About 10 seconds after I heard they were going to make it, I could not wait to see the Coen Bros’ version of True Grit. I mean, where do they get off trying to re-tell this classic old west story? Would we dream of “remaking” Hamlet, for example, or retell the story of Dickens’ “Christmas Carol?” Would we ever want to hear anyone but Frank Sinatra do a rendition of "New York, New York?" That's right, I didn't think so.
True Grit was one of my favorite movies of all time – in fact I think it was my first favorite – when it was first showing, I must have seen it ten times or more at the drive-in. I can sing the opening song with Brother Campbell and I know virtually every word of the script, even today, forty-five years later.
But with the movie-making pedigree of the Coens and the cast they assembled for this go-round, I’ve been waiting with some degree of high anticipation for about the last year. They played me like a trophy bass, letting it be known this would be a new version of the book’s story, not a remake of that other movie; how it would be “darker” and how it would make a star out of its young heroine. I wish I could say I had been skeptical, because I know in my heart of hearts that there is and only ever will be one Duke.
But somehow I knew that everything they said would be true. I mean, it is the Coens, right? I think it is important to recognize that most of the dialogue in the first film was taken word for word from the book, so when you hear those same words in the new film, that does not mean they “copied” the earlier film. Oh, it looks similar, but how could it not; it is a very clearly-defined narrative. You couldn't move the scene of the action to New York City and still call it “True Grit,” now could you? That said, the physical settings of these two films couldn't be more different - with the Coen Brothers version the more faithful to the novel's actual locales.
Some of what I thought I would miss – the incomparable John Wayne playing a mixture of Charles Portis’ Rooster Cogburn and himself. I knew I would miss the gorgeous scenery of Colorado’s San Juan Mountains and I wondered how anyone could “shade” Kim Darby’s portrayal of Mattie Ross. I’ve been in love with Kim Darby’s Mattie Ross ever since 1969; this would be a problem except that Ms. Darby was twenty-one when she played the role of a fourteen year old – and it wasn’t the fourteen year old with whom I fell in love. I'm just sayin'.
Several weeks ago, I checked out the book, which I had never read, to see how the original screenplay matched up with it. It was close. Not everything that was told in the story was in the 1969 film, but everything that was fit the spirit of the book. Some of the book background that was omitted from the '69 movie was later utilized in the "Rooster Cogburn" sequel (which was a stinker, unfortunately).
The original film changed the book’s ending in some significant ways. Discovering this upon reading it, I found I liked Portis’ ending better (go figure), so I was hoping the new film would stay closer to the book in that regard. I don’t know why it was changed in the first movie, but you know how Hollywood is; they would change a film version of the gospel books if they thought God wasn’t looking – or maybe even if He was.
So, having gone early on opening day to beat the crowd that never showed up, I was first into the theater that evening to enjoy the fruits of the Coen’s efforts and to get my many questions answered. I won’t keep you in suspense any longer, it is a bang-up job. I love the film. Of course, I am easy; I love westerns and I am on a first-name basis with this story. The cinematography is magnificent, this film is so beautifully photographed it takes your breath away (just like the original version). The casting is inspired.
True Grit, 2010, begins with a written quote from the book. The quote is explained in the book, but not as specifically in the film. The camera opens on the body of Frank Ross lying dead near a Fort Smith saloon step and his murderer Tom Chaney galloping past on Ross’ horse as he leaves town ahead of an anticipated posse that will never ride.
The Coen’s film is more authentic, both in setting and character, when compared to the earlier film. In the end, I think this is what will clinch all honors and loyalties. It's gritty. It's mean. And it’s ugly. While the scenery in the 1969 film is magnificent and worthy of the accompanying Elmer Bernstein score, this one was filmed very near the country where the story actually takes place. The settings look like they are filmed in southern Oklahoma. In this film, the musical score is less emblematic of the scenery as was Bernstein's, but instead informs the theme of righteousness and right, in the form of quiet hymns and religious anthems.
