>"Ah, but Garber was too old for Andrews. He had more grey hair than dark and appeared at least 50 or 55. Andrews, at the time of the sinking, was a mere 38 . . . " For all that, I can forgive him a few extra years.
Mark, my feeling is that if the makeup department wants to take steps to correct something like that, it's well within their means to do so. '-)
But I think we're getting into the area of just what is an actor's job when he/she takes on the role of a historic personality. Should the actor present us with a practically DNA-perfect copy of that person, or should they project a reasonable likeness and stress the personality qualities that made the original unique? Obviously, a 50/50 combination of the two would be ideal, but in the real world (...are movies ever "the real world"?) it's very difficult to come by.
Honestly, I don't think Victor Garber looks physically like the real Tom Andrews at all, except in one important area -- his eyes. And they tell me everything I need to know about how Garber viewed Andrews. Was Garber's Andrews intelligent and capable? -- Oh, yeah! Did he convince you he could have accomplished everything the real Andrews did? -- You bet! Did he seem universally likeable? -- No doubt about it. Did he look just a wee bit wistful and homesick for his family? -- Yep, just enough.
Yes, Mr. Garber gets my vote, even though I still think Richard Carlson looked more like Andrews.
Roy