I thought I'd posted before about this but couldn't find it.
Anyone else think he looks a lot older than 44? I know people aged different then but of he looks beat.
That said he's had more energy than four eleven year olds!!!
When there are two, one betrays-Jean-Pierre Melville
I always thought of Preston as a male Angela Lansbury. Thye both looked older than they actually were. Take a look at UNION PACIFIC, which is was released in 1939.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"
Yeah, he looked about the same 20 years later in Victor/Victoria. Another actor in this category is Wilford Brimley, who was about twenty years younger than his costars in Cocoon.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Regardless of how old Preston was, the role of Harold Hill is for a much younger man!
Older men have played it in every adaptation, but to me, Harold Hill should be about 25.
Based on what? I'm not arguing with you, just curious about why you feel this way.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Just based on that gut feeling.
You know, townspeople being more charmed by a young guy, the young librarian being more likely to be won over by a young man, rather than a middle-aged reprobate!
Robert Preston looks like a perv in the movie. He just does!
You can get away with it onstage, but in a movie, not so much. It requires a repeated 'suspension of disbelief' to accept Preston. I'm no kid either.
Fair enough. 25 is awfully young though. How about early thirties?
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Yes that would be ok.
The important thing is, the actor look likeable and personable, and charismatic. That he look like every mother's son, and the guy every girl would want to marry.
Likable, personable and charismatic certainly fits the bill, but Meredith Willson (who wrote the show) never described Harold Hill as someone who "looks like every mother's son, and the guy every girl would want to marry." And he certainly never intended him to be 25; his past experiences would suggest he's at least in his 30s. Robert Preston was 39 when the show opened on Broadway, and he was the youngest of the early candidates to play Harold Hill: Willson was, at various times, thinking of Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Gene Kelly, Dan Dailey, Ray Bolger and Phil Harris.
And Preston was 43 while the movie was being filmed, not 44. And if you think he looked like a "perv" in this movie - well, that's what you think. I can only say I couldn't disagree more.
THe downside of having stage actors repeat their roles on film is the aging factor since it usually took 5 years or more for hit musicals to hit the screen. Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady and Robert Morse in How to Succeed exemplify this problem.
Interestingly, Yul Brynner in The King and I was probably too young when he played the part on stage and was still only mid 30s when he did the film. But then again, Brynner never really looked young.
Still, I don't think there was any downside to casting Preston in "The Music Man." I saw the movie when I was a little kid, and Robert Preston became my hero. He looked the way men of 43 looked in 1961 (better than most, actually) and I had no problem believing a woman of 27 would fall in love with him. I didn't find anything objectionable about their pairing.
Besides, Harold Hill was never given a specific age in the original script, even though he's usually cast with a guy in his 30s. But I think early 40s works for him as well.
I think you're missing several important points in the script about this character. Try to read the original stage script, see where Willson was going with this character in the final for the stage. There were some changes for the screen but not many & they weren't monumental. 'Every mother's son' was NOT where Willson was going. The actor playing Hill- a somewhat nasty scoundrel- had to be very charismatic to be able to show Hill winning over his victims. And one of the many things Robert Preston was- was unbelieveably charismatic. Check out 'Victor/Victoria'.
share[deleted]
It requires a repeated 'suspension of disbelief' to accept Preston.
I just looked up images for Union Pacific. Angela Lansbury was only 14 in this?!? WTF, I know she always looked older than her true age, but wow.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Check out the acrobatics he does in the "Marian, the Librarian" scene. He hops over the bannister of the staircase, clearing it by about 8". And he does it with such ease and grace; effortlessly. I was impressed enough to look up his 1962 age on IMDB. He may not look 44, but he was in great shape!
Wow, reading this surprised me and reading the replies surprised me ever more. I don't think he looks older than 44 at all. I actually wouldn't be able to pin an age on him, but all I can say is that he is extremely attractive. I have been watching this since I was a very little girl. Just watched it again (I am 23 now). I still think he is extremely handsome and charming. He is perfect for the role. If anything he seems younger than 44 because of his charisma and physical shape/dancing ability.
shareI agree with you 100 percent. I pegged his age as early 40s in the film, and thought that was wholly appropriate, given his lengthy history as a con man. A man in his 20s or 30s wouldn't have had the practiced deception that Hill had, nor the world-weary cynicism -- until he falls for Marian the Librarian, of course :)
I also found it believable that a woman in her late 20s could fall in love with a man in his early 40s, if he was as charismatic as Prof. Harold Hill.