Alicia Vikander wants Lara Croft to be ‘attractive & sexy’ and ‘a girl that fights’

2018 FX Annual All Star Party

Alicia Vikander covers the April issue of Marie Claire to promote Tomb Raider. This is the best magazine cover I’ve seen from her Tomb Raider promotional tour – while I would not wear that turtleneck, it makes for an eye-catching cover. True story: until I looked it up, I thought Vikander and Michael Fassbender had gotten married in, like, January. No – they got married last October in Ibiza. That’s why there are so many questions about the wedding and being married and all of that in this promotional tour. You can read the full Marie Claire piece here. Some highlights:

How the Lara Croft character has changed: “It’s interesting that a character that has been seen as very sexualized back in the ’90s is very different now. If you go out in the street and ask men and women, young and old, what they find attractive, it’s different. You want her to be attractive and sexy, but, nowadays, you want this to be a girl that fights. Someone who’s vulnerable, but funny. Someone who’s OK with people seeing her bad sides.”

Tailor-made for the Me Too era? In some ways, Vikander’s Lara Croft seems tailor-made for the #MeToo movement. She’s all about strength and grit, taking on challenges. Survival. There is no love story in the film, no steamy shower scenes or sultry pursing of lips before throwing punches. Instead, we see her bruised and bloodied but never down for the count. “She always stands up,” says Vikander. “When things are found to be quite sh-t, she always sees the bright side. She just keeps on going.”

On conveying strength: “We wanted to base most of the action in reality. She’s a girl my size having to become a survivor and overcome a lot of obstacles, and I wanted it to be believable that she could do it. All the action scenes when I had to fight with a man bigger than me—we had to figure out how I could actually kick his ass. I wanted to show young girls that it’s cool to be a girl who’s really strong and that watching her, you feel like OK, she might be able to climb that wall. She might be able to lift her own weight.”

Life with Fassbender: “I’m a big romantic, and I always have been.”

Her bachelorette party: “I was there [in Paris] for the Louis Vuitton show and suddenly got a text that says, ‘Go out. We need you right now.’ They kidnapped me for 24 hours!”

Women in leading roles: “I think it’s an interesting time now, because, sadly even if there are some stories being highlighted with female leads, it’s still—you know, I did five films in a row where I was the lead, and I didn’t have another woman to work with. It was still just men in it, even though they had a female lead. So being an actress wanting to work with women? It’s an exciting time now, because I think the awareness will bring a change.”

[From Marie Claire]

I know I’m a broken record about this but serious WHY ALL THE SHADE FOR THE OG LARA CROFT MOVIES? If people want to make the point that this version of Lara is simply different, no better or worse, than the Jolie-Croft character, just do that. But don’t make the argument that the Vikander-Croft movie is somehow more feminist than the Jolie-Croft ones because Jolie is sexy and had big boobs (and that’s somehow un-feminist). The Jolie movies were fun AND she didn’t have love interests (she honeytrapped Gerard Butler’s character to get sh-t done and she and Daniel Craig didn’t even kiss) AND Jolie did a sh-t ton of her own stunt work. Oh, and the Jolie-Croft movies made more than $400 million worldwide in a pre-Marvel superhero era, where those kinds of films need to make $1 billion to break even. Jolie was a action heroine before this current “new era” in female superheroines.

2018 FX Annual All Star Party

Photos courtesy of Marie Claire.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

30 Responses to “Alicia Vikander wants Lara Croft to be ‘attractive & sexy’ and ‘a girl that fights’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dttimes2 says:

    Watched the movie last night. Not great : she has the on screen presence of a wet noodle.

    • Una says:

      The movie was ugly. Why anybody would think that a colour palette of various shades of brown can make for a great blockbuster aesthetic is a mystery to me.
      And, yeah she is always dull on screen.

    • Sara says:

      I watched this on the weekend with my family. My 7 yo son found it a bit boring but my 10 yo daughter liked it. I enjoyed it too. My husband and i like the video games and the original movies.

      I think Vikandar was fine and believable in the role. I get that she’s boring in print but I don’t get all the hate for her acting.

      • larry says:

        It’s not hate at all believe me its just she has no real range as an actress. Just this blank look all the time similar to bored.

    • citney says:

      Sounds as if AV is jealous of the actress who will always be associated with Lara Croft.

      Uncalled for digs at AJ’s portrayal, especially since AJ’s version blew this reboot out of the water.

      I’m very disappointed in AV, I’ve always been a fan, but now, not so sure.

      The #MeTo comment was definitely uncalled for, it was if she was blaming beautiful women for being harassed. It’s really sad to see AV sink to this level.

