I will. I will go full cinemasins. The prevailing belief that actors can't give a good performance and audiences cannot relate to an actor in a helmet is pure directorial cowardice. Helmets connote power and authority. Having a brightly painted helmet with a torse and a two foot tall paper mache goose on it makes the location of the lead actor much more idenitifiable in a muddy battle sequence.

Okay actually a ran out of steam

But I think this, and similar fancy hats, actualy make good storytelling devices and visible signs of who to pay attention to in a fight scene. Or just a simple visual sign of who is important; Whoever has the biggest, coolest hat is the most important person in the scene.

Cause, really, helmets were theatrical in many senses. They were designed to project power and authority, to intimidate, to make the wearer instantly identifiable. Wearing cool helmets and spiffy armor was in itself an act of visual storytelling brought to the raw hell of the battlefield. It's how warriors told each other their allegiances, their power, their skill. You might see the device of your enemy on a shield half way across the field and wade over their to kick his ass for embarassing you at the ball, or you might decide to go fight somewhere else because that guy is scary. Shields and banners were potent talismans of victory and seizing enemy symbols, or coming home without your shields and banners, would become part of your reputation or even part of the legend of your family or unit.

Directors, were they not cowards, would seize on this and use helms to tell a story about their characters. Instead there's this ludicrous notion that you can't act or be cool with a hat on that persists in Hollywood.