I just found an interview with Redford, circa 1972, in which he talks about this movie. The interview as printed is in Dutch, so I'll just translate it back into English.
"I'm not like Jeremiah. Jeremiah was crazy, dangerously crazy. According to the story he ate the guts of the Crow Indians he killed. Most mountain men went insane, and they probably weren't all that sane before they went into the mountains. Because the movie is really a warning. There's a "back to nature" tendency in the States, first the hippies did it, but now the respectable citizen wants a cottage in the country as well. That's really a dangerous kind of decadence. You can't just say goodbye to society, because society is also inside of you. If you do not realize that, you cannot handle the responsibility concerning nature you take upon yourself. Nature has its own laws, and you've got to respect them, else she'll get back at you.
"That's why we made the movie, to show all the mistakes Jeremiah made, and also the good things, the things he learned.
"Quite apart from the fact that I was in it, the movie was just right. It's like the Bolero by Ravel, it just goes on and on and on and gets to you more and more.
"Some things about it bug me. You know the movie ends when I meet up with my Indian opponent after several years, and I greet him from afar. That greeting implies respect as well as frustration, because in spite of that respect they both know that the hunt will go on for ever. The image freezes at the moment that I seem to be gnashing my teeth. And now at press conferences they keep asking about the meaning of that. There is no meaning. We filmed that shot six or seven times, and one of those times it looks like I was gnashing my teeth, as we noticed in the cutting room. I never did that on purpose. I don't mind that they used it, and that they used it like that, but when Sidney starts to give a heavy-handed explanation why he made me do that, I start to get all itchy."
So, according to the first paragraph, not just a celebration of the frontier spirit. Thoughts, anyone?
Thanks for taking the trouble of making and posting the translation, and Redford's comments are absolutely astute. However, although the film obviously captures some of the perils that a mountain man endured, I don't think that it fully evokes the dark side that Redford described. Redford was just a little too gentle, placid, well-mannered, level-headed, and classically heroic to suggest the insanity and decadence that he cited, and for all the conflict with the Indians, wolves, and weather,
Jeremiah Johnson (Sydney Pollack, 1972) ultimately plays like the very hippie retreat that Redford warned against. As a poster named "Hands of Fate" stated in this post, "There's also something very relaxing and soothing about it. Even with all the terrible things that happen."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068762/board/thread/71957711This sense of romanticism thus leads me to the following thread, where some of us (myself included) suggested that Redford, while effective in the role, wasn't ideally suited for it, at least in comparison to someone such as Clint Eastwood, Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, or Steve McQueen, actors who were natural fits when playing dark loners or morose misanthropes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068762/board/flat/12330847?p=1I suppose that Redford said it best in the translation that you've quoted when he noted, "I'm not like Jeremiah." Redford loved the outdoors, but the incongruity between actor and "mountain man" archetype is clear enough. It's not so gaping as to harm the film, but it does keep
Jeremiah Johnson from the full-fledged darkness that Redford mentioned and apparently aspired to.
But as I note in that thread, Redford was a romantic star for a romantic director in Sydney Pollack, and so for a different vision, the director would have also had to be different.
reply
share
mascisman
17 years ago
Well, I have to say that you hit the nail right on the head as far as I am concerned when you say that it "ultimately plays like the very hippie retreat that Redford warned against.”
As a matter of fact I find it very difficult to name a movie that is as succesful in evoking the vastness of nature and man’s insignificance in its midst. (2001? Quite a different film.) It is also one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, and that leads me to question whether the movie was indeed intended to be as bleak as Redford implies. Redford and Pollack seem to have spent a good deal of time discussing the movie beforehand, so if they really intended it to be a warning of sorts, I guess most everyone has missed the point. Sure it’s cold and harrowing and fierce and all that, but isn’t that just what Jeremiah Johnson went up there to find? Also he is quite succesful at surviving; if he had been killed by the first snowfall or grizzly or Indian he encountered – now that would have been bleak. (Of course you would have had only a twenty-minute-movie, but that’s another story.)
And then again, if Redford-the-person is such a lover of the great outdoors, why make a movie that actually warns of the dangers of going "out there”, and do so in such glowing images?
The longer I think about it, the more problematical his stance becomes.
As for objections towards Redford-with-the-good-looks playing a rugged and grizzled adventurer, that would preclude him from playing any serious part; after all he really can’t help it that he looks like Jay Gatsby. Of course any of the four actors you mention would be much more suited to the part; I guess the best choice would be someone who is or can be morally ambiguous, who is not necessarily a nice guy, like Marvin, or like William Holden in Stalag 17, or Sterling Hayden in his later years. Still I do like Redford in the part, to me he does look convincing.
Last but not least, it would be interesting to know what screenwriters John Milius and Edward Anhalt thought of the story (and of Redford’s comments and interpretation).
reply
share
Mississippi20
17 years ago
Of course the film has some Hollywood romanticism about it - I think most every film has some amount of romanticism. And I don't think you can place the blame on Robert Redford. You can point to other aspects of the film as well. They don't have Jeremiah losing his sanity or eating livers. Even with Clint Eastwood or Steve McQueen, popular, handomse movie stars themselves, I don't think much would have been changed.
It also seems Redford is speaking about the real Jeremiah Johnson - not necessarily his intentions for the film.
This isn't a happy, fairytale of a film either. Jeremiah's makeshift family is shockingly murdered. Jeremiah's battles with the Crows are brutal.
And then again, if Redford-the-person is such a lover of the great outdoors, why make a movie that actually warns of the dangers of going "out there”, and do so in such glowing images?
I don't think the film warns us not to go out into nature, just that we must acknowledge and respect nature's laws. We can't escape society because we are society.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
17 years ago
And I don't think you can place the blame on Robert Redford. You can point to other aspects of the film as well. They don't have Jeremiah losing his sanity or eating livers.
I concur, which is why I noted that there'd have to be a change of directors (and possibly writers), not just a change of star, to achieve a darker and more desperately driven vision of this compelling "mountain man" tale.
Of course the film has some Hollywood romanticism about it - I think most every film has some amount of romanticism. ... Even with Clint Eastwood or Steve McQueen, popular, handomse movie stars themselves, I don't think much would have been changed.
That's true about the romanticism or lack of pure realism inherent in most Hollywood films. That said, some movie personnel or "artists" are more inclined towards or comfortable with darkness and moral ambiguity, and I'd include Eastwood and McQueen among that group (in the latter's case, see his misanthropically distant portrayals in 1962's
Hell is for Heroes and 1973's
Papillon in particular). And
Jeremiah Johnson didn't need to be an especially dark or ambiguous film, except that that's what Redford seemed to want to express in the interview.
It also seems Redford is speaking about the real Jeremiah Johnson - not necessarily his intentions for the film.
But Redford states the following:
Because the movie is really a warning. There's a "back to nature" tendency in the States, first the hippies did it, but now the respectable citizen wants a cottage in the country as well. That's really a dangerous kind of decadence. You can't just say goodbye to society, because society is also inside of you. If you do not realize that, you cannot handle the responsibility concerning nature you take upon yourself. Nature has its own laws, and you've got to respect them, else she'll get back at you.
That's why we made the movie ... This isn't a happy, fairytale of a film either. Jeremiah's makeshift family is shockingly murdered. Jeremiah's battles with the Crows are brutal.
That's plenty true, as the film features its share of grim and disturbing material along with some spooky or chilling passages. That said, I'd suggest that the overall effect of Johnson's experience (and the tone of Pollack's direction) is more cathartic, soothing, and rejuvenating than unnerving or ravaging. And that's a highly respectable choice, except that I'm not sure that it aligns with Redford's stated ambition. In other words, I don't think that the film's message fully mirrors Redford's message in the press, and for that correlation to have occurred, a less romantic director and star may have been needed.
