MovieChat Forums > Jeremiah Johnson (1972) Discussion > Redford's Performance Is Good 'n' All, B...

Redford's Performance Is Good 'n' All, But...


...watching the movie again after many years I am struck by how pretty his hair always looks and how neatly trimmed his beard is. I don't think the hair on your typical mountain man looked quite like that. I think it's high time for an "unexpurgated" re-telling of the legend of "Liver Eating Johnson"... maybe starring Billy Bob Thornton?

reply

Naw, forget Billy Bob. Beyond what I think of Billy Bob, Johnson was a young man...he's way to old for the part.

But you know, there are just some movies that shouldn't be remade. This is one of them. I have it on VHS and now on DVD, and I pull it out at least once every 6 months and watch it again. It still holds the same magic it did for me the first time I watched it as a kid.

reply

This movie does have character that couldn't be remade, but I think a more historically correct version would make a great film.

reply

Well, the Jeremiah Johnson character was based on a few different legends out there.

I would definately like to see a nicely done historic account of any Mountain Man, but I cringe at the thought of a remake of this classic.

"Good Day. I said Good Day." -- Fez

reply

...watching the movie again after many years I am struck by how pretty his hair always looks and how neatly trimmed his beard is. I don't think the hair on your typical mountain man looked quite like that.


I thought that Redford did a solid job and we know that he loves the outdoors, but the harder Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, or Steve McQueen would have been more akin to a "mountain man" by nature.

reply

..Liking it or not,dnt u think tht Marvin n Bronson,being the "2nd rate actors" they were(dnt get me wrong,i LOVE them both..),they WOULDNT have given the film the appeal Redford's presence did? (..Eastwood?..the movie wanted to present us with a "loveable" Johnson...who would "love" Eastwood....we all like him,but would we "love" him :-)
(Mc Queen?..a "Jeremiah" with a Ford Mustang on the mountain range?nahhhhhh)(..or how else would Mc Queen would be on it,if he didnt have to drive :-) (n the only "mustang horsepower" in the film,IS and SHOULD be 4 legged........;-)

reply

..Liking it or not,dnt u think tht Marvin n Bronson,being the "2nd rate actors" they were(dnt get me wrong,i LOVE them both..),they WOULDNT have given the film the appeal Redford's presence did?


True, the film would not have been as big of a hit with the grizzled Marvin or Bronson instead of the romantic Redford.

(..Eastwood?..the movie wanted to present us with a "loveable" Johnson...who would "love" Eastwood....we all like him,but would we "love" him :-)


Yes, for Sydney Pollack's romantic vision and moralistic ethos, Redford was a better choice. Eastwood would have been a superior fit for a harder director such as Sam Peckinpah, mentor Don Siegel, or Eastwood himself.

reply

I think Redford himself originated the project and nursed it to the screen. He wanted to express his own affection for the outdoors and certain Western legends -- and he wanted to undo his "pretty boy" reputation by growing a beard and playing many hard, brutal scenes.

I think it worked fairly well -- though he is clearly visibly Robert Redford under all that hair (and certainly his clean-shaven self in the film's opening scene: its like he's making sure we know he's IN the movie before he grows all that hair.)

The other guys would have been more believably tough, but Redford had something to prove, and I think he did. He continued in this vein as he let his face naturally sun-age and wrinkle in his older years. Primed to be Cary Grant, he morphed a bit into Spencer Tracy.

reply

I respect Redford for wanting to have this film made but he was miscast as a mountain man and frankly many other actors like those mentioned would have been as good or probably better in the lead role. They would have at least looked more the part and it WAS mostly a non-speaking role. It could be seen as sort of a vanity project for Redford; yet I realize like Tom Cruise (sorry but he comes to mind in a way as a similar actor) the name is box-office. Don't get me wrong I like Redford just thought he did better work in The Natural, Butch Cassidy, The Sting, etc.

Yeah when Redford first appeared at the riverboat landing all clean-shaven and looking like a Star my first reaction was Robert Redford movie star instead of Jeremiah Johnson, mountain-man newbie. Later after he returned to Swan and the cabin clean-shaven all you saw was pretty boy Redford.

I know, don't hate me because I'm beautiful .... (<:

reply

I thought Redford suited the role just fine. With a tough guy, there wouldn't be the humor, one of my favorite aspects of this movie. When Johnson berates his new wife for praying and then sees her naked and says "Lord," makes me smile every time. Redford embodies the tough but sensitive guy ("Do you ever get lonesome?"). Can't imagine Eastwood saying that.

And I'm not sure those other guys would be able to be as physical as Redford was. He was really in shape for this movie. He was handsome back then, but with the beard not so noticeable, and he was new to being a mountain man, so I don't think he should have looked too weathered in the beginning anyway.

reply

Yeah I will grant you that the character in the movie was supposed to be new to this mountain man thing, and we witness the growth of him from neophyte learning the ropes to seasoned veteran.

reply

Good Points about the casting. The overview page states that the Johnson role was originally offered to Eastwood. Hard to think of any other frontline actor of the time who would have been a better choice than Redford. How about Al Pacino - he had a nifty beard in Serpico? I can hear his line to Will Geer as he plants a wet one on him - "I knew it was you, Bear Claw."

reply