True Grit (Joel & Ethan Coen, 2010)

[James Mills]

Am I the only one with reservations about this? Anything in front of Deakins' lens is going to make a great coming attraction, but whether or not the Coens actually show up with substance for it is becoming a huge question mark. I remember being so excited for Burn After Reading and Serious Man after seeing their advertisements only to be severely, severely let down.

I mean, I'll be there opening night, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it for now. It'll feel better anyways if it does end up being great, as I felt the same way about PTA going into There Will Be Blood and walked out the happiest man in California.

[Roger Ryan]

...I mean, I'll be there opening night, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it for now. It'll feel better anyways if it does end up being great, as I felt the same way about PTA going into There Will Be Blood and walked out the happiest man in California.

I had the exact opposite reaction. As someone who was quite excited about seeing P.T. Anderson's latest, I ended up being disappointed with THERE WILL BE BLOOD, a film I still feel is very undercooked. Now the last out-and-out remake the Coens attempted (THE LADYKILLERS) was indeed their worst film, but I think their adaptation of TRUE GRIT will be fine. Then again, I think both BURN AFTER READING and A SERIOUS MAN were fully realized efforts.

[jbeall]

The Coen Brothers, Shooting Straight

Sitting at Bubby’s, the brothers said they were shooting the story that was on a page written by someone else, not a quirky one that was conjured in the space between them.
“It is formal in the sense that it is a straightforward presentation,” Joel said. “We weren’t trying to tune it up stylistically. When we were thinking about how to shoot the scene, the default position was more pretty, more classical.”

[D50]

The Coen Brothers, Shooting Straight

From the second paragraph of the nyt article:

Anton Chigurh, who used a coin flip to decide the fate of his victims before dispatching them with a cattle gun ...

Never happened (in the book or movie).

[Roger Ryan]

The Coen Brothers, Shooting Straight

This article annoyed me with its casually condescending assumption that the Coens have finally produced a mainstream feature free of their past quirkiness:

Fans who have become used to walking down lurid alleys full of portent and eccentrics who seem to come swinging out of nowhere may have some trouble orienting themselves among the open country and recognizable characters in “True Grit.”

Also, I see that a retraction has been added for the erroneous statement that Coens have co-directed all of their films (although it may be true in spirit). They might want to add another retraction clarifying that THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA is not actually science-fiction!

[Polybius]

The Coen Brothers, Shooting Straight

This article annoyed me with its casually condescending assumption that the Coens have finally produced a mainstream feature free of their past quirkiness:

Fans who have become used to walking down lurid alleys full of portent and eccentrics who seem to come swinging out of nowhere may have some trouble orienting themselves among the open country and recognizable characters in “True Grit.”

Lazy, cliché-spouting mainstream writers are the enemy of all that is good and decent in this world.

[James Mills]

Though I was not a fan of the Coens' previous two efforts, they were never boring. True Grit cannot say the same. While trying to create a warmer film without the acerbic cynicism of Burn After Reading and A Serious Man, many essential intangibles become either compromised or overstated. The first fifteen minutes of the film reveals an array of conflicts that distract the viewer from any connection to the characters (and the plot as a corollary): unfunny parodying against maudlin scores, sharp dialogue against brevity and consequence, and, perhaps worst of all, presentational acting that formulaically revolves between each character no matter the severity of the scene. Our placeholders all blabber back and forth with dialogue that is as inconsequential as the scenes at hand, failing in even contextualizing or deepening their stereotypes. Bridges is the only actor that tries to transcend these limitations with their own physicality as the film progresses, as Steinfield and Damon become increasingly unbearable in their effusive routines.

I want to compare this film to a Western version of Million Dollar Baby for its loaded reliance on genre conventions and insultingly stereotypical characters and implausibilities, but at least Million Dollar Baby tried to say something. Granted, canonizing the human spirit may be trite and recycled, but it is still something. True Grit offers little outside the spectacle of Western composition with a few coats of Deakins' gloss. Still, even the production design and editing of True Grit feels unstructured and unaccountably rushed, as the unexplored town feels like a collage of cardboards and discontinuity errors are abundant. I don't really have anything uplifting to yin out the yang here, as I feel that True Grit is not only another halfhearted release from the Coens, but their most thematically and formally vapid release to date.

[Jeff]

Joel and Ethan Coen’s take on True Grit is a marked improvement over Henry Hathaway’s version in every conceivable way. Unlike the few other great westerns of the past 20 years, it doesn’t feel post-modern in the slightest, and would not have seemed out of place in the golden age of the genre. It also happens to be one of the best films of the year.

Much has been made of the fact that True Grit does not feel like a Coen Brothers film. For the most part, it doesn’t. Their sardonic wit is nowhere to be found. It’s been replaced and augmented by a slightly different brand of humor – much of it found in the original Charles Portis novel. Filtered through the Coens, it crackles with barbed insults and gallows humor. This is dialog that would have made Leigh Brackett proud.

There is further, supposedly new, territory for the brothers: sincerity. Coen films are often criticized (and not always fairly) for their emotional detachment and contempt for their characters. Here, the fondness and admiration they have for Mattie Ross is unmistakable. They evoke those feelings – with substantial help from actress Hailee Steinfeld – without it ever feeling like coercion. Steinfeld is a revelation. She more than holds her own with Jeff Bridges’ growling Rooster Cogburn. She is precocious without being precious. Her toughness isn't just a veneer, but there's a vulnerability just below the surface. It's reminiscent of Jennifer Lawrence's similar protagonist in Winter's Bone.

The Coens have Steinfeld and their other actors speak in a cadence and articulation that feels almost Mametian. It doesn’t have quite the same staccato rhythm, but it carries the same power. It is amazing how much more humor and pathos is carried by Portis’ dialog when spoken by this cast versus the same dialog in the 1969 film.

If there is any other Coen film that True Grit has any affinity for, it is No Country for Old Men. Though Charles Portis obviously isn’t in the same league as Cormac McCarthy, the Coens tackle both source novels with similar fidelity. They also share a central character coming to terms with a wavering faith in humanity as they watch the evil seeping through the surface culture of the American West, and attempting to follow their own moral compass to make things right. In the late 19th century, that means retribution.

Despite Mattie’s need to make things right, those seeking heavy thematic weight will likely find themselves disappointed. This is, first and foremost, a cracking adventure yarn. It’s a simple story, but cinematic craftsmen at the top of their game are telling it. As usual for the Coens, every cut, angle, framing and juxtaposition feels perfect. Roger Deakins does some of his very best work, and there are several shots here that linger in the memory long after the final credits. In a way, this feels like an exercise for the Coen brothers. They are exploring whether a straightforward take on the western can still feel relevant in the 21st century. Clearly, it can. They also seem to be making the film as a response to their critics. They’ve proven that they are capable of telling a story without cynicism, and that straightforward stories of the American West are still capable of providing sublime entertainment.

[knives]

I have to say that the claims of this feeling un-Coen like seem a tad bit unfounded actually. The humour is changed slightly, but it is still mixed into the drama in a familiar way. The guy posted about previously seems especially wrong since the film features what has to be the Coen's strangest character yet (the bear man). Though I have to agree with Jeff's just expressed sentiment that this is them caring for their characters much more and much more forwardly than they have previously. Even Brolin's cameo of a villain is given this sense of retardation that while not making him sympathetic in the least still is able to if not empathy or understanding at least there seems to be no hatred. His final scene has some sadness to it. That said it is still mostly just a fun genre romp, if one successful in merging the comedy and sympathy of Ford with the violence and masculinity of Mann, so it doesn't turn into the next greatest thing. The Coens don't need one of those right now though.

[HistoryProf]

Joel and Ethan Coen’s take on True Grit is a marked improvement over Henry Hathaway’s version in every conceivable way. Unlike the few other great westerns of the past 20 years, it doesn’t feel post-modern in the slightest, and would not have seemed out of place in the golden age of the genre. It also happens to be one of the best films of the year.

....

Despite Mattie’s need to make things right, those seeking heavy thematic weight will likely find themselves disappointed. This is, first and foremost, a cracking adventure yarn. It’s a simple story, but cinematic craftsmen at the top of their game are telling it. As usual for the Coens, every cut, angle, framing and juxtaposition feels perfect. Roger Deakins does some of his very best work, and there are several shots here that linger in the memory long after the final credits. In a way, this feels like an exercise for the Coen brothers. They are exploring whether a straightforward take on the western can still feel relevant in the 21st century. Clearly, it can. They also seem to be making the film as a response to their critics. They’ve proven that they are capable of telling a story without cynicism, and that straightforward stories of the American West are still capable of providing sublime entertainment.

Could not agree more....and I'd go so far as to say it's the best American film of the year (edit: though this may be the effervescent glow of just having seen it...and of course means "of those i've seen"). It is, in a word, phenomenal. Riveting from the opening frames to the final misty eyed denouement. The detail is simply astounding - the clothing, hair, etc of every background extra in the courtroom and street scenes is taken right from a 19th century daguerreotype. The humor is pitch perfect, coming out of nowhere at times and catching the entire audience off guard. I believe much of the dialog is taken straight from the novel, and it shows...but that's a good thing.

It simply flew by, and I was sad it was over when the lights went up. But at the same time only the Coens could have pulled that ending off so sublimely. A hint of fantasy w/ the starry sky and the view from the heroine's perspective as Cogburn makes good on her belief in his True Grit, and a final shot reminiscent of the opening of A Single Man. I thought everything about this film was perfect...a truly timeless and faithful adaptation of a novel that manages to also personify the very essence of the western genre. I can't wait to see it again.

[JMULL222]

I certainly could be wrong, but the first and only thing that came to mind when I saw that last shot (though I haven't seen "A Single Man") was "Unforgiven".

On that note, please give my take on 'True Grit' a read once you've seen the movie.

[Jun-Dai]

I'm not sure what people are talking about wrt it not seeming like a Coen brothers' film. To me, their signature seemed to be stamped all over the film. Is the dialogue really the same as the book and the original film? Because I swear that this film felt like every other line of dialogue was put through the Coenizing machine (the comparison to Mamet seems apt), wherein all contractions are undone and bookish vocabulary is casually sprinkled about.

Dialogue aside, every moment of humor (and there was lots of it), and every bizarre encounter felt like it had the Coen touch as well.

Not that I had a problem with any of this—I mostly like the Coen brothers' films, and unlike Mamet I feel their work is just as good as it's ever been.

I would have definitely recommended that they excise the coda. As near as I can tell, it didn't really do anything for the film, and it left an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

[karmajuice]

Having watched the 1969 version for the first time a day before seeing this, I can guarantee that much of the dialogue is not their own. I assume that both versions took dialogue straight from the novel, which I've heard has its characters speaking in a sort of antiquated literary manner. Still, the novel feels like a very Coen-esque choice, and their execution of the dialogue (which differs considerably from the earlier adaptation) certainly reflects their style.

More to say about these two films later, when I have time.

[Tuco]

I regard the film much as HistoryProf - I am eager to view it again. I view it as a summation of the "Modern Western" (post- "Wild Bunch") with a dash of classicism courtesy of Mattie's steadfast belief in heroism, honor, justice, vengeance, etc. as well as the striking long shots. It captures Portis' dialogue perfectly and there are more than a few original lines courtesy of the Coens. As far as it not having a Coenesque flavor (Coenosity?), there's certainly enough mayhem and gore to keep me happy in that "Ewwwww hee-hee-hee" way that they have perfected.

But must we quibble? It's the most fun I've had at a movie in quite awhile.

[James Mills]

I find it hard to believe that I'm really the only person on this board that had serious problems with this movie.

[mfunk9786]

Nope, you're the only one

[jbeall]

And now for something completely different... Stanley Fish on True Grit

[Brian C]

I find it hard to believe that I'm really the only person on this board that had serious problems with this movie.

I had some minor problems with the movie, if that helps you feel not so left out.

