as the role goes, it didn't really bother me, but that's just me.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

reply

She looks incredibly young to me!!!



i hope you choke on your bacardi & coke!
*Team Landa*

reply

She looked very young to me. Voice maybe a tad mature, but not enough to really bother me.






Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

reply

to be fair. a lot of 16 year olds nowadays look about 25, I suppose the same could be said here. Mulligan played the part perfectly and she did look the age in every scene, only when they dressed her up did she really look about 25.

reply

uhhh no, she looked like a school girl. but rly mature when dressed up. unlike lets say, gossip girl, where the whole cast was suppose to be like 17 or something in the beginning when obviously they were in their 20's

'You Have Bewitched me Body && Soul' -Mr Darcy


mrsbilbobaggins.tumblr.com

reply

[deleted]

She could pass for even younger than 16 depending on the situation. My kids are middle and high school, and I'd peg her at about 14/15 judging from my kids' friends. Plunk her right down in middle school and she would not look out of place.

reply

haha imagine if they cast an actress who was actually 16, there would have been an uproar.

Seize the Day

reply

I thought she did look a bit older but not so much that it was distracting.

And true, an actual teen would have been considered scandalous.

reply

I just watched the film and thought the same thing. She acted well, but I just couldn't buy her as a 16 year old at all. She not only looked but sounded way too old for the role. I was like you and thought she looked about 25-26, so was surprised she was only 22-23 when she filmed it. She's a great actress but not that youthful looking to play a teenager.

I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature

reply

It's not just that the actress is too old (betrayed more by her voice than looks), but the whole character is too "old". This becomes more obvious as the film goes on. It's particularly bad in e.g. the scene with the headmistress at about the 2/3 mark.

She's supposed to be 16 but seems to spasm at times into a character dishing out world-weary advice and experience like she's in her 40s or 50s. Girls of 16 are more likely still to be swooning over pop-stars and movie actors, and comparing notes over boys in their class. The outside-school experiences of a schoolgirl in 1961 were more likely to be a dance up the town hall on a Friday, and a Wimpy whilst giggling with their girlfriends about the female teachers at school.

reply

You realize that a main theme in the movie is that the character wants to be more sophisticated, i.e. appear more mature? She is trying really hard to impress her schoolmates and basically show that she is above her peers. Unfortunately, the fact that she's so gullible kind of shows that she's still a naive teenager.

About the actress: I thought she looked fairly young in the beginning. Before looking at the release date, I was actually convinced that this was one of Mulligan's first movies, of when she was much younger.

reply