OT: True Grit, 2010 - movies and book comparison

[bdhold]

bulldog,

Did you buy the 2 disc set, or just rent or PPV it? The reason I ask is that they didn't actually film it in sepia but they used more natural colors in the sets, and especially in the clothing. People in that time did not wear the gaudy stuff we wear now.
The two disc set I have gives a tremendous amount of info on all that.

As for Jeff Bridges being Cogburn he did at least as good a job as Wayne.
I think he did a really good job playing a drunk with an alcohol addelpated brain.

Joe

he did too good a job - hard to take him as a hero - even hard to take him seriously
as I said, I did like Maddy's and LeBeouf's characters.

rented from blockbuster in Corpus and watched on my girlfriends tired analog bigscreen, which I admit is not the best, but the lighting in the movie seemed intentionally subdued if not sepia-color-shifted.

[J Miller]

bulldog,

Did you buy the 2 disc set, or just rent or PPV it? The reason I ask is that they didn't actually film it in sepia but they used more natural colors in the sets, and especially in the clothing. People in that time did not wear the gaudy stuff we wear now.
The two disc set I have gives a tremendous amount of info on all that.

As for Jeff Bridges being Cogburn he did at least as good a job as Wayne.
I think he did a really good job playing a drunk with an alcohol addelpated brain.

Joe

he did too good a job - hard to take him as a hero - even hard to take him seriously
as I said, I did like Maddy's and LeBeouf's characters.

rented from blockbuster in Corpus and watched on my girlfriends tired analog bigscreen, which I admit is not the best, but the lighting in the movie seemed intentionally subdued if not sepia-color-shifted.

If you get a chance to buy the movie, get the one with either the Blue Ray and DVD disk or just the Blue Ray if your machine will play it.
The special features section on the Blue Ray is worth the price of the sets just for the information.
I've watched it on my old 16" analog computer monitor and our 19" flat faced digital TV. The colors looked the same to me. Not so much sepia, but subdued and natural browns and other colors. After all it was filmed in the winter time.

Joe

[gak]

Just something else I noticed when I watched it again yesterday.

Both Cogburns and LeBoeufs's Colt SAAs ( Ubertis really ) are smokeless frame guns with crescent ejector rods. Not period correct.

It seams that with all the trouble the Coen Brothers went to to make this movie correct, the shouldn't have missed that.

My wife got a snicker out of it when I paused the movie and backed it up to show her.

Joe

Joe, I noticed that too. You'd think in this day and age, with all the info available, from such fine sources as this site for instance -- there'd be no gaps. Italian blackpowder frame variants are about as available as the smokeless variety. You can just hear the movie production's gun guy saying. "Just get me some Colt clones" period.

All that said, I really enjoyed the new version. Bridge's depiction of Cogburn could have been (slightly) more coherent! I agree with the comments on the better acting all around, that the two movies are different enough for this to stand on its own, and actually felt the subdued color quality--whether due to the season, aspects such as clothing and/or film "treatment"-- enhanced the film and its more serious tone. One humorous moment between Mattie and Cogburn I mentioned before--the outhouse scene - hilarious.

[adirondakjack]

I steered clear of this thread until I had seen the movie.

The wife rented it over the weekend, and I found it very nicely done and less "campy" than the standard Wayne film. I'll say this, had the JW version never existed, folks would not be caught up in the comparison, and reviews would be through the roof. Well done!

[adirondakjack]

The dialogue was historically correct. I thought it was much better than the original.

I found the dialog, and use of big words such as ineffectually in grammatically correct sentences to be very enjoyable. I was utterly horrid in English and grammar classes in school, but as I have gotten older I have been able to learn more.

But please don't ask me to diagram a sentence. I would fail miserably.

Joe

I wonder about the dialogue. Sometimes I think we err in our interpretation of the way folks SPOKE back then because much of our interptretaion comes from the way they WROTE. Writing was a very rigidly codified skill in those days, but unless one was reading a speech, I suspect the day to day spoken word WAS less formal than what we heard in this movie and others that use historical WRITING as a basis for CONVERSATION. But, since none of us were there to HEAR casual conversation back in the day, we are left with their "book talk".....

