I might be misremembering, but I think we do see the blade entering. Sort of. Maybe shadowed, but I’m pretty sure we actually see the blade stabbing down into the flank area. But I only saw the movie once, so again I might be mistaken.
Regardless it is a very well-done and affecting scene ( the Coens talked very briefly about it in their interview with Terry Gross on NPR ).
Guess I was distracted by my wife clenching my arm so hard.
I’m sure like to see a Coen brothers remake of Lonesome Dove.
This was actually one of my favorite things about the movie (not having seen or read any previous iterations). Witty repartee delivered in pseudo-deadpan is a Hollywood staple, but it’s always with the wink and nudge that it’s just repartee. The characters never take it quite seriously.
I liked that the dialogue in this movie was delivered straight up – it wasn’t just people kidding about, it was people saying genuinely mean (if still funny for the audience) things about each other. It felt real, and like there was some genuine emotion behind it.
I generally preferred the Coen Brothers version, but a line I missed from the original was the quote by Moon (Dennis Hopper):
Quincy, he never played me false until he killed me.
Almost as poignant as “Father forgive them…”.
I also missed General Sheridan Price.
I think the “fill your hands” line was purposefully downplayed because anything else would have seemed an imitation.
I thought all of the in-town scenes were better in the Coen Brothers version. I wasn’t blown away by Matt Damon- I thought he sort of phoned in some of his scenes. Better than Glen Campbell but that’s to be expected. He got better in the scenes after he rejoins them.
I’ve wondered if the author intended Mattie as a lesbian. Admittedly having one-arm would detract from a woman’s matrimonial prospects but there certainly were many women who were more handicapped who married and had families, and she herself says she didn’t marry mostly because she didn’t want to put up with a man. I haven’t read the book but I believe in the book she becomes a banker doesn’t she? Even at 14 she’s a hard headed business woman who already knows she’s usually the smartest person in the room and that money talks/bullshit walks.
I loved the scene where Rooster (a former Quantrill Bushwhacker) and La Boeuf (regular army, served under Lee) fight about their former services. As a matter of historical trivia, Rooser’s “That’s a goddamned lie!” when told that Quantrill’s men killed women and children in their raid on Lawrence is historically accurate and because the tales of Quantrill killing women and children really was widespread it actually would have been a major sore point to him. (This is not to imply Quantrill* and his men were good guys even by guerrilla standards- they were coldblooded killers and notorious thieves who murdered dozens of unarmed men in Lawrence and elsewhere- but they didn’t happen to kill women or children on that raid.)
*More trivia: The Outlaw Josey Wales was a Quantrill man; their extreme bloodiness, war crimes and piracy was downplayed in the Eastwood film.
To the people wondering if he stabbed the horse- yes, he very clearly stabs it. For those wondering if they can handle the scene- plenty worse things happen to the human characters. The scene only lasts a few minutes. The way they show that the ride is a long one (as opposed to “20 minutes” like an above poster mentioned regarding the original’s portrayal) is by skipping through time so you see them riding during the night, the day, then the night again. If you can’t handle watching a horse getting shot I recommend you stay away from westerns altogether.
He stabs it for the best possible of reasons though.
Speaking of, what would treatment for rattlesnake bite have been at that time? He’d already done the “cut & suck” thing, and today it would be treated with anti-venom but I’d doubt this was available at the time, so if Mattie had been a real character I wonder if the doctor would have done much of anything other than amputating the arm and then treating the amputation.
There are lots of old wives’ tales about treating snake bites. One I know of involves the blood of a freshly killed chicken but I forget the details. Of course not all snakebites- even from poisonous snakes- envenomate, so it’s possible that a lot of the notions they had about treating bites came from remedies working on bites that were never that serious to begin with.
From watching Venom ER, breathing issues aside, rattlesnake bites can cause limbs to swell grotesquely. I’d image if the pressure wasn’t relieved in a timely basis, then amputation was the best route because once the damage was done, there’s no going back. I don’t know if they knew enough to cut open a swollen limb to relieve pressure or how soon it has to be done before necrosis sets in. I do know that without antibiotics or sterilization, cutting to save the limb might have done more harm than good than cutting off the limb.
I can eat spaghetti and meatballs while watching the faces of death, and have watched medical procedures done on myself.
I refuse to watch the damned animal abuse commercials because they make me stabbity towards the people who abuse animals but I have a particular affection towards cats [I am a long time servant of kittehs] and horses [I spent many years training for and several years competing at dressage and steeplechasing ended by physical handicap thanks to a broken back] and I seriously dislike even movie portrayals of animal abuse. I tend to leave the room when I know it is coming in a movie/tv show.
I closed my eyes during the entire ride the 2nd and 3rd time viewing. I opened them after the shot.
Loved the movie.
One thing, was Mattie strangely not wet after she got out of the river with her horse trying to catch up with Rooster and LeBoef?
The story being set about 13 years after the Civil War, if the doctor or surgeon (a surgeon was basically like an EMT- way under a doctor) served in the war at all then amputations would have come as naturally to him as making coffee. I’ve read accounts of housewives performing amputations in the field hospitals when the surgeons were busy and the person’s life was in danger. The reason there were so many amputations in the Civil War (if you wanna see some grisly pics google Civil War amputations- lots of pics of piled high limbs) was that even if they had plenty of time (which they never did) once there was a bone fragment or infection they had basically no way of fighting it other than to amputate. The one good thing about this where Mattie would be concerned is that all that practice made them experts on cauterizing amputation stubs, especially when there weren’t 12 people lined up after her.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the original TG, but in that one and in the book it might make you like him better to know that Rooster is a cat lover. His cat is General Sheridan Price and he pays the Chinese merchant to take care of him when he’s away.
I liked the film well enough, just not as much as I had hoped. Still, I suspect I will like it better on second viewing. I was lukewarm on No Country for Old Men on my first viewing, and now it has moved up to #3 on my list of favorite Coen brothers movies.
I noticed this too. And I wondered if it was a continuity error, accidental or on purpose, or the result of the heavy wool coat she wore and the fact that everyone’s hair would have been matted because nobody would wash it more than once every six months or so. My maternal grandmother had such a hair washing schedule. She was born around 1890.
I thought this scene was odd, from a pacing standpoint. It does nothing to advance the plot or provide characterization, and it goes on and on and on.
It was entertaining. Why does it have to enhance the plot? Practically nothing in Lebowski advances the plot.
I heard the Fresh Air interview tonight and was surprised how the brothers dissed the 69 movies although they hadn’t seen it since 1969.
They haven’t seen the original since they were 11 and 14-years-old, respectively?
The two white men’s speeches were in the book, almost word for word. The Indian spoke too, was allowed to speak, but the Coens version cut him off. That was comedic and shocking at the same time.
How did the Coens diss the ‘69 version? What did they say?I can’t believe they’d be too nasty. For one thing, it’s a damned good movie, dammit! For another, I finally watched it again after not having seen it for decades, and, while there were a few differences, it was much, MUCH more faithful to the book than the Coens’ movie. They have no room to talk about making a more faithful version, if that’s what they were on about. For a third, it’s not very smart to offend people who love the '69 movie when you’re trying to get as many people as possible to see your movie.
I still love both versions. And the book. Love all three. Love love love!
Edit to add, and by god, John Wayne deserved that Oscar! 100%, I say.