Well, when I first saw Hal Holbrook as Mark Twain, in person as distinct
from on TV) I was 19, and had already been reading anything I could find by
or about Mark Twain for over a decade.  I sort of knew he was presenting a
Mark Twain much older than the lecturing Mark Twain ever was, but it didn't
matter.  There was Mark Twain on stage, and I was so excited I almost cried
with happiness.  And at 19 you couldn't make me cry in almost any other way.
Holbrook entirely demanded and deserved the suspension of disbelief.  Same
thing the other times I saw him (all in the 70s, I think).

Where do you perform, Alan?  I'd be very interested to attend one of your
presentations.  Ever anywhere near Pennsylvania?

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Twain Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Kitty
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brief Movie Review

Agree completely. Had I the chops in my 30s and 40s, I would have loved to
p= ortray him as he was when he did tour. I would encourage someone in the
next=  generation to do just that - but it may take another 50 years after
Hal han= gs up his white suit to dislodge the now firmly entrenched image of
Twain he=  has planted in the mind and eye of our generation.=20

A new approach may be needed. Every time I travel, a number of young people
w= ho see me before a performance ask if I am Colonel Sanders.=20

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Carl J. Chimi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>=20
> ,,,,,,,,,,,Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that Hal 
>Holbrook's=

> Mark Twain, while one of the most wonderful stage creations of my 
> lifetime=
,
> smacked of "fictional".  (I leave out "uncomfortably inappropriate" 
> becaus=
e
> I don't think that phrase remotely applies to Holbrook's presentation.
>=20
> But Holbrook has consistently presented a Mark Twain on stage who, 
>unless I=

> am badly mistaken, is quite a bit older than any Mark Twain Samuel 
> Clemens=

> ever presented on a stage for a paying audience.  Holbrook presents 
> the fiction that - once again, unless I am mistaken - the much older, 
> white suited Mark Twain ever lectured for pay.  I don't think he did.  
> I think h=
e
> was pretty much out of the lecture business years before he ever 
> adopted t=
he
> white suit and before he took on the appearance of age that  Holbrook 
>has  always presented.=20
>=20
> Personally, I've always wished for a Mark Twain who is not the 
>white-haire=
d
> old philosopher, but rather the guy in his 30s and 40s who was 
> learning to=

> enthrall and captivate audiences with his stories, manners, and killer  
>instincts.  I've always found the young Mark Twain much more 
>interesting  than the old Mark Twain.
>=20
> That's not a slam against Hal Holbrook, whose creation is a masterful 
>piec=
e
> of theater I've enjoyed in person at least three times since 1972 or so.
> And it's not a slam against Kilmer, whose Twain (from what I've seen 
> of it=

> on YouTube) probably needs to age and mature as an act of theater.  
> But bo=
th
> are "fictional" in that they present a Mark Twain who never really was.
>=20
> But it's theater!  So what am I talking about?  It's like not 
>expecting an=

> autobiography to be fictional.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Carl=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Twain Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan 
>Kitty
> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 3:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Brief Movie Review
>=20
> With due respect for your autobiography-based knowledge of Holbrook, 
>which=

> i=3D s inarguable, you are comparing different art forms. I do not 
> make th=
e
> asser=3D tion based on an autobiography; rather from 50 years of stage 
> and=

> on-camera e=3D xperience. I am also in agreement with the assessment 
> that Kilmer's less-tha=3D n a decade of experience as Twain does not 
> hold a can=
dle
> to Holbrook - and I=3D  can only go back to his 1967 tour de force - 
> on st=
age
> and film. By then, th=3D e latter had already amassed a lengthy stage 
> reco=
rd
> as Twain (and others).=3D20=3D
>=20
>=20
> I don't know Kilmer's stage credits. I do know that his Christian 
>Science  pi=3D ece would be colored by his affiliation. I also enjoyed 
>Kilmer's var=
ied
> film=3D  roles. ( I've watched Tombstone several times only because of 
> his=
 Doc
> Holli=3D day. The rest is so bad from so many perspectives, It's 
> continuit=
y is
> so bad=3D , it's like finding Waldo.)
>=20
> Now I'm going out on a limb here by suggesting that Holbrook won't 
>live  fore=3D ver, and Kilmer has said he wants to be the Twain of his 
>generatio=
n.
> He has a=3D  long way to go, but he seems committed. I have had 
>similar  thoughts about m=3D y own Twain work, as have others.=3D20
>=20
> I think the important thing is that Twain's work continues to be 
>passed  alon=3D g to new generations in as many ways as the world will 
>tolerate. E=
ven
> portra=3D yals of Twain as troubadour have a place - although many 
>would  consider that=3D  an uncomfortably inappropriate fictional one.
>=20
> Think of it as more work for scholars to sort out -- a twisted form of 
>job=

> s=3D
> ecurity.=3D20
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
>> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Clay Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> =3D20
>> I'm reading Holbrook's autobiography now; thus, I differ with that=20 
>> asserti=3D
> o=3D3D
>> n, because Holbrook had years of stage experience before 
>> "becoming"=20 Mark T=3D
> w=3D3D
>> ain.
>> If anything, Kilmer is a cub in comparison to Mr. H.=3D3DC2=3D3DA0- 
>> B.=20=

>> Clay Sh=3D
> annon
>> =3D20
>>     From: Alan Kitty <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 9:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: Brief Movie Review
>> =3D3D20
>> ... or it is an early interpretation of Twain's reported slow 
>> drawl=20 delive=3D
> r=3D3D
>> y=3D3D3D
>> .
>> I submit that Holbrook might have had a similar interpretation in=20 
>> 1954. IH=3D
> e=3D3D
>> M=3D3D3D
>> AY NOT HAVE BEEN AS GOOD, since Kilmer's film experience when he=20 
>> started d=3D
> o=3D3D
>> i=3D3D3D
>> ng Twain was deep and Holbrook's was not  AK  Sent from my iPhone
>> =3D20
>>> On Dec 2, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Scott Holmes <[log in to unmask]> 
>>> wrote:=

>>> =3D3D3D20
>>> For whatever it's worth, Kilmer was a great Doc Holliday, in an=20 
>>> otherwise ridiculous movie.=3D3DC2=3D3DA0 I've seen a couple of 
>>> clips of=
=20
>>> Kilm=3D
> er a=3D3D
>> s
>>> Twain and they all seemed to represent Twain as a drunkard.
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> =3D3D20