I know this topic was posted a year ago, but I just re-watch the movie..And Eckhart "filthy" worked fine for me :P super sexy I thought
http://moviefreakentertainment.blogspot.com
I think they did it to make him stand out in the crowd of stuffy Brits. In the book, he actually was another stuffy Brit.
~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.
They just had to have him be an American, stylish scruffy and all, because they were afraid audiences couldn't relate to the film if everybody in it was British. It's like when John Boorman made The Emerald Forest and changed the real story it was based on (a Peruvian construction worker's son was kidnapped/adopted by Indians) to something he thought American audiences could relate to (a white American engineer's blond, green-eyed son was etc.)
There's an unwritten rule in Hollywood that all or most of the principal characters have to be white men. They actually teach this at some film schools:
http://tinyurl.com/67j4n7 Why Screenwriters Are Taught Not To Pass The Bechdel Test
I happen to like Aaron E., I thought he was cute in Frasier and very effective in Neverwas. I wonder though if he read Byatt's book though, because I think he could have played Roland as he really was.
You know who I would have really loved to see as Roland? Sting.
You've got me?! Who's got you?!
Sting would have been over 50 when this came out, so hard to accept as a student. Bad enough with Eckhart in his 30s. Either way, enough of characters whose beard growth remains the same throughout an entire film, no matter how much time lapses.
shareYeah, I was thinking of him as the shy one in "We'll Be Together".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYps5LfOaGg
You've got me?! Who's got you?!
Filthy? Khakis and tweed jackets are the opposite of filthy. As is the frosted blonde tips for his hair. Filthy is more like Eckhart in Erin Brokovich:
http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsE/27807-24864.gif