‘True Grit’: True greatness
It should come as no surprise that the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have made a terrific western in “True Grit.” After all, they won the Oscar for a western, a modern one to be sure, with “No Country for Old Men.”
Now, with “True Grit,” they’ve done the whole boots-and-saddles thing, adapting a novel that previously had been known as the movie that won John Wayne his Oscar. That was 1969, when the words “revisionist western” had barely been coined by a critic somewhere.
The original film, directed by Henry Hathaway, was nobody’s idea of revisionism. It was good guys and bad buys, with joking references to central character Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn’s tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. But there was no doubt that Wayne’s Rooster was a traditional hero, despite his tendency to drink a little too much. Ain’t you never heard of comic relief?
The Coens, however, play it straighter. While both films are relatively faithful to Charles Portis’ novel, the Coens more closely capture the sense of rough justice, the sense that no good deed goes unpunished in the Old West – and that even heroes have feet of clay.
Hathaway’s film was a western of its era, a time when Hollywood still considered the western a viable commercial form, something that hasn’t been true for a long time (which is why journalists inevitably make such a big deal about it when someone actually makes one these days). Those westerns had horses and wagons and six-shooters and the like – but they always felt like they were shot on a backlot. They featured long-established towns that had been around for a while, instead of the kind of recently thrown-together settlements that were tents before someone got the money or equipment to make buildings out of wood.
But the Coens’ Fort Smith, Ark., where this story starts, has that sense of newness (which David Milch also captured in his “Deadwood” series) and impermanence. That’s the town young Mattie Ross steps into, after the murder of her father.
Played with a starchy impertinence (that occasionally breaks to reveal the little girl beneath the surface of this 14-year-old) by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, Mattie arrives in Fort Smith to arrange for the shipment home of her father’s body, settle his business affairs and seek justice (“Retribution,” as the film’s posters proclaim) for his murder.
She settles on U.S. Marshal Reuben Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) as her agent of justice, because he has a reputation for being tough and relentless. Still, it takes some cold, hard cash to convince him to take on the mission into the Choctaw Indian territory (later Oklahoma) to track down Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who killed her father.
She finds she has competition for Chaney’s capture: a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) which he pronounces la-Beef. He’s seeking Chaney under a different name for a murder in Texas. Eventually, LaBoeuf and Cogburn decide to partner up and go after Chaney alone – until the tenacious Mattie inserts herself into the hunting party.
The farther they travel, the colder and, occasionally, snowier it gets. It’s less a question of whether they’ll find Chaney than when; though the territory is vast, Cogburn knows where to look and who to ask. Naturally it leads to a showdown – with Chaney and his running buddy, Lucky Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper). The final 20 minutes of the movie, in fact, is a string of well-choreographed and suspenseful scenes, right up to the climax of the action.
Yet the actual action in the film is almost secondary to the developing relationship between Cogburn and Mattie, as they ride together through the wilderness. She’s a talker and he’s taciturn – but given the opportunity, he opens up about his long, checkered life – marriage, various attempts at business, stabs alternately at being an outlaw and being a lawman.
There’s a thin line between those two – law and outlaw. In the Coens’ Old West, it’s more a question of attitude, really, though the difference between Cogburn and LaBoeuf is stark. But LaBoeuf is also something of a prig, outraged at the idea of traveling with a little girl, outraged at Cogburn’s cavalier approach – just generally hide-bound and rule-abiding.
But then so is Mattie. As played by Steinfeld, she’s a tough little character, mature for her years and both wary and suspicious – yet naïve in any number of ways. Her plucky self-assurance strikes wonderful comic sparks with Bridge’s laconic Cogburn and Damon’s easily ruffled LaBoeuf.
If anything, this performance is even tastier and more pungent than the one Bridges won his Oscar for in “Crazy Heart.” As Cogburn, he’s only got one eye to work with – and a jaundiced one at that. Yet he never utters a word that isn’t pithy (thanks to the Coens’ script and Portis’ original) or which doesn’t sound pithy with his delivery. He puts the grrr in gruffness, yet casually reveals Cogburn’s heart at surprising moments.
Damon brings a certain prissiness to LaBoeuf that’s perfect for this role. In smaller (much smaller) roles, Brolin makes Chaney humorously self-pitying, while Pepper makes Lucky Ned a scrappy, canny opponent for Cogburn. Roger Deakins, the Coens’ long-time cinematographer, captures both the beauty of the wide-open prairie and its haunting emptiness. The Coens’ script finds a humorous blend of the formal and the profane, even as it easily uncovers humor in moments without working at it.
“True Grit” is superb, one of the best movies of the year and one that shows other filmmakers just how a western should be made.
[print_link]
December 21st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for writing a review of this movie without a reference to the inept acting of Glenn Campbell in the orginal.
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
John Wayne is Rooster Cogburn, period, and nobody can match a legendary figure in any remake. That is why the original will always be better than any remake, particularly since there is no tension in the remake because we already know the ending.
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I like Jeff Bridges but, he will never fill the “Dukes” boots. I have watched “True Grit” many times and will continue to watch it. I do not plan on viewing this make over.
Thanks,
Ron
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“Roger Deakins, the Coens’ long-time cinematographer, captures both the beauty of the wide-open prairie and its haunting emptiness.”
Choctaw Territory was not, and eastern Oklahoma is not, “wide-open prairie and … haunting emptiness.” One would expect the Coen brothers, of all people, to get the locale correct. Why did Kim Darby get #2 billing to John Wayne and Hailee Steinfeld gets none to Bridges, Damon and Brolin?
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Thanks for a well written review. Both of these movies are great. I hope this movie gets at minimum 5 Academy Awards. If you have never seen the 1969 release get a copy soon.
B.T.W. I liked Glen Campbell in the first one. His acting was superb and to the part. His singing was great and memorable too.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
The Coens hit the jackpot on this one. Hope they look at doing a remake of Giant and Alamo.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
#1 never ever remake a John Wayne movie and #2 how disrespectful to use a couple of liberals like damon& brolin
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 pm
It was awesome and differently better than the original. The Coen’s did it justice.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I’m sorry most people today did not get to see westerns when the item was popular. MOst intellectuals think that everything has to be on an intellectual plain, and that is not what westerns were all about. They ranged from the culturally significant to the simple absurdity that a depression era culture ( which we cannot imagine) sought refuge in for a dime on a Saturday. They don’t all have to be artsy fartsy or prove how base and gauche tradition has to be. I watched John Wayne for John Wayne’s sake and got entertained. I’ll watch Jeff for Jeff’s sake and hope for the same.
Hollywood once in a while needs to be cautioned that the only reason they exist is to entertain us, not make political flatulence or pompous intellectual statements.
On the other hand, some of us pocket bigots also have to remember that, if you don’t like what Hollywood stands for, then don’t plunk down your money. I am just sorry for most movie goers because they don’t remember when kids could run around with capguns all week and never know what a school shooting was, or could say Merry Christmas or Happy Honnika ( NYC pronunciation) with a clear conscience, or had Cowboy heroes who extolled integrity and honesty and did not get caught in drug scandals.
I hope True Grit has a successful run, but I also hope that a wind-bagging review like the one I just read is not taken too seriously…after all, we really don’t need reviewers to tell us what quality is. Maybe they should all get jobs
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
I still Love John Wayne. Jeff Bridges is a great actor and did a fine job
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I love Jeff Bridges and I love True Grit so I was really looking forward to the new release. Although I can’t totally pan it, the dim, dingy photography, lack of any type of “action” music, lack of character development and NO ending left me disappointed. I’ve seen the 1969 version hundreds of times and was anxious to add the 2010 version to my DVD library, but now don’t think I will.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Just got back from the theater. As a John Wayne fan I went prepared to really dislike and abuse this movie. Came out a huge fan. One of the best westerns I have ever seen. Acting and script were both terrific. This little girl is truly a find and each of the adults did an outstanding job. Truly a screen gem!
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
personnaly they could not come up with more original scripting…. anyone who hypes this is full of it….
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Glen Campbell was, unfortunately, out of his league in the original. However, The Duke carried the movie. The addition of such standouts as Kim Darby, Robert Duvall and (of course) Strother Martin (“don’t be leavin’ your discards with me!”) and made it great entertainment. Unlike the “Pink Panther” (where Steve Martin should have asked his agent: “What in hell were you thinking?!) it appears that this “remake” was well thought out, well directed and intelligent thought was put into the cast selection. The end result is a movie which doesn’t detract from the original, it simply adds to the greatness of the original. Without a seasoned veteran like Jeff Bridges, whom no one has been able to pigeon-hole into any specific genra yet, this film could have fallen on its face. Bridges’ “Rooster” is probably the character that the Duke would have been were he still alive today.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
It has been more than 10 years since I’ve been in a theater, to see a movie. I had decided this remake of a great John Wayne western would be enough to make me dig deep and buy a ticket, to see it on the big screen. I am even more interested now, given the great praise this film has garnered.
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 am
It was pretty good but was NOT better than the original. Apaloosa was a better recent western. Love Jeff Bridges, not in love with the Coen brothers. I expected more.. left me slightly disappointed.
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:52 am
This remake is an abomination. I met John Wayne. And Bridges is no John Wayne. Campbell’s performance can be matched. But the remainder of the True Grit performances are far beyond the reach of this remake. Duvall’s acting ability has grown tremendously since True Grit, but even he is not matched in this remake.
Some movies cannot be remade. True Grit is one.
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 am
Hoory for a Western,even a remake. It’ll be hard to beat the shootout between Rooster and Ned Pepper, but I’m ready to see them try. Thank goodness for Matt Damon taking the role Glen Campbell mutilated. I’m personally more than ready for more Westerns, movies or tv series.
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:01 am
I dunno – they couldn’t even get the patch on the same eye as the original. And look at the picture above; you don’t shoot a hand cannon with your right hand look through the sights with the left eye – That just ain’t right…
December 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
As a fan of westerns – and having watched the original many times since I was young – Jeff Bridges did a pretty good job. As was stated in other comments several times – nobody – and I mean NOBODY can match John Wayne – period. His physcial stature – his voice and swagger in the Westerns was unmatched even to this day. I too wish the movie had been longer – what is it with movies nowadays anyway – why the push to make the less than 2 hours? Folks have A.D.D.? Can’t be away from their electronic gizmos that entertain them? Last good Western? Open Range with Costner and Duvall….
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Too much hullabaloo about this “Remake”. The original “True Grit” was a great western. It was made to be a western. No messages, no political puffery. Folks went to see the stars back then, not the movie. The stars made the movie. Today’s
Whiney, spoiled stars would not make a pimple on a real star’s rear end! But then, back in those days, we appreciated patriotic American heros. Today, sadly, they are few. Especially in H-wood!
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Well this movie was so bad i almost got sick. trust me i went in with an opoen mind. 80% of the movie was from the script of the 69 classic it was like they were all hired to there impression of the all who were in that 69 classic and failed.and failed beyond belief.if you go by the DUKES grave and it looks disturbed it’s cause he was rolling in it, prob from laughing his butt off at such a farce. my point is if you want young folks to see these old stories take them to the original. if you want your young one to see the MONA LISA you would not have it repainted to show them the updated version so enough with the remakes already. if you all in hollywood want to help then preserve these fine films don’t retell it’s like your a begger on the street looking for money and this is all you can come up with.
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
The hero worship of John Wayne has always interested me. He represented every masculine virtue of “The Greatest Generation.” Yet when other less macho Hollywood actors like Clark Gable, Lesie Howard and Jimmy Stewart were risking their lives in WWII, Wayne received deferments because he was sole support of his mother. Don’t confuse the actor with the real heroes.
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
John Wayne’s indisputable character lives on through this film. Hopefully a new generation will view this story and recapture the spirit that made us great. It is true that everything on this earth has a price except for the Grace of God..
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Yes, I agree. The original can’t be matched. No one can fill “The Duke’s” boots. But…….I watched the re-make last night. Jeff Bridges did a great job. You should go and see this one.
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I am forever a John Wayne fan. The only way I can go see this movie, is to divorce myself from the original and see this as a \new\ movie. Two completely different flicks. That way, I can enjoy them both forever. No comparisons.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
just saw the movie. then went home and watched the original version. no comparison. the original is far better hands down. you just can’t remake a movie that an american icon won an oscar for and hope it will be better. can you imagine anyone else in the lead role of Unforgiven besides clint??? wouldnt work. this version is far too dark and depressing. and what was with that trader scene with the guy who was a dentist?? was that in the book? also, why did cogburn keep kicking those kids off the porch at bagby’s? was that in the book? all in all i was severly disappointed in this remake and i really like jeff bridges but he could not hold a candle to john wayne’s roster cogburn.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Bridges might be no John Wayne but John Wayne was never Rooster – he was just John Wayne like in every other role he played.
The original True Grit was a typical formula western. I liked it becaused I liked the Duke. Every role he played was the same: gruff, drinking, tough, and always John Wayne. But with Glen Campbell’s 1970′s haircut, Wayne’s perfect shave, and snow in the Arkansas mountain peaks, you knew it was never a serious movie. Wayne got the Oscar for lifetime achievement, not True Grit.
December 23rd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
This is not a remake of a John Wayne movie. It is a different film adaptation of the same literary work. People don’t consider different versions of A Christmas Carol “remakes” of the original film. They are different adaptations of Charles Dickens’ book for the screen and each is judged on its own merits. It’s fine to compare the films to each other but the first film adaptation is not the standard by which it consecutive adaptations should be judged. Sadly, many people will decide which is the best adaptation without having actually read the book.
December 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
“The Duke” was my firstcrush. He reminded me of my dad; gruff, tough but with a soft spot. My dad died many years ago. I sobbed at the end of the original True Grit and again each time I see the rerun of it. Will look forward to seeing the new version — will bring plenty of tissues with me.
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
remakes usually suck. but this one puts the original to shame.
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I have seen the original many times over the years. The Duke has always been my favorite actor. Jim-83402, you nailed it. The Duke was the Duke in all his movies, and that was OK with me. The original had a lot of humor in it and that made it great. But when I saw the trailer for the new movie I was instantly impressed with the idea of a more raw, dark, and gritty character played by Bridges. From what I can tell this show is approaching the syory from a slightly different angle…don’t be a hater. Merry Christmas.
Doc
December 23rd, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Sometimes sighting with your weak eye is necessary, as when you get older, like I have. So shooting with the weak eye because you don’t have a strong one makes perfect sense. And I do shoot guns just like in the movie. I haven’t seen it, but from the trailers it looks like a great homage to The Duke.
December 29th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I was in love with the story as a young teen. Saw the ’69 movie many times (now own it) and read the book, many times (now rereading it). I went to see this remake on opening night. I liked it. I need to see it more than once to really grasp it. I appreciate that this reveiw did not falsely state that the remake is “closer to the book.” It’s not. In fact, many scenes in the original film are much closer to the book. But I will say that the darkness, the feel of this film, and of course Mattie’s age are closer. It is interesting that many of the actors looked incredibly similar to those in the original. Some of this is from Portis’ descriptions in the book. But Matt Damon is a dead ringer for Campbell, and Pepper (who plays Lucky Ned) looks an awful lot like Robert Duvall (not as good-looking, tho). Even the Strother Martin character seemed to be cast based on looks. Hmmmm.
It’s worth the look. I’d like to see it again before I really judge it. Basically, I think both films are good for their own qualities.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:58 am
Everyone needs to get over all the criticism. So many movies have been remade, not all of them have been good as the originals, but they are trying to get the same story we all know and love retold to a new audience. I know some movies are classics and shouldn’t be retold or remade (I have seen many that should not have been touched…friday the 13th anyone? Nightmare on elm st remake?), but try to look at it with an open mind. I don’t think this movie was done too bad and was impressed with the new “fresh” taste the story was given. It had it’s own little “flavor” which was artistically done for this time and age we are in.
January 10th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I’m late to the party here, but – I saw the 1969 version in the theatre and was unimpressed; I thought John Wayne was just playing himself and so didn’t deserve the Oscar (over Dustin Hoffman) and I also was influenced by his choice to make The Green Berets. Well, I made my piece with The Duke when I later saw The Sands of Iwo Jima for which he was first nominated for best actor and got robbed (like Hoffman in 1969) and later still Stagecoach, The Searchers, and Rio Bravo. This isn’t a remake, and has nothing to do with Wayne. It’s simply a better version of the story, on every level, and Bridges is only one small part of that (tho he is a great Rooster).
January 11th, 2011 at 7:04 am
I found it highly entertaining & one of the Coen’s best. I hope they rake in a few Oscars with Bridges taking another for his performance & Hailee Steinfeld, deserved so, for best actress.