The show started strangely. My understanding was Kilmer would come out, talk about the production some, and then we would view the screening. He came out in his street clothes and talked in very peculiar and snorty voice. Some people laughed a bit here and there, but I couldn't tell what he was saying. I assumed he was talking in his Twain voice, but that turned out not to be the case. Perhaps Kilmer has contracted throat cancer and a respiratory infection simultaneously. All apologies if he is in fact ill, but I couldn't help thinking he sounded a lot like one of those old guys with an oxygen tank and a trach talk box.
The film itself was entertaining. He portrayed a somewhat intoxicated Twain speaking in a theater to a live audience, just as Twain had done. He made it quite clear that the show was filmed in Pasadena in 2013. The show was, I presume, modeled on an actual Twain show, such as his speaking events which brought him into prominence in San Francisco. The monologue included many of Twain's more famous quips, as well as some references to modern culture, the idea being that it's what Twain might say if his ghost was indeed giving a modern performance. There is risk to such an approach. The audience must believe that the actor has done sufficient research into the character to understand his personality and what he might say today. The payoff is that the audience gets a true appreciation for the subject's persona; the downside is that the audience might not believe the portrayal is very authentic.
I ended up walking out early, perhaps forty minutes into the show, after Kilmer's character made three references to modern politics. First, he took routine swipes at Dick Cheney. (Remember, this was actually filed in 2013. We can surely guess who the target would be today.) I'm no fan of Cheney. This blog has never said a nice word about him. Still, it's dodgy territory to dive into when depicting a historical figure.
Second, he made a weepy depiction of American Indians, even going so far as to express regret that America was ever "discovered." Now I stand to be corrected here, as I'm not as well-read on Twain as I should be, but I know of nothing he offered that was very sympathetic to the "noble savage" viewpoint of American Indians. In fact, he wrote expressly in contradiction of such a viewpoint, and his most famous native character, Injun' Joe, sure didn't wax poetic. Whatever his thoughts on the Native American race, we can be quite certain he would have never uttered anything suggesting regret that America had ever existed. It would be beyond scandalous to say such a thing in his era. To have him say things like that destroys the belief that the actor is portraying a historical character. It's okay to make social satire - Mark Twain couldn't be portrayed without it - but the character can't be allowed to say things he would have never actually uttered in life.
Finally, Kilmer managed to work in some comment complaining about Republicans running the world. Not only did this finally cross into the territory of undeniable partisanship, but it is ridiculous as it was uttered in 2013 when Republicans had no power in American government. What actors really do is to create an illusion. No, we don't believe that Mark Twain's ghost is really on stage, but we can imagine that it is a valid depiction of what it would be like. It has some authenticity. When the bubble of illusion is popped, the actor has failed at his task. After three forays into modern politics, Kilmer's bubble was popped. I no longer felt I was witnessing Twain; I was just watching Kilmer. Everything became less funny. It felt like a ruse. In fact, the cynical part of me (is there any other part?) started viewing the whole thing as elaborate propaganda. Just a tool for Kilmer to inflict his personal politics onto the audience, but hidden behind the mask of the highly respected literary hero.
One nagging thought that was sitting in the back of my head during the show was that the accent seemed off. I happen to have been born and raised in the same area as Samuel Clemens, albeit a hundred or so years later. Kilmer's character carried a very southern drawl. In that area, today at least, there is a definitely a twang, and oftentimes creative license with grammatical construction, but a southern drawl it is not. Chicagoans oftentimes mistake us for southerners, but then to us they all sound like Wiscahnsin. You'd expect that Kilmer would have done extensive research into the accent, but it comes out sounding like what a city slicker would think the accent sounds like, rather than how it really is. There is some benefit of the doubt to give. Clemens was a book man, so we suppose his spoken grammar was proper. He was also a riverman and might have picked up some drawl in his travels down to Mississippi and Louisiana. Still, we expect his midwest roots to ring through. A more interesting depiction of the region & era was given by Daniel Day-Lewis in his portrayal of Lincoln. Once you discount the odd voice (Lincoln was noted as having a surprisingly high-pitched voice) the accent makes sense. On the other hand, Kilmer's Mark Twain just sounds like an inebriated Colonel Sanders. I was able to give him the benefit of the doubt when I was enjoying the Twain illusion. But after Kilmer's political bias popped the bubble, it became much more obvious that his accent just sucked.
