True Grit (2010) - the I've seen it thread (boxed spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

I thought I’d have to get up and go to work but we finished a big project so now I have 5 days off. That freed me to be able to go to the midnight show and I got home a little while ago. The new version of True Grit is an extremely good movie, though it doesn’t overshadow the original movie or the book, both of which I dearly love. I don’t want to see the two movies pitted against each other, though I suppose it’s inevitable, which will probably be very annoying to those who haven’t seen the John Wayne version. I’d really like it if comparisons could be kept in clearly marked spoiler boxes so as not to irritate those folks. Probably comparisons to the book too. As well as spoilers from the story, of course, at least for the first few dozen posts.

I’m not sure yet if it’s a new classic. It might be. Usually I have to see Coen Brothers films several times before I figure out where it belongs in the sea of Coen Brothers films that I love. On the one hand this is a very un-Coen movie, because it’s made and played completely straight from the book, an extremely faithful adaptation though I’ll admit I haven’t read the book in decades. I do know they didn’t add any Coen quirks or winks. On the other hand, this is very Coenish material, especially the dialogue, as anyone who loves the dialogue in O Brother, Where Art Thou? will recognize.

The acting is as high quality as you would imagine, but the big surprise is Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. The brief clips in the trailers don’t do her justice. She nails that dialogue all the way through and holds her own with the great Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. The Coens chose well.

For some reason I thought Josh Brolin was playing Ned Pepper, but he’s Tom Chaney. Barry Pepper is Ned Pepper, which is either a Coen joke or a very odd coincidence.

A few thoughts and comparisons with the earlier movie:

[spoiler]While it’s not fair since I’ve seen the 1969 version dozens of times, and this only once, I’ll say that at this point, I still like that version better. I like Kim Darby’s Mattie Ross better. I like John Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn better. Strangely, I kinda like Glen Campbell’s La Boeuf better. Which is not to take anything at all away from Steinfeld, Bridges or Damon, because they’re all fantastic. I did dearly miss Strother Martin as Col. Stoneholl, and Jeff Corey as Tom Chaney, and of course Barry Pepper is no Robert Duvall, though Barry looks more like a Ned Pepper would look than Duvall, who was much too clean.

In scene after scene after scene I couldn’t hep having a split personality, with one half thinking “This is great!” because it all was, the setting, the acting, the dialogue, everything, and the other half thinking “I like the way it looked/was staged/was said better in the first one.” It’ll take several more viewings before I can view it on its own terms. It absolutely deserves to be praised on its own terms.[/spoiler]

I must sleep now.

2

That’s one of the things I love about Coen brothers movies. There’s so much going on you miss little touches the first time through.

3

Well, somehow I’ve managed to miss ever seeing the John Wayne version, so I guess I’ll be able to avoid mentally comparing the two as I watch the new one.

Me, this is my big must-see year-end film. Coen Brothers! Jeff Bridges! Josh Brolin! I figger they’re really gonna have to work at it for this one to suck.

4

Josh Brolin (as Tom Chaney) blew me away. I knew it was him, 'cause he looked like himself, but whenever he spoke he instantly became someone else.

5

I didn’t recognize him at first, but that’s probably because for some reason I had it in my head that he was playing Ned Pepper. I tried to avoid reading anything about the movie and I only saw the trailer once, and my eyes were zeroed in on Mattie and Rooster. So when I first saw Tom, I thought, ‘they should’ve picked a guy who didn’t look so much like Josh Brolin’ but only because of the dark hair and build, because I didn’t recognize him as Josh Brolin, especially when he started talking. It was only when Ned came on the scene and I realized ‘Hey, that’s not Josh Brolin’ that I mentally slapped my forehead and went ‘Duh, Tom IS Josh Brolin!’

Hey, it was late. I’d just worked a full day and saw two other movies* prior to True Grit.