Even in more recent times, we could err a bunch if we were to rely on a person's writings as a clue to their conversation. A recent bit of tape from the White House, LBJ on the phone ordering pants from the Hagar family is a case in point. Though not unprintable, Lyndon's "colorful" conversation (he described tight pants as "like riding a wire fence") was certainly NOT the same as the way he wrote.....

[J Miller]

adirondakjack,

You have made a point. The written language has always been more formal. Even now I cannot write a personal letter to someone informally.

What we need is a time machine and an audio video recorder to go back to that time and record their speech without their knowledge. Then compare it to the periods written words.

I am willing to make the trip, now we just need the time machine.

Joe

[vancelw]

rented from blockbuster in Corpus and watched on my girlfriends tired analog bigscreen, which I admit is not the best, but the lighting in the movie seemed intentionally subdued if not sepia-color-shifted.

I don't know how much they manipulated the color (they did a LOT in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?"). But, in 1879, in Indian Territory, in the winter . . . There wasn't much color. Evergreen trees would be about it. I'm sure they controlled the color to suit the mood they wanted to set. I think it helps with continuity on shots that are taken at various times of the day.

Now I have to go watch it again. I never noticed the color, except for the Ft. Smith scenes.

[J Miller]

John Wayne died in 1979.
Since he died western movies have run the gamut from really good to abysmal.
Many have been remakes, like 310 To Yuma ( need puke icon ), True grit, and a few others that slip my mind.

So here is a thought: I wonder how John Wayne would have done if he was alive today and had played Rooster Cogburn in the Coen Brothers True Grit?
It's just my opinion, but I'd bet he would have done very well.

Just a thought.

Joe

[FWiedner]

Just saw the new.

Though the story is the same, the tale as told is, IMO, much superior to the first.

Now I'll have to watch the John Wayne version again to see if my remember is worth beans.

[J Miller]

Just saw the new.

Though the story is the same, the tale as told is, IMO, much superior to the first.

Now I'll have to watch the John Wayne version again to see if my remember is worth beans.

The story is the same, but they are told from two different perspectives all the way around.

I've watched the JW version since watching the Coen version and I still like it. They are different enough they do not degrade each other. Now I'm going to sit back and read the book again.

Joe

[Modoc ED]

Bridges in this and in Wild Bill constantly sounds like he is doing a phony voice, never liked Sam Elliot for the same reason. And I never found Duvall believable - always seemed like he was acting and of course they are all actors but have to draw you in to achieve suspension of disbelief. They never did that for me except Duvall as the southern preacher and Elliot in Tombstone. But to be fair - I didn't like the first True Grit, and never thought he should have received the Oscar for it. He did deserve it for others - The Quiet Man and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. Someone asked John Wayne one time what his method of acting was and he reportedly replied - Ma'am I play John Wayne in every picture. He didn't there in my estimation.

BTW my wife doesn't like me to comment on her TV dramas - you can maybe see why.

I have to go along with Fred on the voices. Throughout the whole movie I kept wondering if Bridges was going to ever brush his teeth and wash the cotton out of his mouth.

I also agree that Wayne didn't really deserve the Oscar for "True Grit". I think the Actors Guild gave it to Wayne because his career was pretty much over and his lung cancer had come back.

He did deserve the Oscar for "Quiet Man". That was one great movie.

Althoug the new "True Grit" was quite good, I kept asking myself whatever made Bridges think he could pull off acting a John Wayne part. Bridges did a good job but he just doesn't come up to the "persona" of Wayne.

Fred, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" was an excelent movie too. Good choice.

[Birdman]

It's mighty hard to vote against John Wayne but I lean toward the new version. But let me cratique it a bit. The thing I thought was crazy was when Rooster grabed the girl after she was bit by the snake and doubled up on a horse knowing there was a several mile ride. Then ran that horse right by another horse standing there. I have not read the book but so I assume in the book he didn't have the option of grabbing another horse to swap back and forth with. In those times a man who had lived the type of life Rooster had lived would not have left a good horse behind.

[Ysabel Kid]

It's mighty hard to vote against John Wayne but I lean toward the new version. But let me cratique it a bit. The thing I thought was crazy was when Rooster grabed the girl after she was bit by the snake and doubled up on a horse knowing there was a several mile ride. Then ran that horse right by another horse standing there. I have not read the book but so I assume in the book he didn't have the option of grabbing another horse to swap back and forth with. In those times a man who had lived the type of life Rooster had lived would not have left a good horse behind.

I just watched it for the first time over the weekend, and was thinking the same thing. In the original John Wayne version, he states that "little Blackie" was the only horse he could catch. That made sense.

All in all, though this was a well performed version, I'll take the original one any time over it.

[J Miller]

I'm reading the book right now. From what I have read so far both movies got the dialog right in places, but neither of them were completely right with the book.

I do know one thing though, Mattie Ross was a cat hating Democrat. Says so right in the book.
Not sure I like her any more.

Joe

[Ysabel Kid]

I'm reading the book right now. From what I have read so far both movies got the dialog right in places, but neither of them were completely right with the book.

I do know one thing though, Mattie Ross was a cat hating Democrat. Says so right in the book.
Not sure I like her any more.

Joe

I don't recall the year mentioned in either movie, but obviously it is some time after the Civil Way since Rooster served in it. Back then, the Democrats we considered conservatives and the Republicans considered more liberal. Funny how it has completely flipped and then some (starting way back with Woodrow Wilson, perhaps even before). This is why so many Southern Democrats fled the party and became Republicans - the party left them.

No excuse for the cat-hating part though!

[vancelw]

No excuse for the cat-hating part though!

Says you I agree with her.

I will go further and say that all cats are wicked, though often useful. Who has not seen Satan in their sly faces?

[J Miller]

Matte Ross, Page 30, soft back version of TRUE GRIT:
I say that of these ponies. I have known some horses and a good many more pigs who I believe harbored evil intent in their hearts. I will go further and say all cats are wicked, though often useful. Who has not seen Satan in their sly faces? Some preachers will say, well, that is superstitious "claptrap." My answer is this: Preacher, go to your Bible and read Luke 8: 26-33.

Luke 8:26-33

King James Version (KJV)

26And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.

27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

29(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

30And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

31And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

32And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

33Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

I fail to see how this Bible passage has anything to do with cats. It speaks of a man infested with demons who Christ drove out of him and into a herd of pigs which were then drowned.
I'm no Bible expert, but this passage does not condemn cats in my opinion.

Joe

[J Miller]

Since my wife brought home TRUE GRIT 2010 I have watched it several times. I've also rewatched TRUE GRIT 1969 and just moments ago finished reading the book.

Both movies follow the book in many places especially the high points.
T.G. 2010's ending is closer to the book than T.G. 1969, but only barely.
The hanged man and bear man seen in 2010 was not in the book.
T.G. 2010's shoot out between Rooster and Lucky Ned Pepper was a match to the book.
However T.G 1969 was closer where Matte shot Chaney with the Colt Dragoon, NOT LeBeouf's rifle, and fell backwards into the pit.
In general, other than the ending, the John Wayne True Grit was closer to the book in details than the 2010 version was.

I will say no more on this other than to say I have enjoyed both movies for their different points of view, and the book as well.
I also strongly suggest that anyone who has not read the book buy it and do so.

Joe

[Ji in Hawaii]

Matte Ross, Page 30, soft back version of TRUE GRIT:
I say that of these ponies. I have known some horses and a good many more pigs who I believe harbored evil intent in their hearts. I will go further and say all cats are wicked, though often useful. Who has not seen Satan in their sly faces? Some preachers will say, well, that is superstitious "claptrap." My answer is this: Preacher, go to your Bible and read Luke 8: 26-33.

I fail to see how this Bible passage has anything to do with cats. It speaks of a man infested with demons who Christ drove out of him and into a herd of pigs which were then drowned.
I'm no Bible expert, but this passage does not condemn cats in my opinion.

Joe

I believe the reference was specific to the swine mentioned in verse 32, and 33. Domestic cats are not mentioned in neither the old or new testaments that I am aware of.

Here is a more modern translation of the verses:
Now a herd of a considerable number of swine was feeding there on the mountain; so they entreated him to permit them to enter into those. And he gave them permission.  Then the demons went out of the man and entered into the swine, and the herd rushed over the precipice into the lake and drowned.

[Bob Winchester]

Not to revive a zombie thread but does anyone know why Mattie Ross not like Frank James? Other than the end of the movie he has no part.

[J Miller]

Not to revive a zombie thread but does anyone know why Mattie Ross not like Frank James? Other than the end of the movie he has no part.

