She was very, very good in the theatre production of All About Eve, opposite Gillian Andersen. I think we'll see her develop her range more as she heads into her late 30s and 40s.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I saw this too. She was good but not quite up to Gillian Anderson’s level, but that’s still damn good!
I really liked her in Mama Mia Here We Go Again. It can’t be easy playing a young Meryl Streep, but she was great. I know she’s done some pretty stupid things, but so have lots of Hollywood stars, she just got caught, and now she just seems to be getting her head down and focusing on her work.
Matthew McConaughey has obviously chosen a range of roles since then to avoid being stereotyped. I think Johnny Depp also chose to break out of his pretty boy box too. Lily is always playing the breath-y, slightly ditzy, optimistic, upper class dreamer. That's why I'm interested to see the biopic - should be a good test of her acting skills.
Agreed, but I think when she's Gillian Anderson's age with another 20 years' experience under her belt, she might well be that good.
I liked her in that too but she's been bloody awful in everything else. Mamma Mia is hardly the type of movie to stretch the acting chops though as much as I enjoyed it.
I'm very dubious about this biopic. Loathe Seth Rogen. Franco is vile but I find the fact Rogen distanced himself so self serving and manipulative. As if he didnt know what was going on.
You need to judge movies on their merits and filling Meryl Streep’s boots is not at all easy.
She has shown on stage that she’s a good actress. She’s a properly trained actress. Your issue is with the roles given to young actresses.
Hi Lilly.
I have a different opinion to you. She's been dire in everything but a musical so obviously the training wasnt that good.
In any case she wasnt playing Meryl Streep. She was playing a young Donna Sheridan.
Maybe she is good in the theatre but she's not good on screen.
Yeah I agree with what you're saying about her not playing Meryl Streep. I loved that film and thought Lily was fab, but she was just playing a young Donna and I wouldn't say she was acting like Meryl. But like I say I still thought she was great in it.
In everything else I've seen her in she just seems to act like the same character. Intrigued how she will handle different roles.
Maybe part of her problem is that she is just not selective enough in her roles. Matthew McConaghy wanted to move away from Rom Coms so he refused to do them. He just turned everything down until he was offered something else. She is in everything because she says yes to everything, and she is offered the same posh, ditzy love interest type roles. I doubt she's scrabbling around for her last penny so cant afford to turn roles down because they are basically the same part she has done a thousand times before. Agree she may be stretched out of her comfort zone doing the Pamela Anderson biopic. I won't watch it because I don't have Hulu and I have the same issues mentioned above with Rogan and Franco so wont go out of my way to subscribe. I've never seen her on stage though so cant comment on that.
I didn't realise Franco's enabler was involved in this project. That's put me right off.
My point wasn’t that she was playing Meryl Streep. The point is she was playing a role also played by Meryl Streep. It’s not crazy to suggest that doing so invites comparisons.
People here may disagree but I think she’s a decent actress with good training. She suffers the problem that most actresses in her age group face. Very few meaty roles are created for those women.
I don't think she's a bad actress. As I said, I thought she was great in Mamma Mia. I actually preferred the 2nd to the 1st film. But don't think her playing a character played by Meryl automatically puts her in the same league.
I agree that she hasn't had great roles and that there is a problem with women not getting meaty roles. But we can only judge her acting based on what we have seen and until I see her on the stage/in a more challenging role then that's all I can base my opinion on.
It will be interesting to see how her career changes after the Pamela Anderson film.
I agree that she hasn't had great roles and that there is a problem with women not getting meaty roles. But we can only judge her acting based on what we have seen and until I see her on the stage/in a more challenging role then that's all I can base my opinion on.
It will be interesting to see how her career changes after the Pamela Anderson film.
Jodie Comer, Anya Taylor Joy, Vanessa Kirby just off the top of my head are a similar age and have done meatier and better roles. I'm not saying there isnt an issue in the industry with good female roles but being the go to dumb blonde girlfriend is not doing anything to change that.
Can I add Carey Mulligan? (A touch older though)
Even Margot Robbie started off in the not-so-bright blonde market and she's made a conscious effort with more diverse roles (Queen Elizabeth, I Tonya).
Last edited:
Yes those too. Plus Claire Foy who has done a lot of period dramas but did also did Girl in the Spiders Web, and is always nuanced and different in all her roles.
Pointing out the exceptions doesn’t change the overall picture. How many roles like Killing Eve have ever existed? Also, Anya Taylor Joy is close to a decade younger and points to my original post. There are more roles for women aged 18-25 than there are for 30+ actresses.
You’re exaggerating to extreme levels and it invalidates your point. A fairer argument would be to compare the differences in her stage roles and on screen. Even then it’s not really true to say she has only played the “dumb blonde girlfriend” on screen. I wouldn’t even have commented if people said she was average. The exaggeration is the silly part here.
Saorise Ronan (spelling!), Felicity Jones, Florence Pugh...
And Lily James has literally just played a 17 year old in the Pursuit of Love so her age is hardly a factor. Every single actress I've mentioned (and East of Hollywood) is in no danger of being typecast and most of them I've seen them in fewer roles than LJ. I've never seen her in theatre so I can't comment, but in the multiple TV and film roles she's had she's not exactly blown me away with her acting skills.
And Lily James has literally just played a 17 year old in the Pursuit of Love so her age is hardly a factor. Every single actress I've mentioned (and East of Hollywood) is in no danger of being typecast and most of them I've seen them in fewer roles than LJ. I've never seen her in theatre so I can't comment, but in the multiple TV and film roles she's had she's not exactly blown me away with her acting skills.
This debate over her skill as an actress is much about nothing. She has been consistently working and been near top billing for movies that have raked in tons at the box office so like already "better" than most LAMDA, RADA grads in terms of "success." Is range always better? Is the actor who does a better or even consummate version of one type objectively worse than someone who can do several different roles in a mediocre way, for example Emilia Clarke definitely has done greater range but to me seems less winsome and compelling. Lily does do English Rose really well. Even Angelina Jolie may not be considered to have range since she is almost always at least secretly badass and so beautiful that she wouldn't be believable as a forgettable middle class wife for example. Arguably, I think actresses who have had an opportunity to do a range of roles are actually rare because of the way both the industry and viewers will typecast actors to some extent.
Yes that is true. It is completely objective as to who you like or dislike as actors. She does a lot of stuff that is very samey, so if you dislike her in one thing, chances are you are just going to dislike her in a lot of a the other things she does. As you mentioned Emilia Clarke, she has done a greater range of stuff, and she has had a bit of a ropey career post GoT but I like her even though she is not the worlds best actress. She plays characters differently, they come across to me as having depth and nuance. Even though she has not been as successful as LJ, I would watch her happily in anything, whereas I had to fast forward swathes of Pursuit of Love because of her silly immature spoilt posh girl character, but that is the character she plays a lot, so every time I see her, it annoys me and ruins whatever it is Im watching! I haven't seen her on stage because I don't want to spend £50 watching a play that she's in, so chances are I wont ever see her on stage
I'm sure she's crying all the way to the bank that I don't rate her as an actress though! We like different things and there must be a lot of people who love her for her to have been so successful.