Completely unconnected perhaps (since he had nothing directly to do with the original True Grit), but the framing in this film is reminiscent of many of the western films by John Ford. This film was magnificently captured. And as I said, it is more authentic in terms of place – and which I always find important. Henry Hathaway's version, in contrast, is high Hollywood art, in cinematography and in soundtrack, representative of the movie entertainment of its times, but disconnected in some very tangible ways from Charles Portis' story.
Hailee Steinfeld’s portrayal of the heroine is spot on – she is close to the age Mattie is in the story – and now that I have seen a real fourteen year-old in the role, the differences in having a twenty-one year old play that role become more apparent; when you see a close up of her very young features, there is no mistaking her age. She still looks like a girl (as she in fact was, in the story). She does as well with the stilted dialogue as Kim Darby did (stilted to our 21st century ears, anyway), maybe even handled it a bit more naturally. I could and would say she steals the show, except that would be doing a disservice to Jeff Bridges.
One of the things I looked forward to most was to see Jeff Bridges take on John Wayne’s plum role. I figured he would be dynamite and I was correct. I cannot take much credit for the good guess – as he is one of the best actors around. I really would like to hear Charles Portis weigh in on this one – I wonder if the author of the story thinks that Bridges’ portrayal of Rooster is closer to what he had in mind when he wrote it. John Wayne “played” a drunk frontier U.S. marshal; but Jeff Bridges is Rooster Cogburn, drunk, down and dirty. Bridges’ Rooster is less competent, as a drunk would be. He isn’t as “pretty.” He’s nowhere near as lovable. If we know nothing of the story except for this film, until he rides down the outlaws in the final gun battle, we’re not really sure whether he can; up to then he’s been as fumblingly ineffective as often as he’s been otherwise. In the original film, you knew from the very first time you saw him that Duke's Rooster Cogburn was dangerously competent.
The new Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) is also closer to the dim-witted malevolence of what he was in Portis’ imagination, at least the way I read it. His is a truer portrayal in terms of age as well – Chaney was a younger man than he was as played by Jeff Corey.
In the end, 2010 movie version, Mattie reflects back on the adventure and goes to see Rooster one last time. She’s about forty by that time, a spinster and still as primly straightforward as ever. I am happy to say this film’s ending very closely mirrors the book, and in fact Mattie's ending narration in the Coen's film quotes the last lines of the book.
Both stories follow the book fairly closely throughout, but as you might expect, the late edition's makers chose some scenes to portray from the book that the original film did not. They too, deviated from Portis' narrative in a couple of places, as Henry Hathaway did in 1969 and they added a couple of (different) things from their own imaginations, but nothing that takes away from the story.
One of the major differences between the two portrayals is the gunfight at the dugout – it is nowhere close in this film to the way it was originally filmed; everything seems to be from a different angle. There are also some differences in the roles of the outlaw characters, although all the names are used. I have heard people say this film is not as “funny” as was the original film. I did not find that to be true – there is humor in this film as well, although it is of a darker shade – not as good-natured.
Those familiar with the book or the original film will recognize one or both in this new version. My intimacy with the ’69 film and my love for the original characters colors my perceptions very strongly, and I will always love that film. The magnificence of the camera-work (in a scenic sense), coupled with the beauty of the Elmer Bernstein score, will always take my breath away. I seriously doubt any of Jeff Bridges' "Rooster quotes" will ever become part and parcel of my everyday lexicon, as did some of the gems that the Duke uttered back in '69. But as a telling of Portis' story, I think the Coens have done the best job of being true to the characters, the scenery and the flavor and tone of it all.
