True Grit

[Pat Holscher]

Okay, this isn't a military horse movie, but it is an oater, and we don't see many of these made any more.

I'm writing, of course, about the new Coen Brothers version of this film. Everyone has probably seen the old 1969 John Wayne film. The 69 film rates, in my view, as one of Wayne's best films, and probably most Western movie fans will approach this remake with trepidation. Well, it's well worth seeing.

I can't say that you can view them as two totally different movies. The plots track very closely. But the remake is so strong that it's difficult to say whether it, or the 1969 film, are better.

This one is much more period accurate in terms of costuming. It's also grittier than the original, and the original was fairly gritty. Jeff Bridges portrayal of Rooster Cogburn is extremely gritty, which works very well as you don't feel like you're watching Jeff Bridges, as you sometimes felt you were watching John Wayne, rather than the protagonist, in his later films. The Mattie Ross character, very well done in the original, is even better done here. That is, in part, due to the Coen directing and the Coen use of dialog.

Dialog really stands out in this film, perhaps a bit too much so. All Coen films have the spoken word as a major factor, and int his one it is extremely apparent, working for some of the characters, and perhaps a little less so for others. Anyhow, the unique use of dialog in the film does give it a uniquely 19th Century feel, in a way that feels authentic and which is not too distracting.

Horses feature in all oaters, of course, with their role being more significant in some rather than others. In the 69 film, John Wayne's horse "Old Dollar" was a minor character, as well as Mattie's "Blackie". Old Dollar does not make an appearance as a named character here, but Blackie does. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, given that they have not made a previous Western, the Coen's included a couple of scenes that will catch the eye of the horsemen here. In an early, Blackie is seen to be fairly rank, which isn't the case in the 69 film. The river crossing scene is pretty impressive as the river is obviously so deep. Off hand, I can't recall a movie scene from another movie where a horse is obviously in deep water.

Anyhow, well worth seeing.

[Pat Holscher]

As an addition to this, one thing that's notable about this film is that it's amazingly firearms correct. This is actually fairly rare for Westerns, as the directors will have the wrong firearms for the era, or will tag on attributes for some firearm it didn't have.

In this one, which takes place in the mid 1870s, the Colt Peacemaker is the most common sidearm, which would have been correct for the period. No really unusual cartridge sidearms show up, as they have in some movies in recent years.

However, three cap and ball revolvers are in the film. This wouldn't have been unusual either for this period, as it was early in the cartridge arm era. One is a Colt Dragoon, which the Mattie character has. When it shows up I almost leaned over to my son in the theater and noted "Colt Dragoon". I didn't have to, however, as shortly thereafter the Rooster Cogburn character comments on it, noting "Colt Dragoon". I believe that the Mattie character in the 69 movie also had her father's Dragoon. The other two are Colt Navy revolvers, which the Cogburn character packs in pommel bags, and identifies at some point. It's clear he's had them for a while, and that he carries them that way now, as opposed to the Peacemaker in his holster.

In longarms, the Cogburn character has a Winchester rifle, correct for the period. The LaBeouf character has a Sharps carbine. The carbine's attributes are referenced several times in the film, but what's notable about that is that 300 yards is referenced as being a long shot. A 400 yard shot is discussed later in the film and noted as a long shot.

[browerpatch]

We saw it. We love the original, but my wife and I both feel that while the original shines on it's own merits, notably the strong character of John Wayne, this new version is easily one of the best films of the last 20 years. I agree that in the original you were watching a John Wayne western, watching John Wayne play Rooster Cogburn. Here though, we're watching Rooster Cogburn. Our niece went with us, and she didn't "get it". She's only 14, and this wasn't in a genre she would have picked out. She did realize though, that this is ultimately a love story.

The great scene near the end: " 'I call that mighty bold talk, for a one-eyed fat man.' 'Well, fill your hands you son of a . . .' " rings true, and is every bit as exciting as the original. Both instances are among the greatest moments filmed.

We're planning to see it again tomorrow.

Frank Brower (also a one-eyed fat man)

[browerpatch]

You know, on reflection, I'm not sure I would call this a re-make. Rather, it's a new interpretation of Charles Portis' book. The similarities between the two film versions originate with their source, but I think they are just that, the same story told by different story-tellers. Ultimately, I will always enjoy the first telling (the book), and treasure the second telling (the John Wayne version), but I think, of the two re-tellings, I prefer the newer one.

[Pat Holscher]

Frank's comments are spot on, and better captured the essence of the films than I did.

While I rarely read novels, I"m tempted here to get a copy of the novel (which I didn't realize even existed until the second move) and read it.

[FtValleyPS]

We saw the new True Grit movie over Christmas with relatives who are movie buffs but aren't into the Western genre so much; they liked the new movie a lot, as did I. I sure agree with Frank and Pat's assessments of both movies. In the 1969 John Wayne version, my wife and I always get a kick out of Strother Martin's part as the horse trader, and his scenes with Kim Darby where they're bargaining - love that part.

Now we hope to see The King's English, which friends have said is maybe one of the best movie's they've ever seen.

[wkambic]

My wife & I went about 10 days back. Agree it rates a GFF*!

Also agree it's more of a reinterpretation than a remake. I heard an interview the other day with the Cohen Bros. Only one will admit to having seen the original and that was many years ago.

I always like the exchange between Col. Stonehill and Mattie in the original. The scene in the new one is just as good, if somewhat different.

Some folks have been upset at the new ending. I thinks it's appropriate. It demonstrates that missions of vengence often have unintended consequences. I'll see it again when it hits the tube.

*GFF: Good Flying Flick. The highest rating I can give.
SUX: Self explanatory. The lowest rating I can give.

[Pat Holscher]

My wife & I went about 10 days back. Agree it rates a GFF*!

Also agree it's more of a reinterpretation than a remake. I heard an interview the other day with the Cohen Bros. Only one will admit to having seen the original and that was many years ago.

I always like the exchange between Col. Stonehill and Mattie in the original. The scene in the new one is just as good, if somewhat different.

Some folks have been upset at the new ending. I thinks it's appropriate. It demonstrates that missions of vengence often have unintended consequences. I'll see it again when it hits the tube.

*GFF: Good Flying Flick. The highest rating I can give.
SUX: Self explanatory. The lowest rating I can give.

In thinking about it, and noting what you noted about the end, what occurs to me is that the Coen Brothers, who are Jewish, have made a film that's amazingly true to the Christian world outlook of the central character, Mattie. The old movie starts with Mattie's father leaving the ranch (beautiful ranch it is too) to go to Ft. Smith to buy the ponies, along with Cheney, and we learn how he was murdered. The new film, however, starts with her father dead on the ground in a light snow storm, with a quote from the Book of Proverbs, that being (in the King James version appropriate for the character):

The wicked flee when no man pursueth

That is indeed very demonstrably true. As we read it, we hear Cheney's stolen horse go thundering by.

Omitted is the entire quote, which is:

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

The remainder of the quote would be applicable to the Mattie character.

Anyhow, as an adult Mattie's voice fills in the details of how her father was murdered, she concludes the story with "Nothing is sure in this world but for the Grace of God."

As you note, the end of the story is different. I won't spoil it, but it would tie into what you note, and that as Mattie noted, nothing is sure in this world but for the Grace of God.

[Sam Cox]

Well im yet to see it but im excited

The Coen brothers havnt let me down yet,No Country for Old Men is up there as top 10er for me

[Joseph Sullivan]

Saw it tonight with my youngest son and his brother's bride-to-be. Intense, and very very good.

Interesting give and take between the two adults on the subject of Army of Northern Virginia and Quantrell's Raiders, eh?

[FtValleyPS]

Saw it tonight with my youngest son and his brother's bride-to-be. Intense, and very very good.

Interesting give and take between the two adults on the subject of Army of Northern Virginia and Quantrell's Raiders, eh?

I think so, too, Joe. I had never read the book before, am almost finished with it, and found that the author goes into even more detail there about that give and take. Wondering how accurate the author's (Charles Portis) information on that might be (since I'm interested but not very familiar with the subject), I researched him a tad, learned he is a journalist, born and raised in Arkansas, worked for newspapers in Arkansas and New York (the Times, I think?), and it seems that he did his research.

Wow, two good movies in just a few months - True Grit and The Kings Speech ....

[Pat Holscher]

Saw it tonight with my youngest son and his brother's bride-to-be. Intense, and very very good.

Interesting give and take between the two adults on the subject of Army of Northern Virginia and Quantrell's Raiders, eh?

That was an interesting exchange, as were the Rangers later comments to Mattie regarding his views of Cogburn that referenced that information.

In watching the new film, I thought that a new insertion into the story. But, to my surprise, in later watching the 69 Wayne version again, it was in there too. I can't recall if the dialog was exact, but the exchange was there. I hadn't recalled that being the case. A significant difference is the way the exchange was played. In the 69 film, it's almost inserted as a semi comic exchange, showing how gruff Cogburn is. In the Coen Brothers film its a near violent argument. Quite different.

Another exchange that occurs in both films, but which is played differently, is when Cogburn tells Mattie that he had robbed a bank in New Mexico. In both films she rebukes him, and he replies "That's the way those New Mexican's saw it". But in the 69 film it's a near comic exchange again. In the film, Cogburn seems genuinely baffled why the robbery would be regarded as any sort of wrong.

[Pat Holscher]

Saw it tonight with my youngest son and his brother's bride-to-be. Intense, and very very good.

Interesting give and take between the two adults on the subject of Army of Northern Virginia and Quantrell's Raiders, eh?

I think so, too, Joe. I had never read the book before, am almost finished with it, and found that the author goes into even more detail there about that give and take. Wondering how accurate the author's (Charles Portis) information on that might be (since I'm interested but not very familiar with the subject), I researched him a tad, learned he is a journalist, born and raised in Arkansas, worked for newspapers in Arkansas and New York (the Times, I think?), and it seems that he did his research.

Wow, two good movies in just a few months - True Grit and The Kings Speech ....

I bought the book also, and intend to read it after I finish the third volume on Theodore Roosevelt's life that Morris just came out with.

On Quantrell, there was an item on the history thread that struck me about one of his raids the other day. I'll have to find it and make a thread out of it.

[Alex]

Just saw a movie today. And it was good. Not awesome to my regret. Jeff Bridges with all his talent couldn't overcome Duke but looks and plays good. Hailee Steinfeld was awesome there.

My question about the saddles used in the movie - it is Mexican stock saddles with horn or some Californian of same design with the McClellan stirrups?
Anyway I was pleased that they don't use any Macs - that makes movie more authentic.

[FtValleyPS]

Just saw a movie today. And it was good. Not awesome to my regret. Jeff Bridges with all his talent couldn't overcome Duke but looks and plays good. Hailee Steinfeld was awesome there.

My question about the saddles used in the movie - it is Mexican stock saddles with horn or some Californian of same design with the McClellan stirrups?
Anyway I was pleased that they don't use any Macs - that makes movie more authentic.

Hi Alexander,
I recall seeing the saddles in the movie, don't remember exactly what I thought they were other than an old style western stock saddle, and I think with tapaderos. Maybe someone else here remembers more?

[Pat Holscher]

Just saw a movie today. And it was good. Not awesome to my regret. Jeff Bridges with all his talent couldn't overcome Duke but looks and plays good. Hailee Steinfeld was awesome there.

My question about the saddles used in the movie - it is Mexican stock saddles with horn or some Californian of same design with the McClellan stirrups?
Anyway I was pleased that they don't use any Macs - that makes movie more authentic.

Hi Alexander,
I recall seeing the saddles in the movie, don't remember exactly what I thought they were other than an old style western stock saddle, and I think with tapaderos. Maybe someone else here remembers more?

That's all I recall too. Indeed, I usually stop to see if a saddle appears to be incorrect for the era, and they didn't, so I didn't make any more note of it. Given that, they must have been conventional stock saddles of the era.

[Pat Holscher]

Having watched a brief clip of it, at least the Cogburn character and the LeBouef characters are mounted on conventional stock saddles. I didn't get a real good look at them, but they appear to be regular A fork saddles. Whether they're absolutely period correct I cant' say. The film is set in 1878, which would have been prior to the type stabilizing in the late 19th Century as reflected by the 1917 Packer's Saddle, but these saddles seem to generally, more or less, fit into that type. So, in saddle terms, the saddles may be slightly off era, in that at least the two I could see would seem to be those of a type that became common a decade later, more or less (going off my head). If I recall correctly, most of the saddles in this film were of this type, which if they aren't correct, are only slightly off era.

The first film isn't period correct in at least Wayne's saddle, which was a modern stock saddle. But the first film was filmed at a time when using the correct stock saddle was a real rarity.

[Pat Holscher]

On films in Western movies in general, excepting films with military themes, it seems to me that it wasn't up until Lonesome Dove that movie maker attempted much in the way of material authenticity. I can't say that Lonesome Dove is perfect that way, but it really raised the bar and really for the first time an effort was made to really portray material items in a Western film correctly. Almost every Western film since then has tried to meet or lift that bar, with varying success. All in all, I'd say the new film True Grit meets it.

Films before Lonesome Dove almost have to be watched with a disregard towards material items. Generally, most movie makers prior to that simply used stock saddles that were readily available, dressed their characters in jeans, and armed them with Colt Peacemakers and Winchester 94s and called it good, irrespective of era.

A sort of weird exception to the rule is the Clint Eastwood series of Spaghetti Westerns. In at least one, if not all three, he rides a 1917 Packers. The films are probably not accurate as to anything else, but at least that's closer to the period than what we otherwise would expect from a film of its era.

The film Tombstone, which drags on a little too long, is a really interesting one in terms of material items. Whoever was in control of that aspect of the film really studied it and the dress and material items are period and region correct, which oddly was one of the reasons that the film took some negative criticism. It doesn't look like other Westerns, and that's the reason why. A really unusual saddles shows up in this film, being ridden by the Wyatt Earp character, and I don't know what it is. It isn't a horned saddle. If somebody knows what it is, I'd be curious as to that.

On McClellans in western films, outside of military themed films, I can think of only a very few instances in which they're very noticeable. No doubt they show up a lot in some form (probably very often as the saddle under a blanket on what is supposed to be an Indian's pony), but I can only think of a couple of instances in which it's noticeable. Both are from John Wayne films, and they both involve Indian guides. I can't recall the name of one of them, but Wayne goes to pick up the guide and that's all he has. Somehow, in the film, Wayne ends up riding it and complaining about it. The other instance is Big Jake, in which the characters loose some tack early in the film and an Indian guide comes back with two McClellans. When asked where he obtained them, he just says "found 'em".

Oddly, in some military themed movies stock saddles will show up. For some really odd reason if you catch the detail of a falling horse, ridden by a stunt man, they'll sometimes be mounted on a stock saddle, which would seem to me to be the worst possible saddle for that, but perhaps not. An odd item in the film Major Dundee is that Dundee switches from an English saddle to a stock saddle at the same time he switches from a horse to a mule, following the first battle in Mexico, and I have to assume that was written into the film. Most McClellans in films, of course, are 04s.

[Alex]

Just saw a movie today. And it was good. Not awesome to my regret. Jeff Bridges with all his talent couldn't overcome Duke but looks and plays good. Hailee Steinfeld was awesome there.

My question about the saddles used in the movie - it is Mexican stock saddles with horn or some Californian of same design with the McClellan stirrups?
Anyway I was pleased that they don't use any Macs - that makes movie more authentic.

Hi Alexander,
I recall seeing the saddles in the movie, don't remember exactly what I thought they were other than an old style western stock saddle, and I think with tapaderos. Maybe someone else here remembers more?

Hi John and thank you.

In general basing on your's and Pat's answers I understand that it was some kind of stock saddle which was more or less common in that period of time in these areas.

WBR, Alex.

[Alex]

That's all I recall too. Indeed, I usually stop to see if a saddle appears to be incorrect for the era, and they didn't, so I didn't make any more note of it. Given that, they must have been conventional stock saddles of the era.

Pat,

Thanks to you too for explanations on saddles and films. Also you've right about the old films and "searching the correct equipment" there. It's funny but pointless affair. Nevertheless I'm never complain that Reagan and Flynn or just Flynn using the Peacemakers in the "Sante Fe" or "They died with their boots on", because these films are not about equipment.
You've mentioned the "Lonesome Dove" above. Did you saw the "Comanche moon"? It's the last of McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" series.

WBR, Alex.