[Jeff]

I find it hard to believe that I'm really the only person on this board that had serious problems with this movie.

You've always got Rex Reed to turn to.

[Murdoch]

Best to do a full 360 in that case.

[Jun-Dai]

James Mills,

While I disagree with almost all of your post (at least as much of your post as I can make sense of), I feel that you are in accord with me on the point that the film contained characters that seemed to be performing as much as the actors playing them were, and they followed a sort of formula in their interactions. The only problem is that I feel this about all Coen Brothers films, some much more than this (Big Lebowski and O Brother Where Art Thou? for extreme examples). Wes Anderson's and David Mamet's films both seem to work along similar lines. I've long found it a bit off-putting, but I've also sort of come to terms with it, and in the case of the Coen Brothers I've come to almost find it comforting.

My problems with the film were nothing like what you describe, and overall I liked it. I felt the first Act of the film was pretty much pure, top-notch Coen Brothers in its outlook, in the character sketching, in the dialogue, and most of all in the delivery. Once the girl crossed the river, the film changed pace and the girl became much less central to the film. While it was still enjoyable, it sort of slid into second-tier Coen Brothers for me.

Probably the least enjoyable part of the film was the final rendition of Leaning on the Everlasting Arms as the closing credits start. Such an amazing song, and such terrible singing. I fled the theater more quickly than usual.

It seems interesting that the Coen Brothers would choose to draw attention to The Night of the Hunter, and upon reflection, I think the film has a number of similarities.

[Foam]

I find it hard to believe that I'm really the only person on this board that had serious problems with this movie.

I won't say I had "serious problems" with this movie because when reduced to its plot/themes/character dynamics I find it among the most agreeable with my sensibilities of anything they've done (which others will probably do a better job praising than I could) but as far as the cinematic realization of it all goes I agree with you that it is among their least entertaining (though this could just be me unfairly holding it against what I usually expect from them). Even at their talkiest, the Coens usually do a great job of making their dialogue richly rhythmic, dynamic, and textured with perfect comic timing, but here I think that's mostly crushed under the weight of all the archaisms as well as their choice to have the dialogue do more of the dramatic legwork than is usual for them (not to mention Bridges always either slurring or having something in his mouth). I also don't think it's as tightly edited as their last three, which are virtuosic examples of mainstream click-and-clack as far as I'm concerned. Of course, True Grit's editing isn't really bad, and is probably even better than the average for this type of thing, but almost every shot in this film I felt either could have used a bit more breathing room or outstayed its welcome, which is something I've never felt about any of their films. I'm having problems coming up with specific examples of when the editing was truly egregious, but I do remember wondering just how many times we really needed to cut back to Mattie's reaction when Cogburn was on the stand (then again, this is coming from someone who feels like he's being belted in the head with an anvil every time Hitchcock cuts back to Grant looking around in North By Northwest's airplane scene, so my opinion on s/rs should possibly be taken with a grain of salt). Most disappointing to me was the cinematography, which is almost always one of their strongest strengths; the effusive praise Deakins has received for this one has me wondering if my theater projected it wrong--much of it seemed too close while also lacking the vibrant physicality that characterizes most of their films. I will say that I was very impressed by the ease with which they moved away from so thoroughly looking down on their characters--it's a promising new direction for them and I hope they continue with it. It's just too bad that to my mind it was accompanied by a big step down in the aesthetics department.

Edit: After a little research it does seem my theater projected it wrong. Another complaint, another set of free tickets. \:D/

[franco]

The first fifteen minutes of the film reveals an array of conflicts that distract the viewer from any connection to the characters (and the plot as a corollary): unfunny parodying against maudlin scores, sharp dialogue against brevity and consequence, and, perhaps worst of all, presentational acting that formulaically revolves between each character no matter the severity of the scene.

Having walked out of this movie after 15 minutes, I surely feel great reading something like this.

[Tom Hagen]

So in the Coens' assault of jargon against nonsense, you managed to lose $8.50?

[karmajuice]

If you walked out of this you must lose an astronomical amount of money on a regular basis.