Come on, really? Redford was knocking on 50 in 1984. I really couldn't buy those early scenes when he's meant to be 20; it really took me out of the film. Yes, Redford is a youthful looking guy and could easily get away with playing Hobbs aged 36. But the early scenes are laughable.
sharethe change (or lack of) after 16 years made me laugh
shareI disagree, OP. For one, the part of the movie with Redford at 20 lasted not much more than 10 minutes, so I think we should be forgiving. And anyway, I think they did a remarkable did -- he looks very fresh and youthful in those scenes, and there is a stark contrast between them and when he walks in 16 years later.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c
I actually agree with the OP. Not a big deal in the broader picture of the film, but one of the few weaknesses of the film. Frankly, Glen Close doesn't look all that believable for the age of her character in the early part of the film, either.
They probably should've just cast unknown young actors in those early scenes of the film, but oh, well.
I agree. It was silly. He wasn't 20 for very long in the film. They could have afforded to cast a nobody for that brief period. Somebody like a Brad Pitt back in 1984 would've been perfect. It looked like Hobbs was suffering from an extreme case of progeria.
shareActually...I was thinking about this too...
This is how they seemed to deal with it.
In the youthful shots I don't remember any closeups; most of the shots are pretty far away.
Also their body language is almost choreographed as young teens/man/woman.
They move quickly with excitement and circle around each other quite a few times...and when they apparently conceive the child, the fade out is also done in profile, from a distance.
Whether this works or not is each person's opinion, but it was one good way to solve a hard situation. Glenn Close is beautiful and has her own special diction, but a younger girl could have been found for her; not really necessary at the time of the film; she still was beautiful, but women looked like women quite earlier then, seems to me.
Redford's movements and diction are hard to reproduce in a younger man. They probably shot with a filter and he was a professional enough actor to save his close ups for his older years. (not to insist on them, anyway.)
I think one thing that makes what they did more forgivable was that back in the time this took place in people looked older than they really were so it didn't look that far fetched
shareAs ruffian82 pointed out, the scenes where they're younger are shot very differently than the rest of the movie. The shots are poorly lit, shot from faraway, as if it was shot through gauze or with vaseline on the lens so as not to show their age. You are actually imposing your knowledge that Redford and Close are much older on the images you're watching.
If you rewatch it again after reading this, you'll see that they take great care in the filming technique not to show that the actors are actually much older than their characters.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
They needed to use Redford for the younger stage bec they needed to still tie him to older Roy like Max's recollection of him.
shareSuspension of Disbelief is very key throughout this film. It is a fable. And, since that is the theme of the whole movie, it didn't bother me nearly as much as the hilarious early moments of "The Pride of the Yankees" with Gary Cooper and the others trying to be college students.
shareI felt it worked!! Redford is the very definition of All American 🇺🇸
share