The original True Grit was on last month, and I caught the final two thirds of the film. For the sake of authenticity, I will not say that I saw it, as I definitely missed the beginning. However, I retained enough to have been able to make the connection to the new one when I saw it on the way to Hong Kong. Here are my thoughts (Note: I did not read the 1968 Charles Portis book by the same name)...
The 1969 version of True Grit (starring John Wayne in his only Oscar-winning role) was better, if only for the reason that it was the original theatrical version of the story. While the Coen Brothers remake strikes different chords with regards to cinematography and artistic development, I think that the only thing it tops the original in is the idea of an artistic endeavor in the first place. The story remained the same. Much of the dialogue was almost word-for-word lifted from the original. There shouldn't be any debate over which story was better, as they were nearly mirrored.
The role of Rooster Cogburn fits John Wayne's sort of grizzled, do-as-I-damn-well-please demeanor at that point with countless westerns under his belt. I don't know where the argument that Jeff Bridges pulled the role off better comes from. Look, here's the thing: Bridges did have to strive to turn himself into the role of Cogburn. The problem is that Wayne had the role first, and- unlike something along the lines of Heath Ledger's turn at the Joker compared to Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero- Bridges didn't re-invent the wheel with this portrayal. It's not that he was bad (in fact, I thought it was an enjoyable part to see him in), it's just that his having to strive to embody that character was not as convincing as John Wayne owning the character.
That is the other point: whether you think Wayne had to act at all to become Rooster Cogburn, the whole aura of "great" actors is that they make it seem like they're not acting at all, like they REALLY ARE the character they're playing on screen. Take Christian Bale as Dicky Eklund in The Fighter: he won the Oscar BECAUSE he did such a convincing job of owning the character. How hard he had to try to imitate Dicky Eklund is irrelevant; the important thing is that it was convincing. Now, I will venture to say that it may not have been a stretch to imagine John Wayne as a grizzled old man (cowboy?) based on having seen other films of his before...but he embodies crotchety, old, weathered Rooster better.
Now, Hailee Steinfeld does a more convincing job in her role than her predecessor, Kim Darby. Part of this is aided by the fact that she's younger than Darby was at the time of the 1969 film's release, thus making the vigilante seeking revenge angle come across as more heartfelt. What makes the 1969 version more authentic, for lack of a better term, from a character perspective is that Steinfeld and Bridges seem to get along a lot easier. While this cohesion should make it better, the stand-offish nature of Wayne lends itself to his loner character. As a result, when he DOES come around to taking Kim Darby under his wing in the original film, it's a grander gesture of acceptance and friendship.
All in all, the names in the 2010 True Grit (including Matt Damon, who gives a solid performance, not unlike Robert Duvall in the original) are probably better actors. However, I'd give my "better performance" award to Wayne and the 1969 crowd. It may be unfair to play the "they did it first" card, but in this case, anyway, that's precisely the point. In a time where "based on" is thrown around too liberally, the 1969 version of True Grit stands out as the first of the two to follow the Portis book fairly closely. The Coens DO provide an updated set, backdrop, and cinematic expression...but much like Avatar wasn't a revolutionary storyline, the familiarity with Rooster and company was established long before the Coen Brothers set out to dream it up...again.
That said, the story itself is quite enjoyable. I found the hunt to be a little slow in both versions, but was impressed by the raw thirst for justice displayed by the heroine. The character of Cogburn is endearing because it embodies a more badass form of good grandparents: supportive, understanding, a bit dismissive of the younger generations, and a certain "I'm too old for this, but I'll get dragged into action again" sentiment. All in all, a good recipe to pass the time on a 16-hour flight, which is a much more important test to pass than you might think.
No comments:
Post a Comment