 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.57.124.233
In Reply to: RE: Anyone seen an advance screening of True Grit? posted by Postal Grunt on December 19, 2010 at 19:45:30
The Coen's "True Grit" is a comptetent, but straight forward, retelling of the story. This and the original 1969 John Wayne version are decent but unspectacular movies. In my opinion this new version is by no means a must-see movie or a strong contender for any awards. See it with the proper expectations and you'll enjoy it. But it clearly is NOT Best Picture material.
Despite the more melancholy tone and an epilogue showing Mattie 25 years later, my opinion is that the Coens do not find anything deeper or more thought-provoking in the story than Hathaway and Wayne found in the 1969 version. That was a minor disappointment and leads me to a slight preference for the older film simply due to the iconic performance of Wayne.
The 1969 film operates on the premise that the Portis novel lends itself toward lightweight entertainment and broad characterizations as a movie. In contrast, the Coens have muted the humor and simply given us grittier, more authentic, locations and characterizations. A lot of witty dialogue is mumbled and glossed over too quickly. The Coen version takes place in early winter and the landscapes are bleak. Much of the story takes place at night. Although it is well-filmed, it is not a "pretty" looking western.
There is a new sequence involving Cogburn and Mattie happening upon a hanging victim (whom neither knows) in a tall tree, an indian and a medicine man wearing a bear pelt. This is not in the novel and seems to be an entirely grauitous Coen edition. It doesn't advance the plot or develop the characters. It's not even bizarre enough to simply entertain us. It's pointless.
Also, in the Coen version the Texas ranger keeps leaving and rejoining Cogburn and Mattie and much opportunity for interplay/conflict among the characters is lost. Apparently, this is more faithful to the novel. If so, I think the change made for the 1969 version is more effective even if Glen Campbell was an attrocious actor.
Again, see it with the proper low expectations and you'll enjoy it. By that I mean if you've seen the 1969 version don't let the artistry, tone, better casting, and greater authenticity of the Coens's take fool you into looking for any Deep Meaning along the way. Don't expect any great emotional catharsis either. The climax and ending are just as flat as the original.
Follow Ups:
Make no mistake, this is a classic that will go down in history as one of the greatest executed Westerns. I'm used to people underestimating their work. To quickly address some of your points:
> > Despite the more melancholy tone and an epilogue showing Mattie 25 years later, my opinion is that the Coens do not find anything deeper or more thought-provoking in the story than Hathaway and Wayne found in the 1969 version. That was a minor disappointment and leads me to a slight preference for the older film simply due to the iconic performance of Wayne. < <
No, the entire movie can be watched as a morality tale about the importance of taking responsibility and being true to yourself and others. This is explored on multiple levels. The '69 version, in comparison, had crappy writing, acting, cinematography and direction.
> > In contrast, the Coens have muted the humor and simply given us grittier, more authentic, locations and characterizations. A lot of witty dialogue is mumbled and glossed over too quickly. < <
You always have to be quick to catch all the humor and impact in a Coens film. It can rarely be done on first viewing. The dialogue was consistently excellent.
> > The Coen version takes place in early winter and the landscapes are bleak. Much of the story takes place at night. Although it is well-filmed, it is not a "pretty" looking western. < <
I thought the country was beautiful and Deakins shot it beautifully, as usual. He shot the scenes in Fargo beautifully too, and those were much bleaker and emptier.
> > There is a new sequence involving Cogburn and Mattie happening upon a hanging victim (whom neither knows) in a tall tree, an indian and a medicine man wearing a bear pelt. This is not in the novel and seems to be an entirely grauitous Coen edition. It doesn't advance the plot or develop the characters. It's not even bizarre enough to simply entertain us. It's pointless. < <
Disagree. The audience learns much about both Mattie and Cogburn from this scene and the subsequent appearance of the dentist, specifically about their grit and determination, and a couple clues about the past.
