This film is fun; it has some fine performances (I especially like Frederic March's lecture scenes) and a great Max Steiner score. However, a faithful biography of Mark Twain it is not. Apart from the fact that the script twists and distorts events in Mark Twain's life nearly out of recognition, it presents a false portrayal of him as a sentimental sap suffering from arrested development who probably wouldn't have written a word without his wife's persistent prodding.
Some examples of egregious distortions of fact:
* Mark Twain did not go west to get rich so he could marry Livy Clemens (he never even heard of her until after leaving the West)
* his jumping frog story did not alleviate the nation's pains during the Civil War (it wasn't published until after the war ended)
* he didn't leave Nevada to fight for the Confederacy when the war started (he went to Nevada partly to get away from the war after it started)
* publishing U. S. Grant's memoirs didn't cause his bankruptcy (that publication was a huge success; his bankruptcy came 7 years later)
* when he went on his round-the-world lecture tour, he didn't leave his wife behind not knowing she was gravely ill (she and a daughter went with him; her health was fine at that time)
* his wife didn't make him promise to go to England to accept an Oxford degree (she died three years before he got the invitation)
According a friend of Mark Twain's daughter, Clara Clemens Gabrilowitsch, Clara was not allowed to set foot on the film's sets while it was being made, for fear she would confuse the cast and crew with the truth.
For a more detailed dissection of the film, see my book, MARK TWAIN A TO Z, which compares the episodes of the film with the real events in Mark Twain's life. And for a film that presents a more honest portrait of Mark Twain, see the 1985 claymation feature of the same title: THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN.
Meanwhile, there is a simple test you can make while watching the film: Prepare a list of Mark Twain's books in the order in which they were published. As you watch the film, pay attention each scene mentioning a new Mark Twain book, give it a sequential number, and write that number next to the title in your list. When the film is over, compare your numbers to the sequence in which Mark Twain actually wrote the books. If you want to make the test even more fun, try keeping track of the years in which the books appear in the film. What you'll end up with is a hopeless mishmash, leaving you uncertain whether the film follows Mark Twain's life forward or backward.
Is it necessary for a film biography to get all all its facts correct? Probably not. But is it excusable for a film get almost all its facts wrong?
Trivia note: An early scene shows the bedroom in which Mark Twain was born. Study the size of the room carefully. Then, when the film cuts to an outside view of the house (which looks authentic, by the way), ask yourself if it's physically possible for the bedroom to fit inside that house--even if it's the only room in the house.
You can apply the same test to the steamboat in which Mark Twain later appears: Is it possible that the steamboat you see is big enough to contain the gaming room in which Mark Twain first appears?
As I said, it's a fun movie in many ways ... but don't make the mistake of thinking that it has much to do with Mark Twain.
Some examples of egregious distortions of fact:
* Mark Twain did not go west to get rich so he could marry Livy Clemens (he never even heard of her until after leaving the West)
* his jumping frog story did not alleviate the nation's pains during the Civil War (it wasn't published until after the war ended)
* he didn't leave Nevada to fight for the Confederacy when the war started (he went to Nevada partly to get away from the war after it started)
* publishing U. S. Grant's memoirs didn't cause his bankruptcy (that publication was a huge success; his bankruptcy came 7 years later)
* when he went on his round-the-world lecture tour, he didn't leave his wife behind not knowing she was gravely ill (she and a daughter went with him; her health was fine at that time)
* his wife didn't make him promise to go to England to accept an Oxford degree (she died three years before he got the invitation)
According a friend of Mark Twain's daughter, Clara Clemens Gabrilowitsch, Clara was not allowed to set foot on the film's sets while it was being made, for fear she would confuse the cast and crew with the truth.
For a more detailed dissection of the film, see my book, MARK TWAIN A TO Z, which compares the episodes of the film with the real events in Mark Twain's life. And for a film that presents a more honest portrait of Mark Twain, see the 1985 claymation feature of the same title: THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN.
Meanwhile, there is a simple test you can make while watching the film: Prepare a list of Mark Twain's books in the order in which they were published. As you watch the film, pay attention each scene mentioning a new Mark Twain book, give it a sequential number, and write that number next to the title in your list. When the film is over, compare your numbers to the sequence in which Mark Twain actually wrote the books. If you want to make the test even more fun, try keeping track of the years in which the books appear in the film. What you'll end up with is a hopeless mishmash, leaving you uncertain whether the film follows Mark Twain's life forward or backward.
Is it necessary for a film biography to get all all its facts correct? Probably not. But is it excusable for a film get almost all its facts wrong?
Trivia note: An early scene shows the bedroom in which Mark Twain was born. Study the size of the room carefully. Then, when the film cuts to an outside view of the house (which looks authentic, by the way), ask yourself if it's physically possible for the bedroom to fit inside that house--even if it's the only room in the house.
You can apply the same test to the steamboat in which Mark Twain later appears: Is it possible that the steamboat you see is big enough to contain the gaming room in which Mark Twain first appears?
As I said, it's a fun movie in many ways ... but don't make the mistake of thinking that it has much to do with Mark Twain.