When a lady enters the room or approaches a seated gentleman he stands up to greet her. Frank James remained seated. For that she considered him trash.

Joe

[Griff]

I finally saw the movie on my friend's 86" big screen.

1st, I didn't care for the original. GC was horrible, JW was his usual self, only Darby came close to Mattie Ross. The setting, whille beautiful, ain't anything like the I.T. And the score... well, what do you expect out of a Glen Cambell set-piece? For the time... escapist drivel; outstanding only because it was "good" escapist drivel.

Fast-forward to 2010: An "at best" "B" movie production company decides to make a new version of a thoroughly '60's version of a "western". What to expect? Well... ya'lls comments here raised my expectations.

Well... Both Damon & Bridges are far better actors than Wayne & Campbell; and as for Hallie, I think she was superb; at least she was believeable as a young girl trying fill a grownup's shoes. JB out JW'd JW as a cantankerous old, alchololic. But, he didn't quite make the muster in the real action scenes. The iconic line, "... fill your hand, you son-uva-bitch..." just didn't hold the level of threat that JW's delivery brought. MD's LeBeaf was excellent, a peacock of a Texas Ranger, was just how I pictured the character while reading the book.

All-in-all, I must say that it certainly was not a remake of what many (but not me*), feel is an iconic western. And by being it's own film, it succeeded admirably. Since both movie-craft & -goers are quite a bit more advanced than they were 42 years ago, other'n a very few nits, there ain't much to pick on in this movie. True Grit of 2010 will be added to my collection; & I think I'll follow Joe's advice to get the expanded version. I like to see scenes that didn't get in the final cut as well.

* IMO, to be an "iconic" movie, it must really stand the test of time in the genre it represents. The True Grit of 1969 is only one of many JW films. Other westerns starring JW were far more important as westerns than the tale told in this'n. if you see no other JW movie, True Grit is as good as they come... maybe a bit better.

[J Miller]

Being hobbled up by this chronically swollen leg I watched True Grit 2010 day before yesterday, and T.G. 1969 and Rooster Cogburn yesterday.

I agree with Griff's report. I enjoyed them both.

The only thing I will add to my opinion of the movies is that J.W. at his age then played the Rooster Cogburn role almost as a comedy. Had he played it serious he would have beat Jeff Bridges hands down.

Joe

[vancelw]

Being hobbled up by this chronically swollen leg I watched True Grit 2010 day before yesterday, and T.G. 1969 and Rooster Cogburn yesterday.

I agree with Griff's report. I enjoyed them both.

The only thing I will add to my opinion of the movies is that J.W. at his age then played the Rooster Cogburn role almost as a comedy. Had he played it serious he would have beat Jeff Bridges hands down.

Joe

Not possible. John Wayne was John Wayne, no matter what movie he was in. It simply wasn't in him to play it any other way. I'm a John Wayne fan, but he was a character more than an actor.

[J Miller]

vance,

In Wayne's later movies he played the same character no matter what the costume was. But, in his earlier movies he could and did act. Look at The Searchers and Red River. In those, and others I'm sure, he did act. He had it in him, but the writers, directors and producers didn't play it that way.

Joe

[4t5]

Watched it last night,liked the original better.If I had never seen the original,this would be pretty good,nobody can replace the...DUKE.

[Griff]

I just watched a copy of the True Grit (2010) that I bought with the special features. I finally found a foopah in it's accurate protrayal of 1870 Fort Smith. In fact, the ONLY such "out of time" mistake. If you look at the opening scene with the train, you will see the railroad crossing. There wasn't any steel encased concrete grade crossings in 1870.

grade crossing.JPG

Other'n that, guns, costumes, buildings and such are VERY well done.

[J Miller]

I just watched a copy of the True Grit (2010) that I bought with the special features. I finally found a foopah in it's accurate protrayal of 1870 Fort Smith. In fact, the ONLY such "out of time" mistake. If you look at the opening scene with the train, you will see the railroad crossing. There wasn't any steel encased concrete grade crossings in 1870.

Other'n that, guns, costumes, buildings and such are VERY well done.

Griff,
I saw that too. If you watch the special features they tell about the locomotive too. It was made in the early 1900s. The date placard is right on the loco too in plane sight, but you can't read it.

Joe