There was never an argument that Robert Redford was one of the greatest actors this side of the Pecos. Don’t get me wrong; no one, surely, is saying he was on a level with Keanu Reeves. But does it matter? Did Redford somehow transcend standard definitions of acting artistry?

What we can agree upon, however, was that the Sundance Kid excelled in roles in which he wasn’t called to emote to any great extent. The Texas-born, Los Angeles-raised actor was all too often cast as the smouldering type, the contained, the laid back . . . and if he had to appear angry he’d get Newman or Hoffman – or Jane Fonda – to do it for him.

But did the blond actor understand implicitly the value of silence, or did he appreciate that facial tics, contortions, grimaces and deep groans were not his way? Back in 1962, Redford appeared in a film called Nothing in the Dark, in which he essentially played the Grim Reaper opposite Gladys Cooper. The young actor was praised for his performance at the time, playing his part in a way that could have been exaggerated. Instead, he chose the subtle route instead, understanding that death should be quiet. Or did he? Did the director steer him in this direction, or did he himself realise that if you can’t surf a wild wave then it’s best taking out a pedalo?

Did Redford make a habit of choosing the films he felt were within his range? He rejected Virginia Woolf and The Graduate, and was on fairly safe ground with Barefoot In The Park, and with Butch and Sundance, (with Newman doing the heavy........

© Herald Scotland