Marc Anthony will always look like Marlon Brando in my mind, even though I’ve never watched anything from the movie except the funeral oration: Mark Antony's Speech - YouTube.
Brando is so much like Anthony was supposed to be that it’s frightening. I really can imagine someone with Brando’s gifts taking over half the Roman empire and leading them over a cliff.
Ben Kingsley is always Gandhi.
BTW, speaking of Caesar.
These days, I tend to think of Caesar as Lance Armstrong. Well, if you replace the bicycle, the doping scandals and the appearance on Oprah with the conquest of Gaul, the end of the Republic and making himself dictator for life. He’s a paradoxical and divisive figure. A man who is dominating and somewhat larger than life, but also a ruthless bastard who think the rules don’t apply to him. Intensely charismatic, someone you want to root for, but also always the alpha male, and an egomaniac who is burning with ambition. When he shakes your hand, you feel special, but if you get on his bad side, he will mess you up. He can’t just be the greatest man in the Republic, he must be greater than the Republic. He can’t just do well in the Tour the France, he has to utterly dominate it. He’ll cheat, lie and use any underhanded tactic to get what he wants, and he’ll walk over any number of bodies to get to the top, whether they are those of enemies or of former allies.
But he’s also a man with an uncanny ability to grip the hearts and minds of the people, and who is revered as a popular hero by many even after his downfall. Sure, he made himself dictator, brought down the Republic, used EPO, blood doped and then covered it all up. And sure, he’s such a spinmeister with his Oprah interview and his writings from the Gallic Wars. But he did so many great things! He fought for the glory of Rome and the U.S. Postal Service! He reformed the calendar and started a foundation to fight cancer! He was always on the side of the people against the Senate and the oligarchs, and I’ll still wear his yellow ribbon, even if he is a gigantic asshole.
He’s also someone who, at the end, seemed to think that he had become too great to bring down, and when he did fall, it took him by surprise. “You can’t murder Caesar! You can’t strip Lance of his titles! Don’t you all love me?” His ego just got too big for him to see the reality of the situation.
And even now, somewhere in our hearts we still like him more than the weasily stab-happy senators and the petty and nosy anti-doping journalists who brought him down.
(Well, anyway, you know what I mean.)
Yeah, I think Lance would make a pretty good Caesar.
Jason Robards will always be FDR to me.
Why, thank you. Every now and then I have a moment of clarity. It usually fades when the sun comes up.
[/QUOTE]
I honestly can’t tell which of us is whooshing the other.
Then you win. Congrats!
I agree with what’s already been posted about Lincoln’s thin, reedy, Kentucky-accented voice, as noted by many of his contemporaries.
I thought Robert Duvall in Gods & Generals made a better Robert E. Lee than Sheen, but Gettysburg is by far the better movie. And Jeff Daniels nailed Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain’s quiet courage and everyman strength of character - shoulda gotten an Oscar for Gettysburg, I thought.
Edward Woodward will always be Harry “Breaker” Morant, although there wasn’t a very strong personal resemblance. Love that movie:
http://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/items/ACCNUM_SCREEN/A05311.JPG
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/11/12/1225952/394240-breaker-morant.jpg
Yes, in HBO’s John Adams. He and Paul Giamatti were both very good in their respective roles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgCQDZdlMdc
Not to argue, but for me the role that defines Woodward is in the original The Wicker Man (1973) which was blasphemed in a remake with Nicolas Cage not too long ago. But Breaker was indeed a great role for him.
(2 posts up) Haven’t done G&G yet, but I could see that. If Gettysburg is (to you) a 4 star film, what would you rate G&G?
If we’re talking about a five-star scale, Gettysburg would be a three-star film. G&G would be a one, if that. It shows two Confederate triumphs (Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville) and no Union wins, has not one but two slaves say they would rather be free but are content to remain enslaved, and has a noticeably-plumper and -older Daniels playing what is supposedly a younger Chamberlain. It is far more unbalanced and pro-Confederate than Gettysburg IMHO.