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