These Hollywood actors destroy their ability to do their only job because of their need to politicize and virtue signal. Val Kilmer came into a conservative part of Mark Twain's home state and tried to portray him as an America-hating modern liberal. They are incapable of acting professionally. Giving them any of your money is always a mistake.
I ended up walking out early, perhaps forty minutes into the show, after Kilmer's character made three references to modern politics. First, he took routine swipes at Dick Cheney. (Remember, this was actually filed in 2013. We can surely guess who the target would be today.) I'm no fan of Cheney. This blog has never said a nice word about him. Still, it's dodgy territory to dive into when depicting a historical figure.
Second, he made a weepy depiction of American Indians, even going so far as to express regret that America was ever "discovered." Now I stand to be corrected here, as I'm not as well-read on Twain as I should be, but I know of nothing he offered that was very sympathetic to the "noble savage" viewpoint of American Indians. In fact, he wrote expressly in contradiction of such a viewpoint, and his most famous native character, Injun' Joe, sure didn't wax poetic. Whatever his thoughts on the Native American race, we can be quite certain he would have never uttered anything suggesting regret that America had ever existed. It would be beyond scandalous to say such a thing in his era. To have him say things like that destroys the belief that the actor is portraying a historical character. It's okay to make social satire - Mark Twain couldn't be portrayed without it - but the character can't be allowed to say things he would have never actually uttered in life.
Finally, Kilmer managed to work in some comment complaining about Republicans running the world. Not only did this finally cross into the territory of undeniable partisanship, but it is ridiculous as it was uttered in 2013 when Republicans had no power in American government. What actors really do is to create an illusion. No, we don't believe that Mark Twain's ghost is really on stage, but we can imagine that it is a valid depiction of what it would be like. It has some authenticity. When the bubble of illusion is popped, the actor has failed at his task. After three forays into modern politics, Kilmer's bubble was popped. I no longer felt I was witnessing Twain; I was just watching Kilmer. Everything became less funny. It felt like a ruse. In fact, the cynical part of me (is there any other part?) started viewing the whole thing as elaborate propaganda. Just a tool for Kilmer to inflict his personal politics onto the audience, but hidden behind the mask of the highly respected literary hero.
One nagging thought that was sitting in the back of my head during the show was that the accent seemed off. I happen to have been born and raised in the same area as Samuel Clemens, albeit a hundred or so years later. Kilmer's character carried a very southern drawl. In that area, today at least, there is a definitely a twang, and oftentimes creative license with grammatical construction, but a southern drawl it is not. Chicagoans oftentimes mistake us for southerners, but then to us they all sound like Wiscahnsin. You'd expect that Kilmer would have done extensive research into the accent, but it comes out sounding like what a city slicker would think the accent sounds like, rather than how it really is. There is some benefit of the doubt to give. Clemens was a book man, so we suppose his spoken grammar was proper. He was also a riverman and might have picked up some drawl in his travels down to Mississippi and Louisiana. Still, we expect his midwest roots to ring through. A more interesting depiction of the region & era was given by Daniel Day-Lewis in his portrayal of Lincoln. Once you discount the odd voice (Lincoln was noted as having a surprisingly high-pitched voice) the accent makes sense. On the other hand, Kilmer's Mark Twain just sounds like an inebriated Colonel Sanders. I was able to give him the benefit of the doubt when I was enjoying the Twain illusion. But after Kilmer's political bias popped the bubble, it became much more obvious that his accent just sucked.
These Hollywood actors destroy their ability to do their only job because of their need to politicize and virtue signal. Val Kilmer came into a conservative part of Mark Twain's home state and tried to portray him as an America-hating modern liberal. They are incapable of acting professionally. Giving them any of your money is always a mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment