True Grit VS. True Grit

True Grit '69 vs. True Grit '10

After viewing both films, and several discussions on the topic, I've decided to put my thoughts into words.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

This won't be so much a QUICK REVIEW like my normal posts, as I feel there are many things to talk about when comparing the John Wayne classic from 1969, to the Jeff Bridges version of 2010. I like the new movie, and in many ways it improves on the original, but it's really not a BETTER film, in my opinion.

"Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!"

Before I get into specifics, let's talk about the story. Both films are based on the 1968 book, True Grit, written by Charles Portis. The story is set in 1877 Arkansas, and is about a young girl named Mattie Ross, who hires the notorious Rueben J. "Rooster" Cogburn to hunt down ranch hand Tom Chaney, who murdered her father, and is hiding in Indian territory. Cogburn is a U.S Marshall, notorious for his drunken disposition, and trigger-happy ways. Mattie uses Cogburn's need for money, and the fact that Chaney is traveling with Ned "Lucky" Pepper, to persuade him to take the job. They are joined by a Texas Ranger named La Boeuf, who is also hunting Chaney for killing a Texas Senator, and his dog. 

Kim Darby as Mattie Ross

That is the premise of both films in a nutshell. While both use the book as the source material, they go about different ways of telling the story. The original movie took the book, and made a movie that was accessible to a vast audience. They removed the narrative by Mattie Ross, and made changes that helped move the story along, and build the characters. The cast was great, with John Wayne as Cogburn, Kim Darby as Mattie, Glen Campbell as La Boeuf, and Robert Duvall as Ned "Lucky" Pepper. We can argue all day about the type of actor Wayne was, and how his Best Actor Oscar was more a "Lifetime Achievement Award" than anything else, but that won't change my mind about this role. I liked Wayne's Rooster Cogburn better.

That's not taking anything away from Jeff Bridges, who is great in the 2010 version. I love Bridges, but he really didn't bring anything new to Cogburn, and overall had less redeeming value than Wayne's Cogburn. Cogburn was an anti-hero, but ultimately still a hero. A good guy, deep down. John Wayne was able to do this, and even though it was John Wayne, playing John Wayne, it worked. Bridges seems to go too far into the darkness of the character, to a point where, even when he becomes the hero at the end, you don't exactly want to cheer for him. You want to say "It's about time". It was also very difficult to understand him throughout the film, as his mumbling, and growling should have come with subtitles.

Cogburn gives La Boeuf a warning.

So you're asking yourself about now, "How can you say he was great in the movie, and then then tell us why you didn't like it?". Good question. Here's my answer: Jeff Bridges is great, whether he's fighting Iron Man, singing country music, or trapped in a cyber world. He's gonna give you 100% percent, regardless. The fault here would lie in the Coen Brothers, who directed, produced, and wrote this version, which is a stretch, considering so many scenes, and lines where exactly the same in the orginal film directed by Henry Hathaway, and written by Marguerite Roberts.

If you'll remember, they claimed this wasn't a remake, but another adaptation of the book. That may be what they intended, but after viewing both films back to back, it felt more like a remake to me.

Getting back to the cast, the 2010 film also has Matt Damon as La Boeuf, Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, Barry Pepper as Ned "Lucky" Pepper, and Josh Brolin (in nothing more than a cameo) as Tom Chaney. All were great (almost) in their roles, especially Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. At only 14 years old, I suspect she may receive an Oscar nomination, as her performance was nothing less than spectacular. Matt Damon's La Boeuf was adequate, but not as memorable as Glen Campbell's, and underused. As good of an actor as Damon is, the Coen's missed a great opportunity here. This should have been Oscar material for Damon.

Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross

Another standout performance was Barry Pepper. His take on Ned "Lucky" Pepper was fantastic, and he makes the absolute most out of the few scenes he has. The nasty teeth, and the scarred lips (which, unlike the original, are never explained here), and hate in his eyes made him look the part. His performance was superior to Robert Duvall's. A big disappointment here is Josh Brolin, who received billing on the poster, but only appears briefly, similar to the Schwarzenegger/Willis appearance in The Expendables. A big to do, about nothing. His performance even felt like he stopped in on his lunch break from doing something else more important.

Overall, believe it or not, I enjoyed the new True Grit. It only worked for me though, because of my knowledge of the characters, via the original movie. So many little details were fleshed out in 1969, that were overlooked in 2010. For instance, it is never revealed (unless somehow I missed it) that Cogburn was responsible for Ned Pepper's scarred lip. That established history between the characters, and motivation. That was lost in the 2010 film. Another pivotal scene that was left out, was Mattie's history with Chaney, or the actual murder of her father. It's all explained in a brief opening narrative, that felt rushed, and out of place. In trying to be true to the book, they made a less entertaining film. Sometimes there are reasons to make changes when adapting written word to moving pictures. The narrative here, at the beginning, and ending, should have been left out. The time spent on it would have been better used on character development.

I've already heard from many who liked this movie, and I agree with most of the praise it's receiving. It is a good movie. Visually, it felt more like the time period, than the original. The score is definitely better, as the original was hokey, and incredibly light, for a film with revenge as the main theme (but then again, it's rated G). The costumes, and makeup were fantastic, and will probably get Oscar attention. In many technical ways, it's superior, by a landslide. Aside from Hailee Steinfeld, and Barry Pepper, I like the performances, and character development in the original better.

Overall, I'm gonna call this a draw. Both films bring something to the table that the other doesn't. I strongly suggest that anyone who has seen one, see the other, and form their own opinion on which is better.

True Grit (1969)

Rated G, Runtime 120mns

True Grit (2010)

Rated PG13, Runtime 110mns