If you saw Holbrook 40 years ago you may be stating the case for Kilmer doing Twain at the same age. Ive seen clips of him as Twain and as a performer he is as capable. 

But he does not have to survive comparison if those who would compare the two 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. 

Both have credibly interpreted the iconic original. The difference will be the material. This raises the question of audience. Will the sAme material inspire 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. 
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...
> 
> Personally, I wish actors would stop thinking the only Mark Twain worth port=
> raying is the iconic, old, white-suited Mark Twain.  I'd sort of like to see=
> portrayals of him as he was in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s on the stage.
> 
> Putting him in a white suit and old makeup just invites comparison to Hal Ho=
> lbrook, whom I first saw as Mark Twain on a stage in Boston over 40 years ag=
> o.  No one is going to survive that comparison, not even a relatively accomp=
> lished actor like Val Kilmer.
> 
> My .02.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:31 PM, Dwayne Eutsey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> http://imgur.com/a/oVUBH/all