There’s a difference between gratitude and affection. I can see why she would feel gratitude toward Rooster, but Rooster Cogburn as portrayed by Bridges makes it hard for me to see how she would feel any affection for him.
After the events of the movie I would have been shocked if Maddie didn’t feel any affection toward Rooster. He is certainly rough around the edges, but his behavior toward Maddie is largely, as other posters note, protective and grandfatherly. I really liked Rooster and he didn’t even help me avenge my father’s murder or save my life.
He also faced down Ned’s gang alone, which is the kind of thing it’s made clear that Maddie admires.
Not seeing the “grandfather figure” thing. Bridges plays Rooster as an irritable lout. I guess maybe some folks had irritable louts for grandfathers, but that’s not really what I think of when I think of “grandfatherly.” Where was the mentoring that usually comes with being “grandfatherly”? In my view, Bridges was grandfatherly in exactly one sense: being old enough to be her grandfather.
Maybe you don’t want to see it. We get it, you’re a fan of the Wayne version.
As soon as I saw him in court and again in the shack I knew I loved his character and that most other people would, too.
It’s not a question of not wanting to see it. I certainly went in wanting to like the character, as I had liked the character in the book and in the earlier movie. I didn’t like the character. I explained my reasons very clearly, I thought.
You disagree. Fair enough. You are not going to convince me that Bridges is likable in this role, and I will not convince you that he is not. You like who you like, I guess.
I’ve thought of one clear example where the new movie fails to show the emotional connection between Rooster and Mattie. In the first movie, when Mattie swims her horse across the river Roster looks at her admiringly, smiles and remarks to LeBouef “She reminds me of me.” That one line reveals Rooster’s developing affection for Mattie. There is nothing comparable in the new movie.
I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, but one more way in which the 1969 version was better than the 2010 version is that the old version had character actor John Fielder portraying Lawyer Daggett and the current movie had Daggett appear only in voice. The contrast between Mattie’s description of what fierce Lawyer Daggett would do to people and Fielder’s actual mild mannered appearance was quite funny.
Rooster isn’t supposed to be “likable.” As pointed out previously, he is a thief and vagabond who came into working as a federal marshal because he failed at everything else (running a store, law, et cetera). His only distinction–and it is a narrow one–is that he does not steal from the lawful. It is a mistake to insist that all protagonists be likable, and one that often leads screenwriters into diluting a character in order to garner unearned sympathy with the audience. Sometimes the best character in the story is the anti-hero, the character that will pull out all stops to achieve his ends regardless of the brutality he issues and the cost to his soul. And this is precisely what Maddie is looking for. She isn’t looking for justice, indicated by her selection of Cogburn (“A man with true grit,”) over the better tracker or fair-minded marshal.
In the 1969 version, John Wayne played John Wayne playing Rooster Cogburn; in other words, a charming rogue with a hearty guffaw who would actually be a raging asshole to know in real life. He is basically the hero’s anti-hero, the guy Superman would be if he wanted to add just enough edge to attract someone more interesting than Lois Lane. In the Coen Brothers version, Bridges plays Cogburn as a genuine anti-hero, who despite his code of conduct is just a generally unpleasant jerk of whom you are never quite certain of his intentions.
I thought it was a great movie, and if reminded me in terms of cinematography and atmosphere of the underrated Miller’s Crossing (though they are thematically two very different films). The Coen’s were clearly going for the alienation of a bare landscape and the supernaturally mature and yet inexperienced ingenue being enmeshed in a world of brutality. I think it is vastly better in nearly every respect to the 1969 version.
Stranger
He is if we’re supposed to believe Mattie likes him.
I believed it. Look, Mattie’s a bitch on wheels, and not a good person herself. She thInks far more highly of herself than she has any reason to, so why wouldn’t she think highly of Rooster too, and he did earn her affection. They’re each bad news in their own distinct ways, so why wouldn’t they click together? Separately, they have a barrell full of some of the worst aspects of humanity. Together, they’re highly entertaining and totally adorable. In all three versions.
I also loved seeing Lawyer Daggett in the first movie. Love that actor’s voice.
Mattie’s affection for him is grudging and despite his course nature. They’re two of a kind; not interested in justice as a concept but in getting their own way (in Mattie’s case, vengeance for the pointless murder of her father). Mattie starts off thinking this an adventure (and one wonders how much of her desire for revenge is staked in her fascination with violence) and ends up seeing a reflection of her personality in Cogburn.
Stranger
Have you read the book? Mattie and Rooster are not grim-faced avengers. There are plenty of comic elements and affectionate jabs.
I just read the book yesterday, and Mattie is even more of a grim-faced avenger in the book than she is in either movie, not to mention much more of a bitch, and a liar to boot. Rooster comes off as much more of a dick in the book too. He was an actual outlaw before he became a Federal Marshall. The book is fun, and I love the characters, but don’t make them out to be better people than they are.
Oh, I see. You’ve read the Reader’s Digest Abridged version. The one that leaves in the quirky comedic elements and redacts that hard-edged gallows humor.
Stranger
Yeah, I’m getting that vibe too. YOU re-read the book Spoke. A large part of the fun of it comes from the black humor coming these people who are either scummy (Rooster) or hoity-toity with no real reason to be (Mattie). LaBeouf is the only one who seems like a normal, decent human being. The dialogue between Rooster and Mattie is indeed humorous, even more so when you take into account their real selves. Mattie’s on-going harsh judgement of others is hilarious, especially considering she has no moral reason to think of herself as any better than most, except for Chaney and Pepper, who’ve actually killed people.
And I think you may have picked up a Cormac McCarthy book by mistake.
You and Equipoise are really taking this weirdly personally. I didn’t like Jeff Bridges’ portrayal. You did. So what?
Because you’re giving the impression that Rooster is a lovable rogue in the book, and that that Rooster was portrayed by John Wayne. You’re the one misremembering the Rooster from the book, and judging Bridges’s portrayal based on that. If you didn’t like Rooster in the Coens True Grit, I’m at a loss to understand why you liked the Rooster from the book so much more, unless you haven’t read the book recently, or missed a good deal of the dialogue in it.
On the contrary, I think the wry humor of the book must be sailing right past y’all.
Not at all. I think the book is hilarious. But it’s also pretty dark and grim humor. Right up my alley, which is why I love it so much.
Now watch Bridges get a “nice career” Oscar for this movie. 
(Oh wait, he already got his Oscar last year, didn’t he?)