Redford miscast for lead role?

36 year olds looked more like today's 48 year olds back in 1905, haha.

I remember on his radio show, Bob Costas interviewed Barry Levinson about The Natural. Costas did ask Levinson if Robert Redford, being that he was in his mid-to-late 40s at the time (even though the the Roy Hobbs story is mostly about "lost youth") was perhaps "too old" to plausibly play a Major Leaguer. If I remember correctly, Levinson was aware of that (I don't find a 40 something year old man being able to play baseball at a high level still, that far fetched, since Nolan Ryan was able to do that in real life) but he theorized that most ballplayers from that era looked more "mature" anyway because of always playing under the sun (and presumably, not being as well conditioned as modern players).

He was cast, because he was Robert Frickin Redford...and at the time, he picked what movies he wanted to be the star of, oftentimes producing and/or directing them as well. A modern-day equivalent would be Tom Cruise.

While I agree with the other posters that he was pretty much too old at this point, even to play an aging ballplayer, it is also kinda hard to think of anyone else in that role.

The beginning of the movie in particular when he and Glenn Close were supposed to be teenagers, they used ample shadowing and frosty camera lenses, and it was still pretty laughable.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

I'm going to comment on Redford's casting, but first I need to go on a bit of a detour.

I'm no sports fan, but this is probably my favorite movie of all time, which is saying a lot.

I had never read the book when I saw the movie, but heard that the book was much darker, and the Hobbs character more morally ambiguous. Because I loved this movie so much, I actively avoided reading the book, afraid that it would ruin the movie for me.

In 1996, I was visiting my mom. In my late step-father's bookcase was a paperback copy of "The Natural". Being a bedtime reader and not having brought a book with me, the temptation was too much. I read it.

And what I came away with was a greater appreciation for just how good a job was done adapting the book to film, but not because the movie was true to the book. On the contrary.

I found the book to be so-so. The characters were too ‘grey’ for my taste; their motivations were forced in service to the story or unclear. The film adaptation snapped all those characters (some of whom were combined, eliminated, or wholly new) into much sharper focus. All the best dialog in the movie, frankly, was lifted out of the book, though sometimes put into different contexts or different characters’ mouths; again, part of the genius of the adaptation.

This is one of the rare cases (imho) where the film adaptation is actually far superior to the book. But to get to the question of casting a ‘smart’ Redford as the ‘dim’ Hobbs in the book… I think that was part of the genius of the adaptation, and part of what makes the movie a better story (as Max Mercy might say). The characters’ motivations and natures are all sharper and more understandable in the film. And part of that adaptation was making the characters smarter.

PS: I concur that expecting Redford to play the teenage Hobbs is asking a bit much of the viewer, but he did act some great baseball.

In a word NO he wasn't. Parts don't require exactitude. Now would it make sense to give Bieber the lead in the Babe Ruth story...no it would not.
Redford was fine. The most important thing was a sweet swing not his skin or eyelids or whatever superficial characteristic one could cite. If he couldn't be fairly believable with his Roy Hobbs ability to hit than all would be lost.

Kisskiss, Bangbang