I admit it: this is not a cutting edge blog, and I am in general anything but cutting edge. I prefer to wait until an author is dead before quoting him, and the few young (under 50) writers I have quoted lately make me a little uneasy. I enjoy movies, but have never been one to run to the theatre to see the latest film. When there is a new release that interests me, I am perfectly content to wait until it comes out on DVD. It is a rare film that is better on the big screen (Jaws comes to mind).
Last night, the family and I watched the 2010 remake of True Grit. For those who maintain an even longer cultural lag-time than I, this review will contain no spoilers.
Like most, my introduction to True Grit was the first screenplay starring John Wayne, Kim Darby, and Glen Campell. Being but four years old in 1969, I also did not run to the theatre to see John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn. I saw it a few years later, no doubt edited for television in an age when nothing worse than “damn” and “hell” were heard, and even those much less frequently.
As a kid, I saw True Grit as a great western. As an adult, I came to appreciate its humor. While True Grit is not really a comedy (except in the classical sense), it really is very funny. Almost every exchange involving the protagonist, fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross, cracks me up.
Westerns of that age have an appeal that is largely lost today. They are realistically violent, with realistically despicable villains, without being graphically bloody and gruesome or gratuitously profane and obscene. When I heard of plans to remake True Grit, particularly by the Coen brothers, I was so sure that would be lost that I resolved not to see it. I was not going to watch Rooster Cogburn spouting obscenities and blowing big gaping holes in the bad guys, or the desultory Mattie Ross bathing in the river with LaBoeuf peering through the trees scene.
A couple of things happened to change my mind. First, a couple of friends saw the remake, liked it, and assured me that my fears were unnecessary (this proved correct). Second, I learned, to my embarrassment, that True Grit was not born in a studio in 1969, but as a Charles Portis novel in ’68. So now, if I was to see the new version, I had to read the book first so I could judge the movie by the correct standard.
This was a fortunate necessity. Portis’s True Grit is a delightful story, filled with a dry humor that I fear is largely lost on today’s consumers of crass stand-up intellect assassins and sitcom stupidity. I give my unreserved recommendation that you read his book. Unless you’ve been inoculated against real humor by the previously mentioned artless arts, or are a humorless curmudgeon, you’ll smile all the way through, and you’ll be smarter to boot.
So, how did I like the 2010 remake, and how does it compare to the 1969 classic, and how does it (and its predecessor) compare to the original source?
True Grit (1969) follows the Portis novel so closely that, having seen it several times over the years, reading the novel was like listening to the movie without video. This is no exaggeration. The scripted dialogue really follows the book that accurately. The 2010 remake is pretty good in that way as well, but contains less of the dialogue. The remake’s story-line is somewhat more faithful and complete. Both are excellent representations of the novel, much more so than almost any other book-based movies I have seen. The lead character actors in both play their characters well, so well, in fact, that in a few scenes the 1969 and 2010 characters could be interchanged. Most notable in that way are Strother Martin/Dakin Matthews as Colonel Stonehill and Robert Duvall/Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper. There are also glimpses of Kim Darby’s Mattie Ross in Hailee Steinfeld. Jeff Bridges’s Rooster and Matt Damon’s Laboeuf bear much less resemblance to their 1969 counterparts, but are possibly more accurate representations of Portis’s characters.
The 2010 remake is technically more accurate, and the actors do a fine job, but in the end, I still think the John Wayne film is the best. The dialogue, which is the most charming part of the novel, is more complete, and the personalities, also vital to the mood of the story, are brought to life better in the earlier film. That is why 1969’s True Grit is in my library, to be watched many more times in years to come, while 2010’s, while enjoyable enough, is most likely a one-time rental.
Finally, a note about the soundtrack. The instrumental hymns throughout were nice, but not as appropriate to the story as the 1969 soundtrack. Besides, I hate it when the gospel is hijacked for secular use. Having done that, though, I wish they had kept it all instrumental. I’ll take Glen Campell’s cheesy True Grit theme over the caterwauling that concluded this production any day.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1846
Share this post:
Posted in:
Link · 2 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
2 Comments:
#1 || 11·08·05··09:36 || Victoria
Thanks for this review.
I was 20 when the first one came out and my hubby and I saw it at the theater. It is one of our all time favorite movies. I just can't my husband to watch the new version-he is a man who believes trying to replace John Wayne in anything is next to blasphemy!
I did not realize there was a book-so one thing your review did was bring that fact to light. Now I am going to buy and read that book
#2 || 11·08·05··15:13 || David Kjos
Replacing John Wayne would be unforgivable if he really was the original Rooster. That’s another reason the book changed my mind.