Originally Posted by El Payaso
The sympathy you have for this or that is respectable preference. But you make it sound once and again like it's all about how young and beautiful one is vs how old and ugly is the other one. Can't connect myself to that line of thinking.
Thats not what Im saying although I absolutely dont agree if youre saying looks dont matter. They matter a whole lot, thats why directors pick actors who also have the"right look" or express a certain aura and persona. Again, for me Katie portrayed a little girl who seeimgly wouldnt be dangerous at all and who physically can be laughable for others as a threat, yet her personality greatly ougrows her physicality and surprises whoever meets her - and thats in part thanks to Katie's portrayal and in part thanks to her looks and what Nolan aimed for
Nolan: Katie also has a maturity beyond her years that comes across in the film and is essential to the idea that Rachel is something of a moral conscience for Bruce.
Maggie for me was just an obvious casting for a character, a lazy casting and a very ordinary character. She looks like a worn out old DA (I know shes not much older but shes so old looking and unnatractive that she really looks like over a decade older) and really shes a 'what you see is what you get". I never found her Rachel to be sympathetic or anything other than bland at all and therefore didnt feel for her at all.
I hope I expressed my personal preference for Katie well enough