I discussed this matter with a lot of people (I studied history at the University, so we spoke a lot about this issue) and yes: this must be a likeness between the actor/actress and the person you are portraying. If not, things could be accurate, but you have the whole impression of not be watching the real thing. And if you adds to it that the movie was not even historically accurae, this mixing up of no likeness and not the accurate thing will have an only result: a bad movie.
Besides, these last tme we have wonderful make up, that could by itself create a striking likeness where there isn't any or little. Did you remember the movie "Ghandi"? The actor was not exactly as Ghandi was, but the make up was great and he was the spitting image of the character he was portraying.
Besides, people who wants to do things as they must be done, hires good actors who also has a certain likeness to the historical characters they are portraying. At the TV movie "The French Revolution",. by Enrico and Heffron, choiced a Robespierre that was the spitting image of Robespierre himseld (Andrejz Seweryn). That's the same for the movie "Danton" by Wajda. Robespierre portrayed by Wojcecz Pszoniak was very similar to him. We don't ask for a twin brother or sister, but at least for a beliavle thing!
Adding to it, "Nicholas and Alexandra" amazed me: they looked for a Stolypin who wasa real likeness to this character and he only appears few times in the whole movie...and they forgot to search girls who could be at least similar too the real OTMA...Hum. Can't understand them.
RealAnastasia
