Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen both versions of True Grit, do not read this commentary. I have provided several clips from the original movie. At the end of this article, make sure to view my Special Bonus video, a remarkable piece of work and an internet sensation! P.S. I interviewed the woman that produced and edited this fine video, and she tells me that you can still go to all of these places yourself.
The 1969 film version of Charles Portis' novel, “True Grit,” is my favorite Western film, so I thought it would be near impossible to render a fair review of the newly released version, written and directed by the Hollywood dream team, Joel and Ethan Coen, and produced by Paramount Pictures and SkyDance Productions (Steven Spielberg's company). I was wrong; this review is an easy one, and I believe it is unbiased.
True Grit 2010 is an excellent film, and should win multiple Academy Awards. On its own, it may be the best Western produced in the past five or ten years. The cinematography is stunning. The acting is exemplary. The script is flawless. The story is engaging. The scenery and costumes perfect. It is a work of art that every Western film fan must see on the big screen, and it is a film appropriate for the whole family. My hat goes off to everyone for making an excellent, Western movie. This is my full commentary of the film. If it seems too short and too simple, it is because I have nothing more to say about the film “on its own.”
But True Grit 2010 is not on its own. The only honest, complete review of this film has to take into consideration True Grit 1969. In this case, as in all cases of movie remakes, an honest, complete review must be a comparative review. And so I begin.
Compared to True Grit 1969, True Grit 2010 is a failure in many areas. But before I begin my breakdown comparison, allow me to make some introductory remarks about the general concept of creating a remake of True Grit 1969.
While I am happy that the Coen brothers produced and directed an excellent film, I am confused as to why they would attempt to beat out the 1969 version and The Duke. Let's not pretend that they were not trying to beat it out, shall we? They must have been out of their minds! Some remakes, as we have seen, are possible to beat out; some are not. They may make money. They may delight new audiences. But they will always fail if they go up against a classic film. They will fail, by comparison, in the vital areas of public sentiment and longevity, for every human being resents the people that even try to mess with their family members; and when you mess with a classic film you mess with characters who are like family members. So, while I enjoyed the film, I resent the filmmakers and am glad that they have failed, for they went after my family!
If you should doubt me on this psychological point of public sentiment and longevity, consider some of the past successes that proved failures. For instance, when you think of Dorothy and The Emerald City, do you think of Diana Ross and The Wiz? When you think of golden tickets and oompa loompas, do you think of Johnny Depp and Charlie And The Chocolate Factory? Chances are you do not. Chances are you think of Judy Garland and the Wizard Of Oz. Chances are you think of Gene Wilder and Willy Wonka. If you can believe it, consider this: some knucklehead tried to remake Psycho. Another pinhead tried to remake The Pink Panther. And I am sure, given the promise of high ticket sales, some bonehead will try to remake Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, ET, and The Sound Of Music. They may make a ton of money, they may be excellent films, but they will be failures. And we will all squeal with delight if we live to see those remakes.
Now on to my reasons why this 2010 version is a failure when compared to the 1969 version.
A short story or novel can be poorly written but still contain the seeds for a great film. A good screenplay writer can find the seeds and grow the story, or prune the story, into a decent screenplay. As this goes, the better the short story or novel, the better the screenplay, but any good screenplay writer can improve upon bad source material. And an excellent screenplay writer can tell when no improvement in the source material is required. When you consider True Grit 1969, and the likelihood that it's final screenplay was available to them, the Coen brothers failed to define themselves as excellent screenplay writers, because they altered a screenplay that needed no improvement. As excellent screenplay writers they should have clearly seen this fact, and bought the rights to the original screenplay.
Portis wrote an acclaimed book, but even Portis failed to bring out the best in his own story, whereas the 1969 screenplay did bring out the best in his story. And please don't tell me that the Coen brothers simply wanted to remake the movie because they wanted to better follow the novel, because, once again, that would only enforce my point that they did not demonstrate excellent knowledge here. They should have seen, for themselves, that the 1969 screenplay writers greatly improved on Portis' work. Did they want to make a great film or did they want to get a pat on the back from Portis?! Let's keep it real; they wanted to make a great film, so spare me the excuse that they were just following the novel.
