New true grit vs. old true grit
-
misspaddylee — 15 years ago(January 06, 2011 02:48 PM)
I read the book when I was 13 when the first movie was released and then again this past summer and might be able to recall some of the particulars you ask about.
Mattie recounts what happened between her father and Chaney as she heard it. The scene in the 1969 movie is pretty much how it occurs in the book except that it took place outside of the boarding house.
The scenes with Chen Lee are in the book.
LeBoeuf is introduced to Mattie in the dining room. They are given private space in the parlour for a conference.
Rooster does steal the buggy, but leaves her at the doctor's and doesn't see her again.
LeBoeuf does not separate from the party.
The book is written as amputee Mattie's memoir of the hunt for Chaney and ends with her visiting the wild west show and taking Rooster's body to be buried at her home. The 1969 movie foreshadows the burial.
Rooster recounts most of his past history in that one conversation waiting for Ned Pepper's gang.
The "coffee" bit in the novel was during the visit to Rooster at Chen Lee's place.
"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones." -
Marclev — 15 years ago(February 14, 2011 11:57 AM)
Book:
- Starts with an Mattie's "voice over"
- More time with Lee, Cat, etc.
- La Boef sticks with them. Introduced at dinner.
- Cogburn comandeers buggy
- Mattie looses arm. Cogburn leaves before she goes home.
- Cogburn talks about his past only once.
- She tells both of them that she doesn't drink coffee.
-
baran_erik — 11 years ago(November 15, 2014 04:04 AM)
Aged very badly? How so? That they didn't use contractions? Or the 60s movie making, in which Wayne slings a guy who was stuck in the gut with a knife over his shoulder and doesn't get a drop of blood on him? Or when Duvall has just been shot, has a little splotch of blood on his jacket and no bullet hole? Other than the olde tyme approach to violence, it's a period piece.
-
Jep_Gambardella — 11 years ago(November 15, 2014 05:34 AM)
Sorry, I don't remember the specifics of why I wrote what I wrote. Let me assure that I do watch and appreciate many older films, so it's not just that they are unfamiliar to me.
Don't give me songs
Give me something to sing about -
movieguy82 — 15 years ago(January 08, 2011 06:32 PM)
Is it blasphemous to say the new film version of "True Grit" is better than the old one? Don't get me wrong, John Wayne is great, but the Coen Brothers' version seems to have better supporting actors (more of an ensemble). Plus, it sticks to the (voice over) narration from the book. That's my two cents.
-
kkm_22 — 15 years ago(January 09, 2011 07:30 PM)
Just saw the original today and I liked it in spite of the fact that I don't usually watch westerns. Sure some of performances weren't top notch, but I liked John Wayne and the chemistry between the trio of characters. Plus, there was a lot of that wry humor sprinkled throughout.
I am a fan of the Coen's bros, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch the remake. Now that I know they based it on the book (didn't know it was a book), I'm eager to see their version. -
Thirdover4 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 06:27 AM)
I've always been a fan of John Wayne but, at the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I really wasn't fond of his performance in True Grit. Part of the problem is that it is one of his films I did not see when I was younger, but heard so much about. To me, it felt a little over the top. I thought he was trying to work a outside of his comfort zone with a more brazen, more comedic role, but it seems to get a little clownish at times. I haven't seen the new version but the performance by Bridges (in the trailers) looks to me a lot more polished. Part of that is the acting and directing styles of the period. Now, John Wayne in "The Shootist" is subtle and convincing in my opinion.
Another actor who seems oddly off to me in True Grit is Dennis Hopper. He seems young and inexperienced compared to his performance in Easy Rider that was released the same year. Interesting that that film is often credited with helping launch the transition from old Hollywood style movies like True Grit, into the more contemporary style films with the crop of young directors that would follow. -
robbl12 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 07:43 AM)
Very difficult to compare in many ways. I think the modern version is the superior film, but it's easy to forget how the original was such a great film for the time that it was made. Modern filmmaking and resources, when utilized to their full potential, should produce better films, and the Cohens managed to do that brilliantly.
I've recently rewatched the original, and the good news is that one version does not detract from the other. The original holds up very well. I now will have to read the book. -
rcocean3 — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 07:04 PM)
The New Grit is a fine movie and LOOKS better than the Old Grit - but it doesn't have Wayne, Robert Duvall or Strother Martin. It also doesn't have the humor and drama of the '69 version.
Advantage Old Grit. -
-
Chaco1942 — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 08:40 AM)
A recent Hollywood Reporter story made something out of the fact that Jeff Bridges actually rode the horse in the big shootout at the end, while in the earlier version John Wayne was filmed in closeup while riding on a vehicle.
Well, pilgrims, the Duke was 67 years old, had one lung, and was filming at elevations of 9000-10000 feet up in the San Juan mountains of Colorado.while Jeff, at age 60, had both lungs and considerably more eneregy to contribute.
Like I've said before, both versions are quite enjoyable on their own merits.