TRUE GRIT non-review

[thehefner]

The Coen Brothers' True Grit adaptation was a fine film, but I don't see what was so different from the original John Wayne film that justified the remake.

I suppose the best reason is that the new actress is superior (and the appropriate age for the character), but honestly, the original actress stopped being terrible once she started interacting with John Wayne. He's a character and actor who are both so great dynamic that he/they immediately force the other actors to step up their game. That said, I'm also torn between which Rooster Cogburn I preferred. Bridges is brilliant, but Wayne's was--Henchgirl and I decided--rather more cuddly in his gruff badassedness, which worked for the character.

Throughout the film, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching a rerun. It doesn't help that I'd seen the original recently, but that also made me more acutely aware of how similar--and thus, unnecessary--this celebrated remake seemed. But that's hardly a criticism that'll apply to everyone. Many (most?) people haven't seen the original, a possibility which almost always saddens me, even with the best remakes. I myself would probably not have seen it if the remake hadn't been coming out, so I guess I'm not one to talk, but it bugs me nonetheless.

Any further discussion about the film will go into SPOILERS territory, so I'll save that for the comments if anybody has thoughts of their own to share. If you've seen the remake, have you seen the original? If not, would you consider it? If you've seen the original and the remake, how do you think they compare?

Again, be warned: I plan to go full-on SPOILERS GALORE in the comments.

Comments

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

I have not seen it or the original. My younger sister got my old man, who is a huge john wayne fan, the original for christmas. I feel i would be better served just watching the original with my pop and having him randomly tell me fun and interesting side notes about the film.

I like watching old westerns with my dad. He has a quiet intensity when watching things he really likes that can be quite infectious.

i guess what i'm saying is that, even though I love the cohen brothers and i love jeff bridges, I already know this movie does not need to exist.

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

well, that and I love my dad.

my quiet, corduroy pants wearing, golf playing lawyer father who i am secretly so much like.

Damn it. why did it take me till i was in my mid 20s to realize i love my family?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Seeing the original adds extra weight to Jessie Custer and why he sees John Wayne as his idol.

Bridges is brilliant in the role, because Bridges is a brilliant actor. John Wayne was not a brilliant actor, but he was John Wayne, which is something unto itself. He doesn't move or speak like any other human being does. It's like he's drunk or brain-damaged, but in a purposeful, self-assured way that barely avoids the realm of "ridiculous" and lands him right on the side of "iconic."

Watching that guy play an older, fatter, drunker, less white-hat character was great unto itself, but imagining little Jessie Custer watching that character in that film... yeah, it makes a lot of sense.

[ievil-spock-47i.livejournal.com]

The Coen brother's version was better, because Jeff Bridges was the better actor. All the John Wayne did was a parody of his traditional movie character. Bridges actually acted.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

But Wayne's version--even if you think it's just John Wayne being John Wayne--served the character and worked in the film, regardless of him giving a performance that differs from his normal one. It fit the character of Rooster Cogburn. What did Bridges actually do with Rooster that was largely different?

[ievil-spock-47i.livejournal.com]

Well, were getting down to subjective taste, but let me say this:

Bridges didn't do a parody. He acted. For example, Shatner basically did the same thing in the Trek movies, he did a parody of Kirk because he didn't know how to make Kirk age.

It's the same thing.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Funny you mention Shatner, as that's who Henchgirl compared Wayne's "acting" style to. Thing is, she meant it favorably.

Because neither are good actors, but what they've done has been a joke for so long, and I'm not sure that's fair anymore. I used to make fun of Shatner without ever really seeing anything Shatner did, just as I did Wayne. Then what Shatner reemerged a few years ago, I started catching up, and Henchgirl's since shown me several episodes of TOS, and now I feel like I've got it. I love Shatner in all his Shatnerness. He's not a great actor, but he's a brilliant SHATNER, just as I think Wayne might possibly have been a brilliant WAYNE.

Even some better actors have a problem with actually acting: Jack Nicholson and Bill Murray come to mind. When they stroll on screen, they are instantly Jack Nicholson and Bill Murray. Wayne is the same, but a little less talented and a little more iconic, particularly with how not-quite-human his manner of speech and movement were. Much like Shatner.

