Lithgow as Churchill? You must be joking!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Crown
Hidingintheshadows — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 11:15 AM)
The series is excellent: all of the various characters are, I think, astonishingly similar in appearance to the people they are playing.
All, except the amazing and incomprehensible choice of Lithgow to play Churchill.
Anyone who has seen any of the films, TV series or documentaries of and about Churchill would recognize right away the difference in height (Lithgow 6'3" vs. Churchill 5'6" at that age), as well as the posture. Lithgow comports himself as a caricature of the top-hatted fellow in The Yellow Submarineand he looks every bit as soul-threatening as that character.
I have admired Lithgow's performances over the years, in drama as much as comedybut I cannot understand why:
1: the producers would ignore the wonderful British actors imminently capable of portraying a truer version of the man, and
2: why Lithgow himself would even consider accepting the rolebeyond a momentary feeling, perhaps, of the lovely compliment paid to him by the offer itself. Surely common sense would have dictated the answer?
What were they all thinking?
Though I follow the series closely, and occasionally, out of interest, check some of the imputed facts, I have to look away from every scene which so misrepresents the character of how Churchill held himself, how he spoke etc.
I do not idolize ChurchillI have studied him, and history, for too long, not to recognize that how he saved Britain (and, by extension, the entire western world) was not through any military genius (as he liked to posture himself), but by sheer bluster and bravado. Thank God for thatfor his mucking about with the military could easily have put an end to the whole show, as has been adequately illustrated by many historians and his closest contemporaries.
Sorry, John: but there it is. -
Hidingintheshadows — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 12:17 PM)
and I'm done arguing.
As my Teacher's Teacher told her: "I can do nothing against preconceived ideas".
I'll leave it to your sense of homework to discover just who that Teacher was (hint: Russian, mathematician, journalist, and a man who changed many, many peoples livesfor the better. Died, October 2, 1947)
Bye. -
cookiela2001 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 02:29 PM)
As my Teacher's Teacher told her: "I can do nothing against
preconceived ideas
".
I'll leave it to your sense of homework to discover just who that Teacher was (hint: Russian, mathematician, journalist, and a man who changed many, many peoples livesfor the better. Died, October 2, 1947)
Your own preconceived idea is that actors must physically resemble public or historic figures they play to a great degree.
I've always thought this was rididiculous, from a dramatic point of view. The performer has to be believable as the same TYPE of person, and convey their major characteristicsbut to think the actor has to be the same
height
or some such trivia as the original is a deadeningly literal way to approach art.
(We're all very impressed your teacher was educated by a Nobel Prize winner or whatever, though, I'm sure.)
. -
alfa — 9 years ago(November 23, 2016 03:44 AM)
-
whatsthisnow — 9 years ago(November 24, 2016 04:43 AM)
I feel where you're coming from, but I can't help but take the other poster's side (as arrogant as his tone is). What you're talking about (blind casting) suits theatre a great deal more than it does film, to my feeling, as this particular type of film (historical biopics) try to basically recreate reality, whereas theatre does not. Ultimately, film attempts to be immersive and to minimise the requirement for suspension of disbelief, whereas theatre does not, so blind casting suits the latter.
Not that I'd go as far as to say "I'm right, you're wrong" or anything like that. Just the way I see it I guess. -
cookiela2001 — 9 years ago(November 24, 2016 12:02 PM)
Well, I do mean within reason.
The OP's complaint is about Lithgow's height. Yet does the majority of today's audience know what the real life Churchill's height was? It could have been a factor in his life, perhaps(whatever it was)yet it's not what motivates the scenes, moving the story forward.
Looks are important, but I don't think any of us would like to think that how we look is the most important thing about us.
. -
nelly0042 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 05:25 PM)
So was your vaunted teacher's teacher also a film scholar?
I don't seem to see that listed on Ouspensky's resume.
Seriously, not only is the quote unoriginal, but as the other commenter noted, your use of it is downright hypocritical. Were you arguing mathematics or some other area where your teacher's teacher was an acknowledged authority, it might be different, but here it's just ridiculous.
Keira Knightley was nominated for an Oscar for her role as Joan Clarke in The Imitation Game, yet even in the most dimly lit room, no one would ever claim that the two bore any physical resemblance to one another apart from having the requisite number of limbs. Similarly, there is very little resemblance between Andrew Garfield in the film Hacksaw Ridge and the real-life Desmond Doss.
There's a story that goes that during the filming of Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman went for a few days without sleep and by the end was looking pretty rough. Lawrence Olivier asked him why he was putting himself through such an ordeal, to which Hoffman replied that he was trying to be convincing in the role. Olivier replied, "Try acting dear boy". The story may be apocryphal, but at least it is more on point than your reference to a Russian mathematician. -
audreysluv — 9 years ago(December 18, 2016 06:29 PM)
My reading about Churchill induces me to agree that while he was without equal in the motivational and inspiration aspects of leadership, his military strategies were usually costly mistakes which prolonged the war. On the other hand, I haven't and don't have a problem with Lithgow portraying him. The difference in height between Lithgow and Churchill is far easier for me to overlook as long as the real Churchill comes through.
-
axl7 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 02:45 PM)
All, except the amazing and incomprehensible choice of Lithgow to play Churchill.
Anyone who has seen any of the films, TV series or documentaries of and about Churchill would recognize right away the difference in height (Lithgow 6'3" vs. Churchill 5'6" at that age), as well as the posture. Lithgow comports himself as a caricature
I agree. I din't like him.
I can't say he was "miscast" because I suppose the producers wanted him to act a certain way, to show Churchill at the end of his careeer, in his old daysgrumpy, frailbut it was too much, "caricature" is the word that comes to mind when I'm watching this Churchill.
"Please, if you are trying to convert me, this isn't a good time" -
spinmonkey44 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 06:36 PM)
I sort of agree but then I disagree because Lithgow is such a wonderful actor. At first, I was wary of the scenes he was in but he became more believable to me later on. Lithgow is a wonderful actor and just as Brits play Americans on film, some Americans can play Brits on film. I think he did an admirable job.
-
warren-87235 — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 05:41 AM)
I like John Lithgow, but I was very dubious when I saw he was playing Churchill. He would never have occurred to me in the role. However, having seem him in the part, I think he's done an excellent job!!