I think Jeff Bridges’ portrayal of Rooster Cogburn was Oscar-worthy. Ignoring this film as they did makes me wonder just how relevant the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has become and it isn’t the first time that thought has occurred to me. But, at least they did nominate the film in multiple categories and it was up against some stiff competition. Both of these films, as well as a copy of the book, now rest on my bookshelves.
 |
| Rooster's Charge filming location - True Grit - 1969 |
About 10 seconds after I heard they were going to make it, I could not wait to see the Coen Bros’ version of True Grit. I mean, where do they get off trying to re-tell this classic old west story? Would we dream of “remaking” Hamlet, for example, or retell the story of Dickens’ “Christmas Carol?” Would we ever want to hear anyone but Frank Sinatra do a rendition of "New York, New York?" That's right, I didn't think so.
True Grit was one of my favorite movies of all time – in fact I think it was my first favorite – when it was first showing, I must have seen it ten times or more at the drive-in. I can sing the opening song with Brother Campbell and I know virtually every word of the script, even today, forty-five years later.
But with the movie-making pedigree of the Coens and the cast they assembled for this go-round, I’ve been waiting with some degree of high anticipation for about the last year. They played me like a trophy bass, letting it be known this would be a new version of the book’s story, not a remake of that other movie; how it would be “darker” and how it would make a star out of its young heroine. I wish I could say I had been skeptical, because I know in my heart of hearts that there is and only ever will be one Duke.
But somehow I knew that everything they said would be true. I mean, it is the Coens, right? I think it is important to recognize that most of the dialogue in the first film was taken word for word from the book, so when you hear those same words in the new film, that does not mean they “copied” the earlier film. Oh, it looks similar, but how could it not; it is a very clearly-defined narrative. You couldn't move the scene of the action to New York City and still call it “True Grit,” now could you? That said, the physical settings of these two films couldn't be more different - with the Coen Brothers version the more faithful to the novel's actual locales.
Some of what I thought I would miss – the incomparable John Wayne playing a mixture of Charles Portis’ Rooster Cogburn and himself. I knew I would miss the gorgeous scenery of Colorado’s San Juan Mountains and I wondered how anyone could “shade” Kim Darby’s portrayal of Mattie Ross. I’ve been in love with Kim Darby’s Mattie Ross ever since 1969; this would be a problem except that Ms. Darby was twenty-one when she played the role of a fourteen year old – and it wasn’t the fourteen year old with whom I fell in love. I'm just sayin'.
Several weeks ago, I checked out the book, which I had never read, to see how the original screenplay matched up with it. It was close. Not everything that was told in the story was in the 1969 film, but everything that was fit the spirit of the book. Some of the book background that was omitted from the '69 movie was later utilized in the "Rooster Cogburn" sequel (which was a stinker, unfortunately).
The original film changed the book’s ending in some significant ways. Discovering this upon reading it, I found I liked Portis’ ending better (go figure), so I was hoping the new film would stay closer to the book in that regard. I don’t know why it was changed in the first movie, but you know how Hollywood is; they would change a film version of the gospel books if they thought God wasn’t looking – or maybe even if He was.
So, having gone early on opening day to beat the crowd that never showed up, I was first into the theater that evening to enjoy the fruits of the Coen’s efforts and to get my many questions answered. I won’t keep you in suspense any longer, it is a bang-up job. I love the film. Of course, I am easy; I love westerns and I am on a first-name basis with this story. The cinematography is magnificent, this film is so beautifully photographed it takes your breath away (just like the original version). The casting is inspired.
True Grit, 2010, begins with a written quote from the book. The quote is explained in the book, but not as specifically in the film. The camera opens on the body of Frank Ross lying dead near a Fort Smith saloon step and his murderer Tom Chaney galloping past on Ross’ horse as he leaves town ahead of an anticipated posse that will never ride.
The Coen’s film is more authentic, both in setting and character, when compared to the earlier film. In the end, I think this is what will clinch all honors and loyalties. It's gritty. It's mean. And it’s ugly. While the scenery in the 1969 film is magnificent and worthy of the accompanying Elmer Bernstein score, this one was filmed very near the country where the story actually takes place. The settings look like they are filmed in southern Oklahoma. In this film, the musical score is less emblematic of the scenery as was Bernstein's, but instead informs the theme of righteousness and right, in the form of quiet hymns and religious anthems.
Completely unconnected perhaps (since he had nothing directly to do with the original True Grit), but the framing in this film is reminiscent of many of the western films by John Ford. This film was magnificently captured. And as I said, it is more authentic in terms of place – and which I always find important. Henry Hathaway's version, in contrast, is high Hollywood art, in cinematography and in soundtrack, representative of the movie entertainment of its times, but disconnected in some very tangible ways from Charles Portis' story.
Hailee Steinfeld’s portrayal of the heroine is spot on – she is close to the age Mattie is in the story – and now that I have seen a real fourteen year-old in the role, the differences in having a twenty-one year old play that role become more apparent; when you see a close up of her very young features, there is no mistaking her age. She still looks like a girl (as she in fact was, in the story). She does as well with the stilted dialogue as Kim Darby did (stilted to our 21st century ears, anyway), maybe even handled it a bit more naturally. I could and would say she steals the show, except that would be doing a disservice to Jeff Bridges.
One of the things I looked forward to most was to see Jeff Bridges take on John Wayne’s plum role. I figured he would be dynamite and I was correct. I cannot take much credit for the good guess – as he is one of the best actors around. I really would like to hear Charles Portis weigh in on this one – I wonder if the author of the story thinks that Bridges’ portrayal of Rooster is closer to what he had in mind when he wrote it. John Wayne “played” a drunk frontier U.S. marshal; but Jeff Bridges is Rooster Cogburn, drunk, down and dirty. Bridges’ Rooster is less competent, as a drunk would be. He isn’t as “pretty.” He’s nowhere near as lovable. If we know nothing of the story except for this film, until he rides down the outlaws in the final gun battle, we’re not really sure whether he can; up to then he’s been as fumblingly ineffective as often as he’s been otherwise. In the original film, you knew from the very first time you saw him that Duke's Rooster Cogburn was dangerously competent.
The new Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) is also closer to the dim-witted malevolence of what he was in Portis’ imagination, at least the way I read it. His is a truer portrayal in terms of age as well – Chaney was a younger man than he was as played by Jeff Corey.
In the end, 2010 movie version, Mattie reflects back on the adventure and goes to see Rooster one last time. She’s about forty by that time, a spinster and still as primly straightforward as ever. I am happy to say this film’s ending very closely mirrors the book, and in fact Mattie's ending narration in the Coen's film quotes the last lines of the book.
Both stories follow the book fairly closely throughout, but as you might expect, the late edition's makers chose some scenes to portray from the book that the original film did not. They too, deviated from Portis' narrative in a couple of places, as Henry Hathaway did in 1969 and they added a couple of (different) things from their own imaginations, but nothing that takes away from the story.
One of the major differences between the two portrayals is the gunfight at the dugout – it is nowhere close in this film to the way it was originally filmed; everything seems to be from a different angle. There are also some differences in the roles of the outlaw characters, although all the names are used. I have heard people say this film is not as “funny” as was the original film. I did not find that to be true – there is humor in this film as well, although it is of a darker shade – not as good-natured.
Those familiar with the book or the original film will recognize one or both in this new version. My intimacy with the ’69 film and my love for the original characters colors my perceptions very strongly, and I will always love that film. The magnificence of the camera-work (in a scenic sense), coupled with the beauty of the Elmer Bernstein score, will always take my breath away. I seriously doubt any of Jeff Bridges' "Rooster quotes" will ever become part and parcel of my everyday lexicon, as did some of the gems that the Duke uttered back in '69. But as a telling of Portis' story, I think the Coens have done the best job of being true to the characters, the scenery and the flavor and tone of it all.
I think Jeff Bridges’ portrayal of Rooster Cogburn was Oscar-worthy. Ignoring this film as they did makes me wonder just how relevant the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has become and it isn’t the first time that thought has occurred to me. But, at least they did nominate the film in multiple categories and it was up against some stiff competition. Both of these films, as well as a copy of the book, now rest on my bookshelves.
No comments:
Post a Comment