  2. larry says:

    Can’t really enjoy her acting i find her very bland. sorry

    • courtney says:

      AGREE. she sadly has zero charm or presence on screen or in print. she’s pretty and she got ripped for the role, so kudos for her but a great actress she is not.

    • SM says:

      I agree. She was highly praised for Ex Machina, for me she was the weakest link. And since then she never delivered anything different that that blunt, bored look. I am sorry, I know there is always an agrument what she is not the only one in Hollywood with no charisma or any kind of movie star qualities, but that is a shitty argument, reducin everything to “whataboutism”. And honestly they are trying to sell her as a capable actor which after seeing 3 movies with her, I refuse to try to buy into. And last but not least, her comments about the Lara Croft before her and now leaves a bad taste in my mouth, she is essentialy on the level of James Cameron saying that since Angelina was sexy she was not a strong woman or a believable action figure which is bullshit. That’s th kind of shit men are pushing for: either you are smart and feminist, or beautiful and sexy. And she said that repeatedly so it’s not like she was misinterpreted.

      • ichsi says:

        “And honestly they are trying to sell her as a capable actor which after seeing 3 movies with her, I refuse to try to buy into.”

        Thank you, that’s how I feel too. I always got the impression with her that her people are trying to sell me something that’s just not there and her rabid fans only proved that point to me. It’s such a sure way to make me dislike someone/something, if you keep telling me how great it is but it can’t hold up.

      • otaku fairy says:

        I agree with you 100% about the tired ‘either you’re smart, strong, and feminist, or beautiful, sexy, and not’ argument that a lot of men seem to interpret as progressive. Did anyone else cringe a little bit at this part: “In some ways, Vikander’s Lara Croft seems tailor-made for the #MeToo movement…. There is no love story in the film, no steamy shower scenes or sultry pursing of lips before throwing punches”?

      • citney says:

        Can Alicia even name a film she carried on her name alone?

        NO, she can not. She made it seem as if the films she were in were successful? only because of her. The sheer gall of this woman.

    • Ada says:

      I’ve said this before but I’m an Alicia fan, so take this with a pinch of salt. I think she is a great film actress, one with a subtly expressive face that can emote with very little. The kind of acting that grew out of the European new waves of the post-war, not from e.g. the British theatre tradition. Anglo-American cinema still rewards the types of performances that DDL brings, transformations based on accents and amounts of scenery chewed – acting that is meant to elicit wonder, not empathy. Alicia might not be a showman, but that doesn’t mean that her career is a case of the emperor-has-no-clothes.

      • Trutfull says:

        Iam french, with a different idea of acting than the anglo-americas one… and well she won’t work over here : no range, no spark and no presence, french actresses her age are amazing she won’t have a spot.

        she is blander than white bread. period

  3. WMGDtoo says:

    Haven’t seen the film yet. But will this weekend. I don’t have an issue with her trying to distance her Lara for Jolie’s. They made a different version. It has been over 14 years. Anyway she looks very beautiful on the cover of the magazine. That is a good shot of her. I don’t usually like her covers; but this one is very pretty.

    • citney says:

      I’m not a gamer, but I did read a while ago where the Lara Croft image in the new games had she changed.
      The new versions featured a less attractive, shorter and a woman with an average figure. That might have been why Alicia was cast, plus she did not have to do the stunts, she had her nine stunt doubles, where Angelina only had one.

  4. FishBeard says:

    I think she was referring to the 90s video game Lara Croft, when the games first came out and the character was immensely sexualized to cater to a male audience.

    • jwoolman says:

      My thought seeing ads for the video games back in the day was that Lara Croft was drawn by guys who didn’t get out much and got all their information about female anatomy from porn. Her center of gravity was simply not conducive to all the leaping and climbing she had to do, so it would make no sense for her to deliberately get implants. Plus women who are that active physically are most likely to be lean – and breasts are mainly fatty tissue and so typically fluctuate in size as we gain and lose weight. If she really did have breasts that size, she would have used some of that treasure for a breast reduction to save all the stress on her back. She was probably addicted to pain killers as drawn.

      And this is why we need more female gamers and game developers… 🙂

  5. Jussie says:

    Jolie didn’t have big boobs in Tomb Raider. She had fake, digitally enhanced boobs (and hips). That’s the problem. The studio thought the size of Lara’s breasts was so important to that first films success that they went to great lengths to fake the look of Jolie’s body. They went even crazier with the marketing material. In some markets they might as well have just called it Boobs: The Movie.

    There’s nothing feminist about that.

