196
Current Talk '02 I / Re: Mitch vs. Anthony
« on: March 16, 2002, 10:49:02 PM »Quote
I always think Anthony George had a bit of a raw deal -- face it, Burke Devlin was such a pale version of the embittered, calculating original by the time Barnabas arrived -- character-wise George inherited a much weaker character.
I agree with the comments on 1795 -- Mitch Ryan was probably much too contemporary in both his acting style and physical appearance to have meshed well in that particular time period.
Interesting insights, Stuart. After having grown comfortable with the rebellious character Ryan created during 1966-67, I can't imagine him trapped in ruffled costumes and 18th century formalities ("Formalities, shmormalities!" I can almost hear him barking, as he trips over his costume).
George, who seemed to revel in period formalities, seemed better suited to be Jeremiah. There might have been possibliities for Ryan, however, had he been given a rebellious character to play in 1795 -- or at least a loud, angry one. Peter Bradford, maybe?? But then poor Vicki would be SO confused ... telling Bradford that he had been flying in a big silverbird over that city in Brazil.
Anyway, had Ryan played Jeremiah, I probably would have felt worse knowing that his Jeremiah became reduced to that pitiful looking Bandage Man.
Ben