So I dunno, I think Wayne may deserve a better shake these days. I'm starting to see a pattern of people who prefer the new True Grit mainly because they hate John Wayne. Speaking as someone who has yet to see more than three Wayne films (is three enough?) I think if you can try to divorce yourself of Wayne's overall career and focus on that film objectively, he does capture Rooster faithfully. Or at least, I saw the same spirit in him that I did in Bridges.

When watching Bridges, I never thought, "Oh, this blows Wayne out of the water!" I thought, "Hey, look, it's Rooster Cogburn again! Awesome!"

[ievil-spock-47i.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you say about Shatner and Wayne; and I think you are right about the other thing: I don't like John Wayne. My first memories of him are not his movies, but his pro-war stance in the early 70's.

[jackolantern.livejournal.com]

I have not seen the original film. I have seen the sequel, Rooster Cogburn, if you want to talk about a film that was unnecessary. This version was a fine film, and supposedly much more true to the book.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Based on the two, I'd reckon that this version in only about 10% more faithful. So "much more" is a gross exaggeration. Watch the original and compare for yourself!

[tonks07.livejournal.com]

I went in to the theater to see this movie knowing nothing but the cast and the plot summary and liked the movie a bunch more than anticipated. I've never seen much Western type movies so I really didn't know what to expect. I think the girl was at least 80% of why I liked it so much and Jeff Bridges was the other %20. Really, the more movies I see of Bridges, the more I like him.

Seeing this version did make me want to check out the original tho my Mother told me she enjoys the new girl more than the actress who played the original.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the actress in the original is... not an actress. But when she meets Rooster, she steps up her game. Either she got better, or I just got so pulled into the story that I stopped noticing her bad acting.

If you're interested in more westerns, I'd be happy to recommend one or two. They're a wide and varied subgenre unto themselves, encompassing everything from low comedy to art film to action to buddy stories to everything in between.

[tonks07.livejournal.com]

Some recommendations would be lovely! Thanks in advance. :)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I adore the spaghetti westerns (westerns filmed in Italy) of Sergio Leone, especially The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (part three of a trilogy, but it's the best and can be watched on its own) and my favorite movie of all time, Once Upon a Time in the West. Henchgirl saw the latter first, and thus even an epic classic like TGTB&TU was a disappointment in comparison. If you only have time or inclination to watch one, make it the second. If not, try for both. If you're REALLY ambitious, start from the beginning of the trilogy with A Fistful of Dollars (which I still haven't seen all the way through) and For a Few Dollars More (which is my third favorite and a film I adore).

If you see any Leone film, be prepared for one thing: the films will take their time. But if you're tuned in to what he's doing, you'll likely be on the edge of your seat.

Tombstone is the most famous and polished of the Wyatt Earp film adaptations, a film which can seem like a Hollywoodized version of the truth, when in fact it's very accurate to the larger-than-life history of Earp and what he did. Also, Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday was Captain Jack Sparrow long before Captain Jack Sparrow. Watch it for him alone, and the rest of the film is gravy.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is one of the greatest buddy comedies of all time. Think Blue Beetle and Booster Gold as outlaws in the old west.

The Magnificent Seven, a worthy remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, is pure classic Hollywood western cinema at its best. Not much more I can add to that one.

I absolutely adored The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but be warned, it can be a bit long and a bit dry for some tastes. Personally, I found it that way for the first hour, and then at some point I became utterly engrossed, and the film still haunts me to this day. Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, and especially Sam Rockwell each deliver marvelous performances to boot.

That's a very rough handful of possibilities. There are so many more westerns I need to see, especially from John Wayne himself. The guy's been considered a one-note joke so much that I bought into it before I even saw any of his films, so now I want to view him with fresh eyes.

Hope these helped a bit! Really, this is but a starting point. Another handy guide would be IGN's list of the 100 Greatest Westerns of all time:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/108/1088537p1.html

I haven't seen the majority of these myself, and plan to rectify that soon.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

By the way, Henchgirl disagrees with my decision to START with Leone's films, because in her view, everything else pales in comparison. I don't necessarily agree, but take that under advisement.