MovieChat Forums > Kings (2009) Discussion > Silas was as well-cast as David was misc...

Silas was as well-cast as David was miscast

posted 15 years ago by dante12x
32 replies | jump to latest

I think Silas was perfectly cast. The well-meaning, but ultimately wrong leader- temperamental, haunted, profane. I thought McShane played him perfectly.

David, on the other hand: the bible and countless old texts are filled with David and Goliath type stories with heroes like him. The reason why David is so pervasive in legend is because he was tragically flawed. He was a constant screw-up and a slave to his own bad habits. And despite this, he was the chosen one. That's what makes David such a compelling character and why people have always loved to relate to him- because he was all too human. Capt. Shepherd on the other hand just seems to be a completely innocent yokel, almost perfect except for his naivete, trying to be a good man amongst a see of bad people. And the only time he screws up is because he's trying to help someone else. And that's not interesting- it's not believable- it's completely apart from the original biblical character- and I think that absence of an interesting, relatable David is what ultimately did this show in.

[–] blfsweet16 15 years ago

If I remember the character correctly, David started out decent and pure but power eventually corrupted him.

"Oh, *beep*! I picked a cute one!" --Penguin, "Batman Returns"

[–] GotMilk00 15 years ago

David was not "flawed" until he became much older and had been in power a while.

A lot of people keep saying this character was miscast, but I disagree. I think he is great.

[–] piedex 15 years ago

I think the character was somewhat miscast however it would take a very good actor to not appear to be miscast. Actors like McShane, Duvall, and De Niro can outshine younger actors very easily.

[–] dante12x 15 years ago

1 Samuel 17:28- Eliab(David's eldest brother) to David
"...Why art thou come down? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of ty heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see battle."

So before kingship, before Goliath, he was already known as prideful and naughty. I'd say there's a reason for the exposition of a character as those things while all they've done is play the harp and tend to sheep. I think he's being shown as flawed. David was faithful, courageous and honest, and that's why he was to be king- it doesn't say anywhere that he was flawless- OR that he became corrupted by power. He had issues to begin with. Again- this is what makes him such a great character.

[–] blfsweet16 15 years ago

Or maybe Eliab was just commenting on what David had done at that moment? Nobody ever said David was a perfect human being his entire life. What we are saying is that David, for the most part, was innocent and knew nothing of corruption before becoming king. I'm sure he sinned every now and then as, according to the Bible, only one man lived life without sin.

"Oh, *beep*! I picked a cute one!" --Penguin, "Batman Returns"

[–] dante12x 15 years ago

No- I'm saying David was never corrupted by power. He didn't accept any awards for defeating Goliath- He rejected Saul's first daughter. He wasn't corrupted by power. That wasn't what I said. I said he was flawed- and very much presented that way in hubris, in pride, in lust. He was loyal, faithful, and courageous- that's why he was the chosen king- but his FLAWS were very much known in the old testament, before his rise to power- and not presented in the show. That's my point- and again- that's why, I believe the show was not successful. Not relatable.

[–] blfsweet16 15 years ago

I personally believe the show was a flop because NBC didn't know how to market it.

"Oh, *beep*! I picked a cute one!" --Penguin, "Batman Returns"

[–] Sibyla01 9 years ago

I think you´re right. Ian McShane was just great, but David - and Michelle too - were so nice, clean, all-American characters from some soap opera. Miscast - but mainly bad writing.

[–] chains01 12 years ago

Yeah, he wasn't corrupted by power, he just used his power improperly...

jasoncwilkerson.blogspot.com Love it, Follow it!

[–] sweetpoison07 13 years ago

David's brother was jealous- that could be another reason it was phrased like that- rather than just saying David was prideful. His brother felt so, but that doesn't mean Eliab was telling the truth or was unprejudiced in his opinion.

[–] janik-jezovnik-963-617781 13 years ago

"1 Samuel 17:28- Eliab(David's eldest brother) to David
"...Why art thou come down? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of ty heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see battle.""

I didn't bother reading the whole thread, but there are some things I want to add. This quote shows us only that David might've been a bit arrogant. This is reflected in the show from the very beggining in his "cockiness", or being overly self-confident if you will, in the way he takes to the enemy soldier camp to free the hostages all on his own, later in his willingness to lie to his king and to even almost reject him.

I still agree that David was a bit miscast and that Silas was cast better than we could've expected. David just always seemed a bit awkward, like the character had no real depth to him or perhaps was a bit unrefined, however, we should realize that it's a hard character to transfer into modern time and portray as a believable personality, as most bible characters lack in description. What's important is that the combination still ended up working reliably, while integrating soundly into the context, and even that is quite an achievement.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chains01 12 years ago

Umm even opinions are in the Bible, not everything can be taken by a verse to say that verse is definitive. I no longer believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, but this is really stretching it. If David was prideful and naughty would he be the only person known in the Bible as a man after God's own heart? No! Eliab was jealous, Eliab was trying to tear him down. Naturally he wasn't flawless, but his flaws don't come into the story till his relationship with Bathsheba.

jasoncwilkerson.blogspot.com Love it, Follow it!

[–] dante12x 15 years ago

Right- actors have no insight into how a character's personality it portrayed. Good call.

[–] ultra_mafic 15 years ago

Exactly, celebritardtours. As written, I thought Christopher Egan did well, and sometimes exceptional, in his portrayal of David.

And David had his flaws, they just weren't as obvious. What about his completely blind loyalty, his ignorance, and his naivete. Heavens, these things almost got him killed many times. Plus, they needed someone to balance out all the other ultra-flawed characters, which David did nicely.