Hooray for the Coens and Burwell to use the great Iris DeMent for the closing credits! I’ve loved her since her first album was released in 1992, and interviewed her in person for my radio show. She’s so wonderful, musically and personally. I had no idea she was part of the movie, but I recognized her very distinctive voice immediately.

  • After work I went to the Gene Siskel Film Center and saw a 1968 Japanese horror film called Kuroneko, then a 2 1/2+ hour experimental art film Enter The Void, then walked the few blocks over the the multiplex for True Grit, and enjoyed all three of them. I love having eclectic taste in movies!
6

I saw the midnight show too. I really enjoyed it. I hated Kim Darby as Mattie Ross in the original and wanted to smack her at every opportunity. I suppose that was what they were going for, because I still find the character grating and inhuman, but it seemed less stilted this time and moved the story along. Excellent performances from all the actors and beautiful photography.

I particularly loved the ending bit where 25 years later she meets Cole Younger and Frank James and calls James “trash” for not standing up when a lady speaks approaches. At first I thought she was still being judgmental because he was a thief and a killer, but then I remembered that she would have known the same about Cole Younger. She obviously had a low opinion of Younger, but kept her mouth shut because he was polite. Not something she would have done 25 years earlier.

7

Nice spoiler for those who’ve never seen the original movie or read the book. Sigh.

8

It’s an epilogue. However, my apologies.

9

What exactly did you hope to see in a thread titled “True Grit (2010) - The I’ve seen it thread…?”

Yes “boxed spoilers” were requested, but come on.

10

I saw it last night, then came home and watched the original again. The Coen brothers version blows the original away in every respect except for the physical presence of John Wayne in the original. The acting was uniformly better, especially by the girl playing Mattie. Seeing Kim Darby’s performance after that just made her look even more amateurish and cheesey. Matt Damon, it goes without saying, blows Glenn Campbell out of the water and creates a character as interesting (and as “gritty”) in his own right as Rooster and Mattie. Josh Brolin makes his character so disarmingly slow-witted that he almost makes you feel sorry for him. Barry Pepper completely disappers into Ned (I liked the authenticity of the rotten teeth).

Jeff Bridges can’t be John Wayne and doesn’t try to be, but he does try to be the Rooster Cogburn of the book, and does so very convincingly. His acting is better than John Wayne’s was. When I re-watched the original last night, I just saw the Duke being the Duke and not really trying very hard to create a distinct character. That was a perfectly legitimate choice for that movie (no reason to try to fix what ain’t broke), but the Dude’s Rooster made the Duke’s look almost santitary and safe by comparison.

The Coen’s movie is really owned by that kid playing Mattie, though. She’s probably got an Oscar nomination coming to her.

The writing, look and specificity of the movie is all the Coen’s at their best. It’s not necessarily representative of what they usually do. It’s more conventional (maybe the most “Coen-esque” scene is the hanging scene which really shows their characteristic quirkiness and dark humor), but I think their voices and vision are clearly perceptable, just more subdued.

I think they are arguably the best film makers of the last 20 years and they pulled off something almost impossible by remaking such an iconic film and making it entertaining and successful in its own right.

11

I thought the young woman was convincing, but it wasn’t Oscar worthy. Certainly a lot better than Kim Darby. Oscar worthy is Natalie Portman in Black Swan.

12

I thought the young woman was Oscar-worthy, as were Bridges and (surprisingly) Damon. Probably the most conventional Coen movie (not surprising), but definitely worth seeing.

13

Hailee wouldn’t be nominated for Best Actress anyway, even though she is the Lead. She’d be nominated in Supporting because the studio would figure she has a better chance there. It’s very common. One of the best examples happened in 1992 with Keisha Castle-Hughes, who is so obviously the Lead in Whale Rider, but was being pushed for Supporting, such as for the Screen Actors Guild awards, where she was indeed nominated in the Supporting category. Still, every now and then the Academy members say ‘fuck you’ to everyone else and do what they please, because when the nominations came out, Keisha was nominated for Best Actress instead. Another great example is Tatum O’Neal who was nominated for and won Best Supporting Actress even though she’s without a doubt Lead and carries Paper Moon on her shoulders.

Hailee hasn’t had enough time to build up a strong backing among Academy members, so she’ll be pushed for and (hopefully) nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

14

How hard could that be?
:slight_smile:

15

OK, just got back from seeing it, so here are some random comments.

Generally liked it very much overall, but was more entertained by the dialogue (heavy in the first half) than the action (heavy in the second).

Not sure where the movie was shot (New Mexico?) but it clearly wasn’t Arkansas. That’s OK, loved the scenery and it’s not the first western to have been shot in a considerably different location than its supposed setting. Interesting combination of gritty realism (and what seemed dead-authentic period touches) and dreamlike imagery, not unlike (Hey!) the world seen through a 14-year old girl’s eyes.

For me, the movie echoed the visual and sonic ambiance of two films more than any other: the Coen’s own Miller’s Crossing and Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller. IOW, good company indeed. They could keep doing period pieces and that would be all right.

One shot in particular just blew me away: just before the final shootout, where Damon’s character is explaining to Mattie how Cogburn was going to confront Ned Pepper’s gang and the camera dollies between them to reveal the valley below where the confrontation is taking place, as they speak. A fairly simple conceit, but stunningly executed.

The entire cast was excellent, particularly Hailee Steinfeld, and Matt Damon was better than in just about anything I’d ever seen him in.

16

Something to ponder: Hailee had never appeared in a feature-length movie before (she’s only previously appeared in four short films), and when she filmed the movie, she was only 13. She just turned 14 December 11. The more I think about her, and how she holds her own next to Bridges, Damon and Brolin, the more amazed I am. I’ll be seeing the movie again on Saturday, and I’m looking most forward to seeing her again.

I highly agree with that. They do period so well, no matter what period. Miller’s Crossing, Barton Fink, O Brother, A Serious Man, The Man Who Wasn’t There. Part of it is Roger Deakins’ brilliant cinematography, that man can do anything.

Their next movie is a remake of the wonderful 1966 film Gambit (which starred Shirley MacLaine and Michael Caine), another favorite movie of mine. I haven’t heard yet if it’s still set in the '60’s or if it’ll be updated.

17

My guess is that this won’t be the popular hit the studio is hoping for. It falls into the crack between popular entertainment and personal artistry.

It’s immaculately shot and written, but on first viewing didn’t entertain much.

Nonspoiler: The trailer ain’t the movie. I’ll guess the Coens handed that part of the publicity off to someone else. There’s no Johnny Cash on the soundtrack. Several of the preview scenes are comprised of widely separate movie scenes spliced together in (deceptive) fashion.

18

We saw the movie last night, and, as we both saw the original movie and read the Portis book within the last six months, it was an interesting experience. I loved the Coen Bros. version, although it’s not nearly among my favorite of their movies.

They did add a couple of Coen-esque touches that were neither in the book nor the original movie (unless I’m misremembering, which is entirely possible):

[ul]
[li]The encounter with the fellow (almost wrote “dude,” but that wouldn’t be right) dressed in the bearskin. That was pretty entertaining.[/li]
[li]The Fort Smith undertaker’s multipurpose use of the phrase, “That’d be alright.”[/li][/ul]

Mrs. Urquhart thought, and I guess that I agree, that the scene in the cabin with the two members of Ned Pepper’s gang didn’t have the suspense of the one created in the original movie version (with Dennis Hopper).

All in all, though, I was very impressed with all of the actors involved – it is a mighty fine movie.

19

I saw it this afternoon and I just put in the DVD of the original. They’re both grand adventures with characters and actors that I’ve come to love. It would be hard for me to pick a favorite between the two. Based on that single performance, I think Hailee has a wonderful future; I hope she can handle the fame.

20

Outstanding!

Although it seemed that Strother Martin and Robert Duvall were channeled by these actors. :slight_smile: