Through a lot of the series there is a woman providing character Lilly Bainbridge comfort & was the daughter of the circus clown, I believe her name was Ingrid Kersh, played by Madeleine Stowe. They tell this character’s story starting with her as a young teen, minimally 10-years old, in the circus with her clown father, back in 1908. Then she is in the present time of the series, kind of confusing, but I know it started in 1958, looking at least 40s, maybe, 50s years old (my mother is watching to, when I brought it to her, she says late 40s). So, she is looking way too young, for minimally how old the character has to be. 1958 - 1908 = 50-years old + she was at youngest 10-years old in 1908 (again my mother agrees with that) = 60-years old. Even if she looks 55-years old, that is at least 5-years too young.
Can someone help explain to me how this makes any sense?
I was thinking about what ohulancutash@feddit.uk posted, he is right, my problem with Ingrid’s age is wrong & he posted the answer this thread’s question & what I though was a problem with the character’s timeline. Sorry, it took so long to realize what he mention.
Since the actress Madeline Stowe is 67, but looks in her 40s, playing (Hollywood makeup & Etc./magic) the character, then so can/does her character Ingrid.
Plus, It is not impossible at all for Ingrid to be born 1891, by 1908 be 17-years, the actress playing 17-year old Ingrid looks much younger, like at worse 11-years old, which would track with her starting in 1958 (when the series’ main story/time starts) being 67-years old, but looking much younger, like at worse Late 40s.
Not only does actress’ youthful looking for her age, makes same for Ingrid & Hollywood magic, but the last age shown of Ingrid, in last episode, would mean the character is only 97-years old/in 1988, possible.
There are lucky people who make to that age & old, & that active-high functioning.
I had a grandfather that lived to 97-years old, who helped to get to that age, by push mowing his 2.5-acre property.
I really liked the series, liked the book better. Rereading the book, after 35-years & being a young HS person, so maybe, that will change.
In one episode he says something about the past being the future so maybe just part of that time confusion.
I hear on that, but if that is true (with context of the 1st visual telling of story, TV 1990, having nothing do with & I do not remember the book ever bring that up, I will finish the book soon enough), they should have clear that up in this series, beyond just two-characters in what less than 5-lines talking about it, in the season final episode.