With due respect for your autobiography-based knowledge of Holbrook, which is inarguable, you are comparing different art forms. I do not make the assertion based on an autobiography; rather from 50 years of stage and on-camera experience. I am also in agreement with the assessment that Kilmer's less-than a decade of experience as Twain does not hold a candle to Holbrook - and I can only go back to his 1967 tour de force - on stage and film. By then, the latter had already amassed a lengthy stage record as Twain (and others). 

I don't know Kilmer's stage credits. I do know that his Christian Science piece would be colored by his affiliation. I also enjoyed Kilmer's varied film roles. ( I've watched Tombstone several times only because of his Doc Holliday. The rest is so bad from so many perspectives, It's continuity is so bad, it's like finding Waldo.)

Now I'm going out on a limb here by suggesting that Holbrook won't live forever, and Kilmer has said he wants to be the Twain of his generation. He has a long way to go, but he seems committed. I have had similar thoughts about my own Twain work, as have others. 

I think the important thing is that Twain's work continues to be passed along to new generations in as many ways as the world will tolerate. Even portrayals of Twain as troubadour have a place - although many would consider that an uncomfortably inappropriate fictional one.

Think of it as more work for scholars to sort out -- a twisted form of job security. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Clay Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I'm reading Holbrook's autobiography now; thus, I differ with that assertio=
> n, because Holbrook had years of stage experience before "becoming" Mark Tw=
> ain.
> If anything, Kilmer is a cub in comparison to Mr. H.=C2=A0- B. Clay Shannon
> 
>      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
>  =20
> ... or it is an early interpretation of Twain's reported slow drawl deliver=
> y=3D
> .
> I submit that Holbrook might have had a similar interpretation in 1954. IHe=
> M=3D
> AY NOT HAVE BEEN AS GOOD, since Kilmer's film experience when he started do=
> i=3D
> ng Twain was deep and Holbrook's was not
> AK
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Scott Holmes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> =3D20
>> For whatever it's worth, Kilmer was a great Doc Holliday, in an
>> otherwise ridiculous movie.=C2=A0 I've seen a couple of clips of Kilmer a=
> s
>> Twain and they all seemed to represent Twain as a drunkard.
> 
> 
>  =20