Well, I won't argue that Kilmer is a bad actor.  He isn't, but rather is a very accomplished at his craft, and successful.  I will, perhaps, point out that he is 53, and therefore somewhat older than Holbrook was 40 or so years ago.  (I've seen Holbrook twice, both in the 1970s.   Had tickets to see him last fall, but he had to cancel his show in Wilkes-Barre, sadly.)  And that, by the time I saw Holbrook in, I think, 1972, he had been taking on the role for maybe over 20 years.  Kilmer doesn't seem to have that sort of background with Twain.

That said, all I have seen of Kilmer in the role is a short video on YouTube.  I just couldn't find him convincing, but I can't say why right now.  I think it is mostly because he really doesn't look like Mark Twain, even with the makeup.  Holbrook is not a dead ringer (Fredric March was arguably closer in appearance with makeup), but he came close, even as a young man with good makeup.

And, as far as I can tell, I am not dead, and don't expect to be for quite a number of years.  So, I guess I can make comparisons for a while yet.  Holbrook works, Kilmer needs work.  But I hope he matures in the role, as he is a worthy actor and can perhaps get better prosthetics to help him create the illusion.

Just my opinion,

Carl

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Alan Kitty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If you saw Holbrook 40 years ago you may be stating the case for Kilmer doin=
> g Twain at the same age. Ive seen clips of him as Twain and as a performer h=
> e is as capable.=20
> 
> But he does not have to survive comparison if those who would compare the tw=
> o are dead. Then the only way to compare is recordings. I have seen Holbrook=
> live four times and watched several recordings - both his and Kilmer - many=
> more.=20
> 
> Both have credibly interpreted the iconic original. The difference will be t=
> he material. This raises the question of audience. Will the sAme material in=
> spire a younger audience - and will a younger Twain appeal to them more?
> 
> As a Twain interpreter I am dying to see how it comes out.=20
> Alan
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:12 PM, "Carl J. Chimi" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hmm.  The difference between the lightning bug and the lightning...
>> =20
>> Personally, I wish actors would stop thinking the only Mark Twain worth po=
> rt=3D
>> raying is the iconic, old, white-suited Mark Twain.  I'd sort of like to s=
> ee=3D
>> portrayals of him as he was in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s on the stage.
>> =20
>> Putting him in a white suit and old makeup just invites comparison to Hal H=
> o=3D
>> lbrook, whom I first saw as Mark Twain on a stage in Boston over 40 years a=
> g=3D
>> o.  No one is going to survive that comparison, not even a relatively acco=
> mp=3D
>> lished actor like Val Kilmer.
>> =20
>> My .02.
>> =20
>> Carl
>> =20
>> Sent from my iPad
>> =20
>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:31 PM, Dwayne Eutsey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> =20
>>> http://imgur.com/a/oVUBH/all