Party on, dudes!
I once read that Lincoln had a surprisingly high and squeaky voice – but I read that in a historical novel, don’t know whether the author researched that point.
In spite of my mind’s ear wanting Lincoln to have a James Earl Jones voice, I think I remember Sam Waterston doing some sort of research – I forget what kind – before doing his Abe impression in the Gore Vidal production.
And I have forgotten exactly which show David Morse was a perfect George Washington for. HBO maybe?
I had the idea that maybe we could get pictures of all the US Presidents and have everybody come up with current look-alikes for them all. Not necessarily actors who have played them, just look-alikes.
Ever notice that Brian Dennehy looks a lot like Martin Luther? But he’s never been cast in the role AFAIK, and he’s too old now.
How many millihelens* would you rate her at?
*A millihelen is a unit of beauty sufficient to launch one ship.
Not sure. I guess I wouldn’t kick her out of bed for farting, but she’s not exactly causing my fleet to go steaming out of port either.
In any case, Helen is pretty much the Princess Peach of the ancient world, so she’s not really my type in the first place. Well, except that she’s trying to escape a boring marriage with Bowser by eloping with Luigi, forcing Mario to fight a war against Bowser’s brother and… Brad Pitt. OK, my metaphor broke down.
Of the most famous historical names in the HBO show Rome, I’ll probably have the hardest time not seeing James Purefoy and Lyndsey Marshal as Anthony and Cleopatra.
I have loved the idea of the millihelen for years! Are you speaking of Rossana Podestà (1934–2013) who had the job in 1956?
I’d give her maybe 750 millihelens. The only 1000 I can think of would have to be Salma Hayek. 
Oh, totally. Perfect casting. That portrayal of those two is tattooed on my mind’s eyeball as well.
(The rest of the cast wasn’t that great, though. Caesar is supposed to be balding, for Christ’s sake. That’s why he would always wear a laurel reef, according to Suetonius.)
BTW, hereby spun off.
Fess Parker as Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone. He was so closely identified with both roles, even if the productions weren’t historically accurate.
The real Patton also had a southern accent, which Scott did not attempt to duplicate. (Patton’s accent is somewhat unusual because he was born and raised in California. However, his family was southern.)
I think it depends on the current revisionist need of the audience.
For years during the 20th C, Julius Caesar was either Claude Rains or Rex Harrison; both playing him as George Bernard Shaw’s beau ideal of the bemused realist. With the monstrous dictators of the era running wild, Caesar could look benign in comparison (so long as we didn’t examine the historical record too closely).
Then after the corporate raiders of the 80’s, portrayals of Ceasar changed to the typical sort of megalomanical asshole out of Fortune magazine.
This is so well said. Adding to those ideas the notions of hair styles and other betrayals of the era of production, including production techniques of lighting, editing, and other more technical fads, movies and TV are much easier to date for their zeitgeist influences.
That’s why even the most scholarly and well-meaning of histories are fallible in terms of any “grand view” of the people, times, events and even those peripheral things like “world view attitudes” of the occupants of the era in question.
That’s one of the main reasons that discussion of past periods – in terms of their morality, correctness and similar value judgments – reflect more of the biases of the current day. Unfortunately we are all guilty in one way or another of those biases and will continue to be. It ties in with the frailties and limitations of a roughly 100-year lifespan. We like to think we’re capable of understanding things. We just are not.
I sure am glad you’re capable of understanding that and taking a grand view, there.
I’ve seen a lot of movies about King Arthur, but I always picture him as looking like Clive Owen.
Sir Galahad is a blank to me though, even though I enjoyed Richard Gere in the role.
It’s funny what sticks in our heads.
Why, thank you. Every now and then I have a moment of clarity. It usually fades when the sun comes up.
There’s an old Gahan Wilson single-frame cartoon where this old guy is in a library studying by candlelight and surrounded my a desk full of big books. He faces straight at you and says something like, “By Jove, for a moment there it all made sense.”
That sort of thing…
Robbie Coltrane as Samuel Johnson.
Great posts, both of you.
It’s so true that we project our own worldview onto past events and are unaware of our own biases. We’re like fish, who, surrounded by water, don’t know that they’re wet. It’s kind of amazing how that basic fact can stand out when you watch, say, Elizabeth Taylor play Cleopatra, and you remind yourself that once upon a time, that movie didn’t look dated. Some day, people will look at Russel Crowe in Gladiator, and instead of thinking “that looks and feels like ancient Rome”, they’ll think “that looks and feels like the year 2000”.
It’s a great point, too, that this also applies to any scholarly article. For instance, we can now see that at around the time of Caesar, there’s something of a cultural revolution going on among the younger generation in Rome. You have a crowd of youngsters who reject their parents’ values, wear goatees and dress provocatively, and who are sexually liberated and live for the moment. They write raunchy poetry and give the finger to the establishment. We can compare this to the beatniks, the hippies or the punks. For us, this kind of thing is obvious, and it’s certainly the kind of thing we might expect to see in a society where old values are breaking down and there is a time of crisis. We also identify with it. The thing is, though, that only since after the Roaring Twenties did historians really begin to have something to compare this to. Earlier historians, or more conservative historians, might not notice it at all, or write it off as “decline”, “hedonism” or “immorality”.
(Later, of course, there’s the backlash. For instance, Augustus tries to legislate sexual morality. But anyway.)
Then, a hundred years from now, new historians will look at the era and say “boy, how did the historians of the early 21th century not see trend X”, or “how were they so wrong about trend Y, which obviously looks like our trend Z”?
There’s also the matter of how, as time goes by, the glory remains, but the mass murder seems to fade. How different is an Alexander or Caesar really from a Hitler?
Also, how the history is written by winners. And by a small upper class of an in-group, and never the women, the slaves, the poor and the foreigners. Etc.
At the same time, though, having said all that (because I don’t know when to shut up), human nature doesn’t seem to change. Reading history, I’m always struck by the two opposite realizations of “wow, these people are very different from us and live in an alien world”, and “wow, these people are really very much like us, and I recognize this”.
Due to my not being particularly British yet having watched a lot of Doctor Who, Ian McNeice is who I see when someone says “Churchill.”