Actors' Looks and Suspension of Disbelief

THE MUSIC MAN (1962) is one of my favorite musical films. (I just ignore the unlikelihood of a happily-ever-after for Harold Hill and Marian. Accustomed to a roving lifestyle, with no skills other than truth-bending salesmanship, will Harold contentedly settle as a domesticated married man in small-town River City?) A made-for-TV version in 2003 starred Matthew Broderick. The plot and songs closely followed the original; the main point of the remake, as I recall, was to feature younger actors. Much as I enjoy Robert Preston in the classic 1962 version, it's true he's slightly too old for the role as a suitable mate for Marian. Not to mention the chronological difficulty that he believably, albeit falsely, claims to have graduated from Gary Conservatory in 1905, and the story takes place in 1912. So he'd logically be in his late twenties at most. Viewers have to use a bit of imagination to accept Preston as that young. Furthermore, both Marian's mother and Mayor Shinn's wife in the original movie definitely look too old to have children the ages of Winthrop and the Shinns' youngest daughter.

The remake of SOUTH PACIFIC, a 2001 made-for-TV movie, poses a similar problem, differing in that way from the classic 1958 film. In the newer version, Glenn Close plays Ensign Nellie Forbush. For me, it takes severe suspension of disbelief to accept her as an ensign, a rank for a very young officer. More importantly, a major point in the relationship between Nellie and the French planter Emile focuses on the difference between their ages. Pairing an actor who plays Emile with a Nellie played by an actress who's close to his own age undercuts a vital element of the story. Their "Twin Soliloquies" duet highlights the incongruity with its theme of a romance between "older, sophisticated man" and "young, naive woman." Consider, too, GONE WITH THE WIND. From a perspective of cool realism Leslie Howard, in his mid-forties, was far too old to portray twenty-something Ashley Wilkes.

On the other hand, generations of audiences have accepted mature actresses in the role of teenage Juliet. In Shakespeare's day, of course, she and all female characters were performed by boys. Laurence Olivier played Othello in blackface. When SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION came out, I was taken aback to learn Morgan Freeman had the part of the narrator, Red, a redheaded Irishman in the novella. Minutes after the movie began, though, I was captivated by his performance and decided he was perfect in the role. After getting over the initial shock of the change in ethnicity (as for the nickname, the script justifies it as a shortening of his last name), I realized Red's race and physical appearance have no substantial impact on the story. (That is, provided one overlooks the anachronism of Black and white prisoners freely mingling during the era of the novella's setting.) Making Othello white, though, WOULD crucially change Shakespeare's plot.

So in my viewpoint making some characters' looks faithful to the source material does matter. In SUPERMAN adaptations, for instance, sooner or later Lex Luthor has to go bald. And everybody knows Lana Lang is a redhead. Even though it's a rather minor detail, the fact that she's played by dark-haired women in two TV series, SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN AND LOIS, nags at me as just plain wrong. The actresses couldn't have dyed their hair or worn wigs?

Granted, the skill of the performer outweighs the ideal of absolute realism in physical appearance. Still, my personal feeling is that in the naturalistic mode of contemporary filmmaking, some serious attempt should be made to have characters, especially major ones, look "right." It's jarring when one deviates too far from her or his established and expected appearance.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.