The original True Grit; it really doesn't deserve such a monniker, since it's technically a predecessing adaptation of the current Coen Brothers' version that's been getting rave reviews and as of this writing, received ten Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. Quite a feat, seeing that these honors have overshadowed the two earned by the 1969 version, including John Wayne's only win for Best Actor. How does this version of True Grit hold up?
In the late 1800s American Old West, fourteen year-old Mattie Ross' father is gunned down by a petty thug named Tom Chaney. Seeking vengence, Ross gains the services of federal marshall Rooster Cogburn and Texas Ranger LaBoeuf to track him down. After a series of leads, and trip-ups, Ross and Cogburn's relationship evolves from uneasy reluctance to mutual respect. The acting from the leads serves the film just fine. John Wayne is in top form, even though he's playing his typical All-American Hero-type, again. Jeff Bridges, I felt really captured the literary essence and gruffness of Rooster Cogburn, so to say one is better than the other is merely subjective. The same goes for Kim Darby as Mattie Ross; while she looks a little mature (and unusually boyish! She was 21 at the time of filming) for the part, her energy is more than adequate, and serves her role well. A lot of True Grit's artistic and aesthetic qualities are definitely products of their time, but not without charm.
While it's hard to resist comparison with the 2010 version, I honestly did attempt to view True Grit with fresh eyes. To be perfectly frank, like many film versions of novel adaptations, True Grit feels very "Hollywood", in the most general sense of the word - I'm talking a sweeping film score that crescendos with bright fanfare during the action scenes, theatrically-influenced performances, grand set locales, and a nice, but remarkably out-of-place pop song during the opening credits - Is this necessarily a bad thing? No, in fact, I appreciate True Grit's vintage feel. As an adaptation though, it is dated; whereas, the Coen Brothers' gave True Grit a more realistic edge with respect to the novel's roots. I haven't read the novel, so it wouldn't be right for me to judge either version on those merits, so I will only say I enjoyed both films for what they were, even if I felt the quality of the 2010 version was more refined and appropriately crafted.
If there's one thing the 1969 version really has going for it, other than John Wayne's unique rendition of Rooster Cogburn, it's the cinematography. I was really taken aback by the beautiful panoramas of the Colorado vistas and plains that the film featured. The 2010 version is up for Best Cinematography this year, but the photography is much different; more artistic and actor-centric. Again, it's really apples and oranges in my opinion for both films. I know there's people out there who will always remain loyal to The Duke, but I like and I appreciate the existance of both versions without wanting to change a thing in either one.
8/10
Peace,
- Jon
No comments:
Post a Comment