  6. BaronSamedi says:

    Ok, but what exactly is the big difference between the two Lara Croft’s ecept that one has less boobs and wears a little less make-up? I mean from the trailer I have seen it’s not like Vikander is walking around in coveralls and a buzz-cut.

    She is STILL a woman who ticks all the usual boxes about what a conventionally attractive woman is supposed to look like and she is still small enough to not actually frighten any men into seriously thinking she is not fuckable.

    Which is always the point with these movies: The heroine can be kick-ass and feminist but never be ‘not fuckable’. Which seems to be defined as not actually looking like she could kick the male audience’s ass.

    I’ll just go watch every single woman in Black Panther be better at all of this again 🙂

    • LIONOHHHH86 says:

      Truth but that’s how it is and probably will always be, sadly. Especially for women. They weren’t going to hire a Miyam or a Lena for the role. Even the villian-nesses have to be sexy.

  7. Yeahright says:

    She’s human Lunesta.
    Next!

  8. MustloveHAIM says:

    The only difference is that they replaced a fun, glam Barbie with a blah Barbie. Saw this movie Monday night and it sucked. It was boring with just little action. Vikander was on sleep mode in the entire movie. This girl can’t act not even in a supposed to be fun movie. Idk why they think this is better than the first two since this was equally stupid. Dead corpse? Really?

    I went with a bunch of my guy friends and none of them complained about the lack of boobs and sexy scene but complained how the there is little to no action and the action scenes sucked (bow and arrow) and that the first one Lara was more believable to kick ass cause this new Lara always looked like she was going to cry all the time.

  9. Peg says:

    Funny when they started promoting this movie, they were dissing the former TB with Angenlina, but when they realize there was no buzz about their movie, they started dropping her name in every interview.
    Then when the Dailymail claimed Angenlina and children went to see TR,bet they were wetting themselves, but none Tabs corrected their story to say, that she actually saw, Love Simon.
    Other movies are coming out this week, so it will be a drastic drop off this weekend.
    Even if it make millions in China, the film Company will only get peanuts.

  10. Ann says:

    It’s still sad that in 2017 women first and foremost have to be “attractive and sexy” (to men), before they can be anything else.

    It’s not really “you can be both things”, but a matter of deferring to men first by complying with their expectations and demands of what women must look like.

  11. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I hear ya and agree. I don’t like it when history gets compared to current life. Movies, actors, apparel, cuisine, jobs, politics, cost of living… hell, everything. And I don’t like reverse comparisons either such as, “Well back in MY day” or “The good old days.” Each experience in unique, good or bad, and we’re here today because of our yesterdays. I loved the 90s. And we enjoyed the Croft movies because we enjoyed the games and that genre and because Jolie was bitchin’ back then. I also can watch them today and see how totally cheesy, silly and cringe-worthy some of the scenes are. Everything is what it is because it was what it was lol.

  12. Frome says:

    I’m taking this as a sincere invitation to rationally discuss the Lara Croft 1st edition problem. There had been sexualised women in action for awhile. Since Barbarella at the very least. We were ready for something better and Linda Hamilton delivered in T2. And in that same age came Sigourney Weaver. Finally a woman could be bad ass without having to flash sexy eyes at whoever she was fighting. She didn’t need to be masturbatory material to kill at the box office. She could spawn TV shows and sequels. Lara Croft 1st edition flipped that script. It took us back to the world where a female action lead needed to double as femdom fantasy. It took us back to the era where a female action star had to have a sexy shower or bath scene (I believe Lara Croft 1st edition managed to give us both).

    Look closely. We are still paying the price for this. Who didn’t notice the number of floor level shots of Dianas butt in skinny jeans we got in Justice League? I’m still waiting for a true female bad ass to reverse this gross trend, Alicia wasn’t it.

  13. TheOtherMaria says:

    I think they keep trying to highlight the difference between both franchises because Vikander is no Jolie…

    I don’t mean this in a disparaging way nor is it my intention to pit the actresses against one another; Angie exudes sensuality, confidence, and is effortlessly mysterious (at least back in her day, she’s matured and cemented her humanitarian/mother role after a decade).

    Vikander has a completely different kind of appeal (I would love to point out what that is but I’ve yet to figure it out).

    By saying the tone of the film is different, I’m thinking PR is hoping to avoid the inevitable comparisons.

  14. Shessy says:

    Now that Alicia is taken the role I will definitely see the movie.

  15. Patty says:

    She is great

  16. Hoping says:

    The last picture is the first one I really like of her. It shows (or pretends) some liveliness, some personality!