That's why I'm reminded of an axiom from an old film professor of mine: "Trust the story, not the storyteller." What a storyteller tells about his story may not be the same as what his story actually tells.
reply
share
Mississippi20
17 years ago
But Redford states the following:
Because the movie is really a warning. There's a "back to nature" tendency in the States, first the hippies did it, but now the respectable citizen wants a cottage in the country as well. That's really a dangerous kind of decadence. You can't just say goodbye to society, because society is also inside of you. If you do not realize that, you cannot handle the responsibility concerning nature you take upon yourself. Nature has its own laws, and you've got to respect them, else she'll get back at you.
That's why we made the movie ...
Correct. It's clear that this particular section expresses Redford's intentions for the film, but I fail to see the particular darkness and ambiguity in it that lacks in the film.
That's plenty true, as the film features its share of grim and disturbing material along with some spooky or chilling passages. That said, I'd suggest that the overall effect of Johnson's experience (and the tone of Pollack's direction) is more cathartic, soothing, and rejuvenating than unnerving or ravaging. And that's a highly respectable choice, except that I'm not sure that it aligns with Redford's stated ambition. In other words, I don't think that the film's message fully mirrors Redford's message in the press, and for that correlation to have occurred, a less romantic director and star may have been needed.
I guess I'll have to disagree with you on this one. To me, the film seems to comply with Redford's stated ambitions. As I stated, there is a certain amount of romanticism to the film, and there's a certain amount of poetic beauty to the film, but I think it's thematic value is still strong.
If I'm not mistaken, this was Redford's second time working with Sydney Pollack, and they went on to make five more films together. Redford worked with him more times than any other director, so they must've liked each other's work.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
17 years ago
If I'm not mistaken, this was Redford's second time working with Sydney Pollack, and they went on to make five more films together. Redford worked with him more times than any other director, so they must've liked each other's work.
They definitely formed one of the most memorable actor-director collaborative pairings of the last forty years in American film, and I do think that they tended to share a romantic vision and work in a sentimentalist vein. That said, their movies explore some harsh material.
reply
share
TTboy-33
16 years ago
I agree, the movie was not some sort of fairy tale, there were some painful lessons that he learned in a very hard way. If anything, the marketing probably led audiences to believe that it was some sort of, upbeat--getting back to nature story. Yet the actual movie was, overall, quite depressing. I'm sure that is why it did not do the kind of box office that, say, "Adventures of the Wilderness Family" did.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
17 years ago
As a matter of fact I find it very difficult to name a movie that is as succesful in evoking the vastness of nature and man’s insignificance in its midst. (2001? Quite a different film.) It is also one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, and that leads me to question whether the movie was indeed intended to be as bleak as Redford implies. Redford and Pollack seem to have spent a good deal of time discussing the movie beforehand, so if they really intended it to be a warning of sorts, I guess most everyone has missed the point. Sure it’s cold and harrowing and fierce and all that, but isn’t that just what Jeremiah Johnson went up there to find? Also he is quite succesful at surviving; if he had been killed by the first snowfall or grizzly or Indian he encountered – now that would have been bleak. (Of course you would have had only a twenty-minute-movie, but that’s another story.)
I agree.
Jeremiah Johnson is a spectacularly beautiful film, yet for all the pratfalls and turmoil that Johnson encounters, I'm not sure that the movie offers much of a warning to supposedly naive modern citizens. Instead, I think that the ultimate effect is inspiring and encouraging in terms of the back-to-nature movement. Johnson's saga is no picnic, but nor does it suggest insanity and decadence. Instead, there's a strong sense of precious purity to the film and its portrayal of life in the great outdoors.
As for objections towards Redford-with-the-good-looks playing a rugged and grizzled adventurer, that would preclude him from playing any serious part; after all he really can’t help it that he looks like Jay Gatsby. Of course any of the four actors you mention would be much more suited to the part; I guess the best choice would be someone who is or can be morally ambiguous, who is not necessarily a nice guy, like Marvin, or like William Holden in Stalag 17, or Sterling Hayden in his later years. Still I do like Redford in the part, to me he does look convincing.