If you doubt me concerning story success, consider that most Westerns audiences, I venture to say, want to see a real hero (not an anti-hero, as modern Western film writers have been trying to give us for the past forty years), and they want a happy ending. This is the Western genre, dang it, not mystery or thriller! We want clear good guys and clear bad guys in our Western stories, just like in the Golden Era of Westerns! And that's what Portis failed to see and do, but the 1969 screenplay writers did not; they caught it and fixed it. Using his novel as a foundation, this 1969 screenplay told a better story than did Portis!
John Wayne played Rooster Cogburn well enough to suit an aging, rugged, selfish, hard-drinking, loner, federal marshal, with true grit enough to get any dangerous shooting job done. The 1969 screenplay demonstrates that this kind of man can be charming and lovable. You need charming and lovable to pull off this story because it's a story about three distinctly different people, with differing agendas, greatly bonding over the course of a few days. And they do it, largely, by getting behind Rooster and supporting him. But the 2010 screenplay goes so overboard with Cogburn, in all negative character flaws, that they cause him to fail in the charming and unlovable areas. Strike one to the 2010 screenplay for following Portis.
Video Proof: See how the original screenplay communicates Rooster's charm, wit, fearlessness, fatherliness, and other character attributes, while set against the intimacy of a quiet night time shot. Two new friends talking. The 2010 screenplay does not utilize this backsetting and character detail; they convey some of the character information, but they do it during daylight, while the two are moving on horseback. The result is a powerful mistake! They lose intimacy between Mattie and Rooster, as well as invaluable character backstory and insight: http://movieclips.com/QGtC-true-grit-movie-rooster-opens-up/
Kim Darby played Mattie Ross as the head-strong, older girl, with true grit of her own, hellbent on going along on the tracking expedition to capture her father's killer. Portis knew that such a character would best be presented as a bulldozer in all of her dealings, so he had her outwit a professional businessman and deal with the mortician concerning her father's funeral arrangements, and fight for her position on the posy. Portis rightly fleshed out this female character, through these scenes, but Portis failed to make her the correct age. The 1969 screenplay corrected his mistake. Nobody would believe that a very young girl, from any era in history, would have this refined grit, this stubbornness, this maturity, and this disarming wit. But the 2010 screenplay runs with a young teenage girl, just like Portis did, and nobody believes the fullness of the character. Strike two to the 2010 screenplay for following Portis.
Video Proof: See how the 1969 version better shows Mattie fighting to be a part of the hunt, and notice how the screenplay does a better job of builiding relationships by showing us, early on in the movie, the two men's growing respect and admiration of her character: http://movieclips.com/RqFgy-true-grit-movie-river-crossing/
Glen Campbell played La Boeuf as the amiable, competent, prideful, Texas Ranger, who does not want Mattie on the hunt, who demonstrates mild contempt for Cogburn, and who wins over the hearts of his teammates in the end. The 1969 screenplay understands that audiences prefer the tightest bonds between friends, so the screenplay does not overly accentuate La Boeuf's contempt toward Rooster, or his violence toward Mattie, or his Texas Ranger pride. The 1969 screenplay has three days for three people, who do not like each other, to fall in love, if the story is to be believed and the audience emotionally moved. From what I know about the novel, Portis had his way in the 2010 screenplay; in this new screenplay, La Boeuf demonstrates extreme contempt for Cogburn. And he executes extreme, wanton violence on Mattie, and his Texas Ranger pride overshadows any amiable personality trait. The result, from an audience standpoint, is strong distaste for La Boeuf. No way could these three come to be audience-beloved friends in three days! It's too unbelievable, so strike three to the 2010 screenplay for following Portis.
Video Proof: Watch how the original screenplay downplays the La Boeuf violence on Mattie: http://movieclips.com/UQAi-true-grit-movie-drop-that-switch/
True Grit is not a story about true grit. True Grit is a story about relationships. It's a “buddy” story, a warm-hearted tale of friendship that unfolds before our eyes in the space of two hours. The 1969 screenplay demonstrated that for three antagonists to grow into friends, in such a way that will move audiences, they must be on screen, a lot, together; they need to be around each other constantly; they have to be exposed to one another in front of the camera, so we can experience it. The 1969 screenplay did this; we did see them on screen together, and a lot. That screenplay kept them all together and we all felt bonded with them as they bonded with each other. But the 2010 screenplay separates Cogburn and La Boeuf for a good deal of the movie. How can we, the audience, come to believe these people as becoming friends, at the end of the movie, and be touched by their friendship, if we had deprived opportunities, on-screen, to see them interact and be together? Strike four to the 2010 screenplay for separating La Boeuf from Cogburn and Mattie.
Video Proof: See this clip and notice that La Boeuf is part of the scene - building comradere: http://movieclips.com/uBUfZ-true-grit-movie-smoke-them-out/
Finally, I'll sum up some of the other observations that make this film a failure by comparison to the masterpiece of 1969.
The longer courtroom scene took up more time than needed, and added nothing charming or emotional for the audience. The original screenplay utilized the time by exploring Cogburn's relationship with his Chinese landlord, his cat, and his backroom living at the shop. I would take those scenes, in exchange for the longer courtroom scene, any day of the week, because they charm me and build the characters and back story for me.
The extended hanging scene took crucial time away from the opportunities of capturing more charm and character development on film. The 1969 screenplay did not allow the hanging scene to eat up charm and character time on-screen. Once again, bad choice of screen time.
“Fill your hands...” is one of the most beloved and famous bits of dialogue in Hollywood history. The final, aerial-shot, meadow scene, in which this dialogue appears, is one of the most dramatic in all of Hollywood history. The 1969 screenplay was very, very careful to ensure that this scene, a scene most vital to proving true grit, a scene most vital to giving audiences that Rocky-knocks-out-Apollo-Creed moment. So they slowed down the action. They did close-ups. They built up the tension with fast cross-shots. They featured Jaws-like, punctuated, heartbeat, tense music throughout the entire scene. If people forget some of the details of the 1969 screenplay, they never forget the final scene. But this 2010 screenplay treats this vital story scene as if it were just another final scene from just another Western movie. These new filmmakers didn't just fail here, they totally blew it!
Video Proof: See how the 1969 screenplay handles this scene, music, acting and all, the way it needed to be handled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKThgLq21Rc
The decision to cut out the violent plucking of the turkey results in a loss of communicated, inner turmoil on the part of one of the bad guys hiding out. That action, which Rooster made him stop in the original movie, showed the fear, hatred and frustration of that bad guy. It added drama and tension to the scene and made for a better movie because it struck into the hearts of the audience. The Coen brothers failed to appreciate the subtle power of this violent turkey plucking action, so they left it out of the scene, and so they failed another comparison point.
Video Proof: See this turkey scene from the original movie: http://movieclips.com/c8u5-true-grit-movie-i-dont-like-the-way-you-look/
More points off for killing off Little Blackie on camera. She, like the other characters, was one of our family, Coens!
A one-armed Mattie may be true to the novel, but it makes for a lousy happy ending. And remember, despite what the nincompoops tell you people in Hollywood, American Westerns fans want a happy ending. In 1969, Mattie deals with enough to make us feel for her; she didn't need to lose an arm, too. If Portis is responsible for this outrage, fine, but you shouldn't have followed him, Coens! You shouldn't have cut off Mattie's arm. It's depressing for the ending!
Lastly, you killed Rooster!! Are you kidding me?! Friendships established (maybe in this version, but I doubt it), and then one of the party dies within the same two hours?! Are you kidding?! How is that move supposed to make us feel?! Happy ending. Happy ending. Happy ending. Say it again, Hollywood; happy ending. Westerns fans want happy endings, or, at least, an ending that leans toward positive emotion. Here's a tip: killing off the main good guy, whom you've probably just made us come to love or respect, is not going to help us like you or your movie.
I could say more but there is no need to do so; I've said enough. As I said in the beginning, True Grit 2010 is an excellent film if you do not compare it to True Grit 1969. The problem is that everyone on earth will compare it. And then it will plummet from excellence to failure, all within the time that it takes to say “fill your hands!"
Special Bonus Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUP9rOLf30
Double Special Bonus Video (for those who read my article completely. LOL): John Wayne winning Best Actor for his Rooster Cogburn. This guy had pure class! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qQhODwivLU&feature=related