> > Also, in the Coen version the Texas ranger keeps leaving and rejoining Cogburn and Mattie and much opportunity for interplay/conflict among the characters is lost. Apparently, this is more faithful to the novel. If so, I think the change made for the 1969 version is more effective even if Glen Campbell was an attrocious actor. < <
Please. There is plenty of interplay/conflict between all three main characters and since Matt D is the weak link, any time he could be off screen is fine by me. He was the character who relied more on luck and money than grit and determination to do what's right, and it showed.
> > don't let the artistry, tone, better casting, and greater authenticity of the Coens's take fool you into looking for any Deep Meaning along the way. Don't expect any great emotional catharsis either. The climax and ending are just as flat as the original. < <
Some had a similar take on No Country for Old Men, and that won best picture. I think the meaning in this film, and most Coen films for that matter, can be as deep or as shallow as you feel like digging on any particular viewing. That's the beauty of their films. This was another gem and the critical acclaim is pretty universal.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Like most remakes, I found it ultimately pointless. The facile moral lessons are the same as the original and just as apparent. If you found deeper themes, you failed to point them out in your response.
The problem is "True Grit", even if it is a fine novel, really isn't a strong story as cinema. There is not enough time to fully explore and flesh out characterizations as there is in even a short novel and the straight forward linear plot is tedious, episodic, and relatively uneventful. Neither movie is head and shoulders above the other, much less among the great Westerns, but at least Wayne made the skimpy story entertaining along the way. Can't say the same for Bridges.
In the pre-feminist late 60s, audiences could take more away from the story in terms of its unique portrayal of a determined, strong-willed and intelligent young woman in a male-dominated western setting. But subsequently this conceit has been done to death. I don't understand why the Coens feel they had to remake this story when aside from slightly different tone and a more authentic aesthetic, it remains at its core virtually unchanged and unimproved.
Sorry, I don't hold either version in very high regard. In my opinion, the original at least is better for its lack of pretense. The new one gives me the same sort of feeling I got from watching The Curious Case of Benjamin Button . So much talent and artistry wasted on such a trivial story...
> > The facile moral lessons are the same as the original and just as apparent. < <
No, the original did not do justice to the girl's perspective, or show the old gunslinger's meddle tested in the same way.
> > If you found deeper themes, you failed to point them out in your response. < <
Because I don't care to point it out for those who haven't seen it and consider them obvious to those who have.
> > The problem is "True Grit", even if it is a fine novel, really isn't a strong story as cinema. < <
Are you really saying themes like morality, resolve, revenge and wasted talent don't make for strong plotlines in movies, traditionally?! Wow.
> > There is not enough time to fully explore and flesh out characterizations as there is in even a short novel and the straight forward linear plot is tedious, episodic, and relatively uneventful. < <
Absurd. All movies are this length, give or take, and few have character development this strong. You'd have preferred a nonlinear plot gimmick? There was a beginning, middle and end that paid off all elements of the narrative.
> > In the pre-feminist late 60s, audiences could take more away from the story in terms of its unique portrayal of a determined, strong-willed and intelligent young woman in a male-dominated western setting. But subsequently this conceit has been done to death. < <
I can think of only one: Pale Rider. But even that is a weak comparison because the girl is basically resigned to prayer whereas the girl in True Grit was far more resourceful and determined. What are all the other similar "done to death" westerns? Name a few.
> > Sorry, I don't hold either version in very high regard. < <
You certainly shouldn't apologize about holding the first version in high regard. It was horribly directed. If you can't enjoy this new version, don't apologize to me. It's your loss.
> > In my opinion, the original at least is better for its lack of pretense. The new one gives me the same sort of feeling I got from watching The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. So much talent and artistry wasted on such a trivial story... < <
Benjamin Button was poorly acted, directed and written. It relied on gimmicks and special effects. There is no valid comparison. The films aren't in the same ballpark. Don't believe me? Just look on Rotten Tomatoes. True Grit got a 95%...Benj Button got a 72%. If you got the same feeling from both, that says more about your mood's impact on your ability to properly analyze the films than anything else.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
agreement, including the short comment on Benjamin B.
Write more often here, Dalton.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
