Argthtjtr

This sentence is part of dialogue between producer and actor, when she was convincing them to cast her in film.

The film is ready now. During the premiere, they were recalling a previous moment that happened in past.

This is correct, though unusual, which makes it powerful. You are using "Amy" (the character) as a kind of non-personal object, "objectification" being the opposite of personification, which expands and expounds on what type of character "Amy" is.

"Objectifying" a person, if not done too often, paints a wider view of the person being described. English celebrates figurative usage, just like this.

It works because the rest of the sentence structure is correct. Here are some other correct examples of the same structure you are using (outside of the objectification):

That would make for a convincing argument.

or

It would have made for an impactful movie.

Or in politics...

This will make for an effective presidential term.

The advantage is that you are being both descriptive and brief at the same time. It is unusual, but correct; and that is its value. Sentences like this spice up English usage, making it more memorable and quotable.

As per the story you ask about using it in, I say go for it!

This use of to make for is confusing. It is a usual idiom, but stems from an expression that is rare now. I suppose it stems either from to make for "to go to" (also in German "(nach [place]) machen") or from a sense to prepare for, to bring (in my humble opinion).

Either way or another, it now also means to tend to produce or result, which is what it means here (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_for. So yes, it is correct. In effect would make for means to resemble. But will make for rather means to contribute to, as far as an Amy is a symbol rather than a status.