I like Redford well enough in the part and at least one senses that he wants to be out there, which is important. If I were to have a problem with him in this role, it would be not with his looks but his lack of essential edginess. Then again, might his looks have blunted his capacity for edginess a long time ago? Perhaps the matter raises a theoretical question about film: do the stars with the "prettier" looks tend to be psychologically "softer," because more accommodating and charmed experiences inside and outside the movie industry have failed to toughen them? Conversely, is it merely coincidental that Marvin and Bronson, movie stars with worn faces, less than classically handsome visages, and harsh life experiences, tended to be much harder than Redford? Even Eastwood, a more traditionally handsome star (but not as "pretty" as Redford or Newman), had studio executives in the 1950s (when he was starting out as an actor) tell him that his Adam's Apple was too big, that that he was too tall, that he should use dark contact lenses and dye his hair, that his teeth needed capping, and that he squinted too much. Eastwood later stated that he sometimes drew upon the rejections and dismissals to find his anger as an actor, and he became a star by playing a scruffy, bearded, belligerent figure in Sergio Leone's Italian Westerns. So perhaps there is something of a correlation between looks and toughness, at least in some cases.
Anyway, I appreciate the nomination of the tall and taciturn Sterling Hayden, who often seemed to represent an austere, existential, Hemingway-type figure.
reply
share
killerteds
17 years ago
i think all of you have raised good points. in reference to looks, mel gibson and brad pitt are both considered good looking yet play some "tough" rolls extremely well, and there are others (although i admit, they're not as 'soft' looking as redford).
i think he played the roll extremely well and regardless of the little faults mentioned i think it's a solid movie. hollywood will always glamorize things but it does show honest degrees of brutality and ruthlessness.
i agree that the insanity he mentioned wasn't to the degree he might of been aiming for, but at the same time more than most characters he's played, so it was more insane from his point of view. just my interpretation. thanks for posting that interview.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
17 years ago
i agree that the insanity he mentioned wasn't to the degree he might of been aiming for, but at the same time more than most characters he's played, so it was more insane from his point of view. just my interpretation.
That's a fair point, as Redford's standard for misanthropy and insanity might have been lower than that of "harder" actors such as Marvin, Bronson, Eastwood, and McQueen. In the end, it's all relative, I suppose.
reply
share
suicidea
17 years ago
On the DVD Redford states his love for outdoor life and concludes, "This is living. city life is merely existing." Which at first may seem to be in contrast with his statements you mentioned. but I believe he just means putting a certain distance between you and the society, or city life, rat race, whatever you call it. There'a a not-so-fine line between living a quiet, secluded life and living all alone in the mountains. I think that's what he means by "I'm not like Jeremiah."
The makers, including Redford may have wished it to imply a warning message perhaps, but as a viewer I found nothing of that sort. Whatever Johnson went through was depicted as a natural outcome of his choices. Which isn't bad at all. A line from the movie, which is my and probably everyone's favorite ,sums it up pretty well: When Bear Claw asks him "Was it worth all the trouble?" he simply replies, "What trouble?"
Thanks for the translation and this nice discussion.
Never be complete.
reply
share
oscarflix
16 years ago
I believe I've heard Redford say that Jeremiah Johnson is his favorite movie he's made.
reply
share
DaVooz
16 years ago
@oscarflix - He did? "I believe I've heard Redford say that Jeremiah Johnson is his favorite movie he's made."
It certainly is one of my favorite films of all time. Will read the whole thread later, but I didn't find it 'romantic' at all. Rather dark and awful. Failing in finding peace of mind in solitude. The beautiful nature in contrast with human's behavior.
Jeremiah Johnson the DVD has nice extra's. I'm sure you all know.
Anyone saw "The Last Trapper"? Same subject. As "Le dernier trappeur (2004, Nicolas Vanier) listed here on IMDb.
reply
share