Purists, Scholars and Twainiacs should ask their doctor if the movie is right for them. But there are reasons to see it, as long as you understand that movie-making is an art form and an entertainment, made solely for the purpose of making money.

The film might have been sufficiently researched and brilliantly written at the start. But then the producers, Clara, the budget, the lawyers, and many other factors -including the editor, who is the final arbiter - likely altered the work beyond recognition. 

It is noteworthy that the make-up artist did a fine job making Frederick March into Twain, and that March gave a fine performance even though many of the facts were distorted or flat out wrong. Virtually every other character in the film was painted with a paper-thin veneer if it existed at all; but it is an easy fix to add a disclaimer in the opening credits, warning those who have never seen a film that it is no substitute for reality. 

It has been many years since I last viewed it, but I enjoyed the film for what it was - a black and white fictional whitewashed version of a wooden wall that was “thirty yards of board fence, nine feet high.”

The biopic was released 75 years ago, in 1944 I think, and copyright might have expired or could be easily acquired. It might be worthwhile to at least view the raw footage, if it still exists, re-edit and release the work. If anyone on the west coast wants a project, I have editing experience and would be happy to work on it with them. It would be best if it could be inexpensively (free) digitized for ease of editing on modern equipment.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 5, 2019, at 8:12 AM, Clay Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> That's up to you, of course (whether you choose to watch it), but frankly it made me angry when I watched it, due to just how far from truth it strayed. And why?!? The truth is much more interesting.
> It's similar to the movie "Friday Night Lights." If you know football, you might want to avoid that movie for the same reason. If you don't know football, you might find it more entertaining than irritating and not even notice how lame it is, football-knowledge-wise.
> Don't these operations have money to pay a consultant for fact-checking/reasonableness checking?
> - B. Clay Shannon 
> 
>    On Friday, January 4, 2019, 7:19:40 PM PST, Kuykendall, Mae <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
> 
> I have not seen the movie and am not expert on Twain's life. Should I avoid it to keep my mind pure of falsehood about Twain?  Mae Kuykendall
> 
> Professor of Law
> Michigan State University College of Law
> 648 N. Shaw Lane Rm 366
> East Lansing, MI 488241300
> 517-432-6894 (office)
> 734-645-5769 (cell)
> 517-381-2082 (Haslett land)
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=233952
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Twain Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl J. Chimi
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 10:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The Adventures of Mark Twain
> 
> I just finished watching the 1942 biopic starring Fredric March and Alexis
> Smith.  It's probably been close to 25 years since I saw it.  Back then,
> even though I was familiar with the chronology and many of the details of
> Clemens' life, it made me happy just to see him represented on screen by
> such a fine actor, and to see many of the real and legendary events of his
> live portrayed with loving detail and sentimental devotion.
> 
> 
> 
> This time around, I found myself much more critical of the whole thing.  I
> understand much of the context of the time it was made, and the facts that
> Clara was still very much alive and that she and a trust controlled to a
> large extent the image and works of her father.  I also understand the need
> to tell his life as a story covering 74 years of a variegated career in
> about two hours.  I also have a rudimentary sense of how Americans perceived
> Mark Twain in the early 1940s.  But, man, did the filmmakers HAVE to deviate
> so much from the perpendicular truth to tell a great story?  Isn't the real
> story one of the most interesting, one of the most quintessential in
> American history, second maybe only to Lincoln's?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know if this film has ever been the subject of research. Just
> listing the places where it presents the facts incorrectly would be an
> article, never mind the more subjective listing of people whose characters
> are portrayed as caricatures or stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know of any writings specifically about this movie?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Carl