There’s no way around this: Jennifer Lawrence is sexy. As she’s made her way down many a red carpet since being nominated for an Oscar for her role in Winter’s Bone, she’s churned out look, after look, after look, proving that she has the bod of a certified Hollywood babe. But as fans flock to theaters this weekend to see Lawrence kick arena ass in The Hunger Games, there is a conversation going about the fact that she isn’t exactly sporting the body of a 16-year-old who supposedly spends her days hunting squirrels for food. The New York Times noted, “A few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission.” In other words, is Lawrence too sexy to play the starving Katniss?
To be clear, this particular discussion is not about Lawrence’s performance — EW’s Lisa Schwarzbaum called it “as impressive a Hollywood incarnation of Katniss as one could ever imagine.” It also puts aside the applause from those (myself included) who love that Jennifer Lawrence showcases a curvy and healthy figure both in her films (see: the still for The House at the End of the Street) and on the red carpet. This particular conversation is around the dystopian society of The Hunger Games, a world devoured by war and poverty, and whether our heroine’s body is representative of the starving people of her District that were described so vividly in the book.
Let’s open this up, PopWatchers. Do you think Lawrence is too sexy to play an impoverished Katniss? If you’ve already seen the movie, did this notion cross your mind at all when you initially saw her on the big screen? Let’s hash this out in the comments below.
Jennifer Lawrence moves in beside ‘House at the End of the Street’ — FIRST LOOK
Ten audience reactions at a ‘Hunger Games’ midnight premiere in NYC (SPOILERS AHEAD!)
‘Entertainment Geekly': A fan and a newbie talk about ‘The Hunger Games’ on EW’s new podcast