I do agree that his character would have gotten annoying after a couple of seasons if it remained the same. But I believe that in the second season, after everything he went through, most importantly Silas's massive betrayal, David would have been less angelic. Even in that last couple of episodes we saw a rougher David. And I hope that they would have in later seasons shown his character becoming corrupt like the biblical David. The purer he was to begin with, the harder he would have fallen. Of course it's all moot at this point, but fun to think about.

[–] brodiew 15 years ago

Very interesting discussion. I think Egan has done a fine job and agree with roosetercharmer that he contrasts the rest of the nastiness quite well. I also agree that David's more well know corruptions came after his rise to the kingship.

For the most part David was righteouly angry for most of his time in exile. And not only that, this flawed David repented his sins and died right with God.

Sorry off topic. :-)

"If you lie to them half as good as you lie to yourself, they will believe you." -John Locke

[–] falcon2484 15 years ago

If Val Kilmer and Matt Damon were genetically fused, the result would be Chris Egan. And I think that he has talent and will go on to bigger and better things.

[–] deek172 15 years ago

I just think he looks like a retard, who only has one facial expression, the fish face with squinted eyes.

[–] kol-8 15 years ago

That biblical text you mentioned was of David before he basically becomes the David we know.
Before his big moments in the biblical narrative.
So maybe he was this way in his younger years, but once he became a young adult, he matured.

In the show there is a certain period of years between the death of Davids father and his military commitment that put him in front of the Goliath tank.
So it can be said that maybe David had a rebellious nature before his father died and the shock of his death matured him greatly.

The show also does portray him as an adulterer who lays with a woman who is not his wife :)
Although i did like the touch at the end with Samuel. It hit home with my long standing belief towards marriage.
That it not need be a religious ceremony and it definitely should not be a government sanctioned event in any way.
All that is needed is for two people who are in love to pledge themselves to each other under the eyes of god... whomever or whatever they feel that may be.

GI:JOE Images - http://dailysportspages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5523

[–] kingyhtd 15 years ago

i agree i though David and Jack were both poorly acted and Michele was better but not great especially in comparison with all the other great actors (Silas,Rose,Samuals,Brian Cox, Dylan Baker etc.)

[–] ultra_mafic 15 years ago

If Val Kilmer and Matt Damon were genetically fused, the result would be Chris Egan.

Lol! I've never thought of that, but you're right. He's like their love child. And I hope he is very successful in his acting career.

It seems everyone differs on how convincing they think the younger leads are. I think we can all agree the older actors are great.

the curl of your bodies like two perfect circles entwined

[–] mejia133 15 years ago

David was not miscast... That is how they wanted David to be portrayed so Chris Egan did a great job at what he was supposed to do. You can't blame the actor for portraying a character the way the writers want him to be portrayed... That said I'm going to miss this show a lot :(

[–] dante12x 15 years ago

No- the part I mentioned was on the battlefield, right when the show began. Either way, my point was the it was a clearly intended exposition of character to show the reader who he was as a person. The show left it and any spirit of it out, and showed him as a brave naive angelic being. Not at all like the biblical portrayal.

And people keep using the word corrupt. I never said corrupt, nor do I think he became corrupt. I used the word "flawed". The David of the TV show is not flawed at all, and all his errors come from him trying to do something right or help someone. That's why he was a boring character.

[–] guardian_owl 14 years ago

They likely portray him more as a goody-goody in the earlier seasons so that it contrasts better when he would have begun his fall from grace in later seasons. It's like the film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. People complained that Peter Jackson did not show the suffering and struggle to survive of the Frodo/Samwise/Gollum trio in the Two Towers film as it is in the book. The reason he did not emphasize their suffering is so that it would have more dramatic impact in the third movie.

[–] dierre 14 years ago

I've just watched the first ten episode. I don't think David was miscast, I think the problem is in the script. Too many not logic things happened.

e.g.: why kill Leslie Bibb's character only after she was going to marry Jack? I mean, when she had Michelle's photos and Jack's video wasn't that a good time to kill her?

In my opinion David was the last problem of this show.

[–] chizzie_shark 14 years ago

You are forgetting that the Bible also calls David "a man after God's own heart". David is flawed in the Bible...he commits adultery, murder, doubts God etc. But ultimately he sought God's will in everything.

Having not seen the show yet (can't find it in Australia...D=) this next statement is speculation...but from promos, maybe David comes across as a boring goody-goody because God is played down considerably?

*********
Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 13 years ago

David is never as flawed as his Pagan equivalents, and both his big screw ups came after he was King, the Story of David and Goliath is of a young man with Childlike Faith.

When the chips are down... these "Civilized" people... will Eat each Other

[–] sweetpoison07 13 years ago

I don't think the series lasted long enough for you to get to witness David's change as he became King and had that sort of corruptible power. That whole Bathsheba thing happened AFTER he was King. Your experiences shape you; you don't pop out of the womb fully formed and already fatally flawed. :)

[–] coleburg83 12 years ago

Yes. I don't know where they got the idea that David was some emo wussy who accidentally killed Goliath while trying to surrender and then became a Mary Sue. And he certainly didn't want peace with their enemies. David spent like ten straight years in war before most of the rest of the story happened.

I wonder if the casting sheet listed the requirements for the character as constantly looking like you are about to cry. Christopher Egan's crying face reminds me of Lena Headey with her constant constipation face.

-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go git yo'self some hot cornbread!