“While I sat there watchin' I gave some thought to stealin' a kiss... though you are very young, and sick... and unattractive to boot. But now I have a mind to give you five or six good licks with my belt.”
-Matt Damon, as himself, with a fourteen-year-old girl
“What…what’s with this music? It’s…so upbeat. What the hell, didn’t her dad just get shot?”
-A buddy of mine, who lasted thirty minutes through the 1969 version before leaving tohang himself start a bar fight watch “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”
“Bridges doesn't have the archetypal stature of the Duke. Few ever have. But he has here, I believe, an equal screen presence. We always knew we were looking at John Wayne in the original “True Grit” (1969). When we see Rooster Cogburn in this version, we're not thinking about Jeff Bridges.”
-Roger Ebert, discussing the 2010 version
“With dazzling performances by Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, awe-inspiring cinematography and the Coens' trademark moral paradoxes, it's sweet nostalgia, subtly shaded with melancholy and peppered with dashes of black satire.”
-Colin Covert, StarTribune.com
“The original western won John Wayne a puzzling and undeserved Oscar for finally falling off his horse. Don't expect the same miracle for Jeff Bridges. In the numbing hands of pretentious filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen, history does not repeat itself in any way whatsoever.”
-Rex Reed, The New York Observer
Don’t get me wrong. The Duke was, is, and will always be a national treasure. But in that film, as that character, he was still the Duke. A character actor he was not. When you watch the 1969 film, it basically amounts to John Wayne babysitting. When you watch the 2010 version, you don’t see the Duke babysitting, or even the Dude babysitting. You see U.S. Marshall (and one-eyed fat man) Rooster Cogburn…babysitting.
I managed to catch the original “True Grit” the night before I went out to see the new version by the Coen brothers. I will start out by saying that I am nowhere near qualified to review anything made before the 1970’s, and the John Wayne version falls into that category. The 1969 film, made in response to the novel published barely a year before, is a very sugarcoated affair, and even for its time it was a throwback to more adventurous, idealistic Westerns. It featured John Wayne in one of his hammier roles, co-starring with a “girl” old enough to have kids of her own. Glen Campbell rounded out the trio as the Texas Ranger who kept getting killed. (Chuck Norris would have been disappointed.)
Again, I am nowhere near qualified to review a John Wayne film. But I made the mistake of watching it with a friend of mine, who thought Kim Darby looked too much like Justin Bieber, and kept yelling at her to stop playing a mannequin and start acting. After noting the use of actual food in the dinner scenes and commenting on how Mattie’s dad was killed “in the least dignified way possible,” he gave up watching before the leads had even left town.
John Wayne’s take on Rooster Cogburn benefits from the grandfatherly aura of the Duke. For better or worse, his Federal Marshall is a clean-cut caretaker with a calm, somewhat reassuring tone. Much in the same way that Steven Seagal’s sole strength as an actor is his ability to play a convincing thug, the Duke is, well, the Duke. And kids just love the Duke! After all, he went on to star in “The Cowboys,” where he got to work with a younger cast and helped a group of schoolboys become (spoiler alert!) real cowboys.
The 1969 version, however, suffers from being just another Western. It’s a straight-up action flick where we get stuck with this wide-eyedtwenty fourteen-year-old girl trying to recruit a hardened bounty hunter to go after her father’s killer. And the hardened bounty hunter gets stuck with her for the whole trip. Supposedly, this fourteen-year-old girl who looks twice her age is supposed to be the main character. Unfortunately, she is also the damsel in distress. Frankly, it’s like making Curious George the main character in a Bond film. It just doesn’t work. (Speaking of which, I look forward to the new Bond film.)
Many would say the 2010 version benefits from being more “character-driven” and “darker” than the original. Personally, I would say it benefits from being produced, written, and directed by the freaking Coen brothers. Whether or not you find their take to be a faithful adaptation, they have a knack for dark humor and character focus over what I like to call “shoot-‘em-up, team-‘em-up, and just for good measure blow-‘em-up” movies. This time around, thethirteen fourteen-year-old girl trying to recruit a hardened bounty hunter is given a steely resolve by Hailee Steinfeld, who is less Curious George and more a girl on a mission to find her father’s killer and make him pay.
Our hardened bounty hunter is less a hammed-up John Wayne and more of the grizzled, graying, ominous character played by Jeff Bridges. The focus is, therefore, less on John Wayne getting drunk and falling off his horse, and more on a “hero” with some serious flaws when it comes to dealing with others. With matter-of-fact, darkly funny dialogue supplied by the Coens (i.e. “That did not go as planned.”), Bridges takes the character and makes it his own. Matt Damon rounds out the trio as that Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.
Both versions benefit from a deconstruction of your average Western “shoot-‘em-up, beat-‘em-up,” etc. While John Wayne’s version is a lighter affair, Version 2.0 is a much more hardened movie (with narration provided by an aged Mattie). Beyond this shift in tone, though, the overall message is much the same. Revenge is simply a tough thing to come by in the old West, whether you’re a farm girl who’s never fired a gun in her life, or just a “one-eyed fat man” falling off his horse. And revenge is especially a tough thing to come by in the old West if you’re a Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.
Of the two, I would say the 2010 version is better. The lead actors alone blow the John Wayne version out of the water. But then, that’s nothing to be surprised about. The original was a strictly genre work, with a cartoon character of a female lead who ends up killing the pacing (that is, if my buddy has anything to say about it). The new version…is written by the Coens. Enough said.
Note: The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who finally managed to review something from this year…what? It was made in December? Damn it anyway, Brewsky.
-Matt Damon, as himself, with a fourteen-year-old girl
“What…what’s with this music? It’s…so upbeat. What the hell, didn’t her dad just get shot?”
-A buddy of mine, who lasted thirty minutes through the 1969 version before leaving to
“Bridges doesn't have the archetypal stature of the Duke. Few ever have. But he has here, I believe, an equal screen presence. We always knew we were looking at John Wayne in the original “True Grit” (1969). When we see Rooster Cogburn in this version, we're not thinking about Jeff Bridges.”
-Roger Ebert, discussing the 2010 version
“With dazzling performances by Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, awe-inspiring cinematography and the Coens' trademark moral paradoxes, it's sweet nostalgia, subtly shaded with melancholy and peppered with dashes of black satire.”
-Colin Covert, StarTribune.com
“The original western won John Wayne a puzzling and undeserved Oscar for finally falling off his horse. Don't expect the same miracle for Jeff Bridges. In the numbing hands of pretentious filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen, history does not repeat itself in any way whatsoever.”
-Rex Reed, The New York Observer
Don’t get me wrong. The Duke was, is, and will always be a national treasure. But in that film, as that character, he was still the Duke. A character actor he was not. When you watch the 1969 film, it basically amounts to John Wayne babysitting. When you watch the 2010 version, you don’t see the Duke babysitting, or even the Dude babysitting. You see U.S. Marshall (and one-eyed fat man) Rooster Cogburn…babysitting.
I managed to catch the original “True Grit” the night before I went out to see the new version by the Coen brothers. I will start out by saying that I am nowhere near qualified to review anything made before the 1970’s, and the John Wayne version falls into that category. The 1969 film, made in response to the novel published barely a year before, is a very sugarcoated affair, and even for its time it was a throwback to more adventurous, idealistic Westerns. It featured John Wayne in one of his hammier roles, co-starring with a “girl” old enough to have kids of her own. Glen Campbell rounded out the trio as the Texas Ranger who kept getting killed. (Chuck Norris would have been disappointed.)
Again, I am nowhere near qualified to review a John Wayne film. But I made the mistake of watching it with a friend of mine, who thought Kim Darby looked too much like Justin Bieber, and kept yelling at her to stop playing a mannequin and start acting. After noting the use of actual food in the dinner scenes and commenting on how Mattie’s dad was killed “in the least dignified way possible,” he gave up watching before the leads had even left town.
John Wayne’s take on Rooster Cogburn benefits from the grandfatherly aura of the Duke. For better or worse, his Federal Marshall is a clean-cut caretaker with a calm, somewhat reassuring tone. Much in the same way that Steven Seagal’s sole strength as an actor is his ability to play a convincing thug, the Duke is, well, the Duke. And kids just love the Duke! After all, he went on to star in “The Cowboys,” where he got to work with a younger cast and helped a group of schoolboys become (spoiler alert!) real cowboys.
The 1969 version, however, suffers from being just another Western. It’s a straight-up action flick where we get stuck with this wide-eyed
Many would say the 2010 version benefits from being more “character-driven” and “darker” than the original. Personally, I would say it benefits from being produced, written, and directed by the freaking Coen brothers. Whether or not you find their take to be a faithful adaptation, they have a knack for dark humor and character focus over what I like to call “shoot-‘em-up, team-‘em-up, and just for good measure blow-‘em-up” movies. This time around, the
Our hardened bounty hunter is less a hammed-up John Wayne and more of the grizzled, graying, ominous character played by Jeff Bridges. The focus is, therefore, less on John Wayne getting drunk and falling off his horse, and more on a “hero” with some serious flaws when it comes to dealing with others. With matter-of-fact, darkly funny dialogue supplied by the Coens (i.e. “That did not go as planned.”), Bridges takes the character and makes it his own. Matt Damon rounds out the trio as that Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.
Both versions benefit from a deconstruction of your average Western “shoot-‘em-up, beat-‘em-up,” etc. While John Wayne’s version is a lighter affair, Version 2.0 is a much more hardened movie (with narration provided by an aged Mattie). Beyond this shift in tone, though, the overall message is much the same. Revenge is simply a tough thing to come by in the old West, whether you’re a farm girl who’s never fired a gun in her life, or just a “one-eyed fat man” falling off his horse. And revenge is especially a tough thing to come by in the old West if you’re a Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.
Of the two, I would say the 2010 version is better. The lead actors alone blow the John Wayne version out of the water. But then, that’s nothing to be surprised about. The original was a strictly genre work, with a cartoon character of a female lead who ends up killing the pacing (that is, if my buddy has anything to say about it). The new version…is written by the Coens. Enough said.
Note: The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who finally managed to review something from this year…what? It was made in December? Damn it anyway, Brewsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment