True Grit (Joel & Ethan Coen, 2010)

[HistoryProf]

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

whoa.

[matrixschmatrix]

It's funny reading the Fish piece, because one of the things that struck me about this is how much it seemed less nihilistic than their last three movies- that this is a world in which narrative justice seems to hinge upon the morality and determination of the characters, miraculous last-second turnarounds and rescues take place, and goals can actually be achieved (though they require sacrifice.)

That's not at all the world of No Country, nor even of the chilling randomness of Calvinist pre-determination, it's the world of Hollywood, where heroes are harder to shoot than villains. I didn't think True Grit was at all bleak, and I actually did think it was a 'barrel of fun'- as much as I loved their last three movies, the Coens have left me feeling cold and unsettled at the end of all three, and frankly I appreciate that for once they're willing to tell me pleasant lies.

[James Mills]

It's funny reading the Fish piece, because one of the things that struck me about this is how much it seemed less nihilistic than their last three movies- that this is a world in which narrative justice seems to hinge upon the morality and determination of the characters, miraculous last-second turnarounds and rescues take place, and goals can actually be achieved (though they require sacrifice.)

What is "narrative justice"?

edit: and that Fish article seemed extremely verbose and meretricious, thus I stopped after the second paragraph; can somebody provide a cliff notes version?

[ambrose]

It's funny reading the Fish piece, because one of the things that struck me about this is how much it seemed less nihilistic than their last three movies- that this is a world in which narrative justice seems to hinge upon the morality and determination of the characters, miraculous last-second turnarounds and rescues take place, and goals can actually be achieved (though they require sacrifice.)

What is "narrative justice"?

edit: and that Fish article seemed extremely verbose and meretricious, thus I stopped after the second paragraph; can somebody provide a cliff notes version?

Here is an abstract of a dissertation on the origin of the literary term "narrative justice" within the context of Gothic literature!.

[James Mills]

So "narrative justice" is just another way of saying "poetic justice"? If I understand poetic justice correctly, which I'm not positive I do (I think it's the idea that one's own vice sees their destruction no matter whether or not legal justice is carried out to the wrongdoer / hero's slayer), how does it "hinge upon the morality and determination of the characters"? In what way is poetic justice delivered in True Grit? I don't see how Chaney being murdered can be called poetic justice in these regards...

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, ok, in No Country for Old Men, Josh Brolin's character is a fundamentally decent man who is both punished for his decency (Bardem's character is only able to track him because Brolin brings water to a dead man), unintentionally hurts others (he gets his wife killed, and accidentally shoots and old woman), and achieves nothing. There is no sense of justice, poetic or otherwise, and so sense that any kind of plan is likely to work out, no matter how smart or decent the planner.

In True Grit, on the other hand, Mattie sets out with a goal- to punish her father's killer- and achieves that goal. Cogburn is a good and charismatic man, and thus he survives charging four armed men by himself. LaBoeuf is something of a jackass, but a decent man at heart, and thus gets to make two dramatic rescues. Plans work out, the good achieve their ends, and the evil are killed. It's a much more normative sense of narrative justice than No Country (or, indeed, Burn After Reading or A Serious Man.)

I wouldn't call Chaney's death murder- he's in the act of assaulting another man, and clearly represents mortal danger. I would say it's a heroic and satisfying moment for Mattie when she kills him, a karmic reward for her determination.

[James Mills]

Hmmm, to me that seems to suggest that the film simply more resembles the traditional hero's journey and Classical Hollywood Realism formula rather than an embodiment of poetic justice (though again, I'm not sure I even understand the concept of poetic/narrative justice). Either way, I completely agree that it is much more accessible in these regards than their recent previous films, as I stated the same idea in my earlier review. It wasn't this change that irked me most about True Grit, but rather the poor acting and inconsequential deserts of the second act, as well as its swaying between farce to drama and realism to implausibilities. Personally, I also find the film to be void of profundity, substance and personal intentions from its creators, as well as lacking any memorable shots or sequences to compensate for its lack of textual depth (like how Tarantino's films make up for their vapidness in mere compositional entertainment, for me at least).

[jbeall]

Well, ok, in No Country for Old Men, Josh Brolin's character is a fundamentally decent man who is both punished for his decency (Bardem's character is only able to track him because Brolin brings water to a dead man), unintentionally hurts others (he gets his wife killed, and accidentally shoots and old woman), and achieves nothing. There is no sense of justice, poetic or otherwise, and so sense that any kind of plan is likely to work out, no matter how smart or decent the planner.

Matrix, I just wanted to quibble with this one point. Chigurh would've been able to track Llwelyn anyway b/c there was a honing device hidden in the bag of money. In the novel (and IIRC, in the film, too), Llwelyn realizes that he was doomed the moment he took the money. So he's not punished so much for his decency, but for the one mistake he makes--taking the money. This initial decision is what seals his fate, as Chigurh is all too quick to remind us. (I'm sure someone might quibble w/what I'm about to say here, but I think this makes No Country more thematically similar to A Serious Man, in which shit doesn't really turn bad for Larry until he changes the student's grade.)

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, ok, in No Country for Old Men, Josh Brolin's character is a fundamentally decent man who is both punished for his decency (Bardem's character is only able to track him because Brolin brings water to a dead man), unintentionally hurts others (he gets his wife killed, and accidentally shoots and old woman), and achieves nothing. There is no sense of justice, poetic or otherwise, and so sense that any kind of plan is likely to work out, no matter how smart or decent the planner.

Matrix, I just wanted to quibble with this one point. Chigurh would've been able to track Llwelyn anyway b/c there was a honing device hidden in the bag of money. In the novel (and IIRC, in the film, too), Llwelyn realizes that he was doomed the moment he took the money. So he's not punished so much for his decency, but for the one mistake he makes--taking the money. This initial decision is what seals his fate, as Chigurh is all too quick to remind us. (I'm sure someone might quibble w/what I'm about to say here, but I think this makes No Country more thematically similar to A Serious Man, in which shit doesn't really turn bad for Larry until he changes the student's grade.)

I remembered about the tracker, but while Chigurh would have had Llewellyn's general direction anyway, he got specific information about him from the truck Llewellyn had left when bringing water- so at any rate, he significantly worsened his situation with a kindly-intended (and futile) act.

It's an interesting point, though- in that and Serious Man, the characters may be punished for what they do wrong, but never rewarded for what they do right. I don't think Burn After Reading has even that degree of basic justice.

Hmmm, to me that seems to suggest that the film simply more resembles the traditional hero's journey and Classical Hollywood Realism formula rather than an embodiment of poetic justice (though again, I'm not sure I even understand the concept of poetic/narrative justice).

That was more or less what I was going for, and I think Classical Hollywood is largely a world of narrative justice- hell, for a long time, making sure wickedness never prospered was part of movie censorship. It's possible I unintentionally used a more complex term than was required- I was trying to get across sort of the fictional equivalent of Providence, where the movie world has a just God whose working are clear and understandable to the viewer.

[Brian C]

It seems to me that nihilism is a word that's thrown around a lot, and I'm not sure that the description really fits the Coens. And I'm pretty sure that nihilism is not what Fish is describing in his essay about True Grit; his conclusion, after all, is to celebrate the heroism of Mattie, and while I'm not a trained philosopher, that doesn't sound like nihilism to me.

Anyhow, I'm not really sure what label I'd give to the Coens' philosophical leanings, but it's more like very bleak fatalism to me than nihilism.

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, my reading of the piece was Fish saying that Mattie's was the only real heroism in the movie, and it was derived from her steadfast beliefs, maintained in a world which did not recognizably reward or punish people for their actions.

I disagree with that, I think all three of the leads are allowed to be heroic, and I think the penalties paid throughout the quest- Mattie's loss of an arm, LaBouef's wounding- are more in the nature of a heroic sacrifice, like the killing of Mattie's horse. For one thing, I don't think any of the characters would trade what they achieved to get back what they lost.

'Nihilism' may not be the right word for the tone of the previous three Coen movies- though I think it may be for Burn After Reading- but certainly they all have a lot of focus on the cruel vagaries of fate and the seeming indifference of the world towards morality. I don't think that's true of the world of True Grit.

[Brian C]

Fair enough. Though I know you weren't using it this way, 'nihilism' seems often used as a perjorative vis a vis the Coens (and especially No Country), and I thought it was worth some pushback.

[jbeall]

Well, my reading of the piece was Fish saying that Mattie's was the only real heroism in the movie, and it was derived from her steadfast beliefs, maintained in a world which did not recognizably reward or punish people for their actions.

I disagree with that, I think all three of the leads are allowed to be heroic, and I think the penalties paid throughout the quest- Mattie's loss of an arm, LaBouef's wounding- are more in the nature of a heroic sacrifice, like the killing of Mattie's horse. For one thing, I don't think any of the characters would trade what they achieved to get back what they lost.

'Nihilism' may not be the right word for the tone of the previous three Coen movies- though I think it may be for Burn After Reading- but certainly they all have a lot of focus on the cruel vagaries of fate and the seeming indifference of the world towards morality. I don't think that's true of the world of True Grit.

Thinking about your comment, and after seeing the film for a second time, I'm not sure she's entirely heroic. Throughout the film, she is coldly dedicated to her sense of justice, the West's version of Antigone, but

Spoiler

just before she kills Chaney, she has a triumphant smile on her face, which suggests she's enjoying it as opposed to fulfilling her obligation to her father. I thought Steinfeld played it fantastically well, and she seems almost overcome with elation as she says "Stand up, Tom Chaney!" It also seems that the Coens emphasize this slightly by making the blood spatter a tad grotesque, but that could just be my imagination. Anyway, back to Mattie: is it any coincidence that her triumph is immediately followed by her falling into the pit and the eventual loss of her arm (and her pony)? Afterward, she is as severe as they come.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

The feeling I got from that scene was that Mattie was getting to run through the scene the way she had imagined it would go- she clearly had a very specific idea of how things were supposed to work (viz. her insistence that Chaney be punished for the crime she was concerned with, and not the killing of the Texas State Senator, and that he should know that was what he was being punished for), and for most of the journey things did not go according to her script. It's the way she controls the world- by superimposing her picture of how it ought to work over its actual functioning- and however much she has to pay for her triumph, I have no doubt that she's entirely satisfied with the transaction.

It's a complicated heroism, certainly, and she is a character with delicate moral shading, but I do think she's admirable- she has prodigious force of will, and she's so consistently herself that I feel a lot of warmth towards her, even if her persona is fairly cold. (And she does have the one delighted whoop at LeBoeuf's spectacular shot, which humanizes her further.)

If nothing else, anyone who can maintain any control over events in a Coen bros movie is automatically such a strong character that they seem kind and decent if they avoid being Anton Chigurh.

[Mr Sausage]

Did not Mattie say at several instances that she was either going to bring Chaney back to be hanged or kill him in the attempt?

[Adam]

I actually felt the film was not long enough. It felt like scenes were missing, that they found the man too quickly. And the characters of Brolin & Damon were underdeveloped, like each should have had another scene. She was too, although the film (and the book?) are from her recollected point of view, so it makes sense that she is present for every scene, whether as observer or motivating force.

In a way, it seemed to have a flaw that many Hollywood movies have for me - too short, every scene advancing the plot, not enough character moments or observations of the world. Of course, most people think that's how films should be - move them quickly, keep advancing the plot, cut a nice picture. But most people seem to prefer movie entertainment to be rooted in distraction (or escapism)(from the real world), and I tend to prefer entertainment in absorption, which requires greater depth. Of course I can go for the escapist lark (I did for Scott Pilgrim, for example), but I think i wanted more in this, and it wasn't there (to me). Westerns always seem best to me when a good story also serves as commentary on contemporary times, and as others have stated in this thread, this one didn't seem to, that it didn't have deeper intentions in mind. Lots of entertaining moments, but I don't think it will stick with me.

[Jack Phillips]

(I'm sure someone might quibble w/what I'm about to say here, but I think this makes No Country more thematically similar to A Serious Man, in which shit doesn't really turn bad for Larry until he changes the student's grade.)

I guess I'll take that quibble. We don't actually know that things have turned bad for Larry after he changes the grade: it sounds like that might be the case, but we can't be absolutely certain. And we don't know what those storm clouds portend for Larry's son, although they too look very bad. Uncertainty is the theme of the whole movie, which is why we get the story of the dybbuk at the beginning and the parable of Schrodinger's cat later on. You can arrange the facts to support either a belief in a universe that operates through cause-and-effect or a belief in a universe that operates through random chance, but (the movie appears to say) you cannot know for sure which is the case. The issue is one of epistemological head-scratching.

No Country For Old Man tackles a different issue: ethics. I agree completely that the Josh Brolin character is doomed the minute he takes the money. It doesn't matter what kind of man he's been up to that point, what his motives are, whatever. He is doomed, just as if he had stepped off a cliff and surrendered to the judgment of gravity. The assassin that pursues him seems less like a man and more a force of nature. The message that I get from the film is that in the world there are neither rewards or punishments . . . only consequences.

True Grit presents an alternative view. Into a world of uncertainty where no system of ethics obtains, an individual can appear and project a sense of right and wrong simply through force of will. This is what Mattie does. She works on those she gathers around her and gradually achieves a consensus that conforms to her view of things; then she uses that consensus to hunt Tom Chaney down. If that were not enough, she then, in later years, relates the story, ensuring that her view of the entire matter prevails. Probably Tom Chaney or Rooster would have seen things differently, but they never got their stories down on paper, and now they're dead. We may be inclined to discount some or much of Mattie's story, but we do not have an alternative account. So, in the final reckoning, Mattie's views become normative.

[Nothing]

frankly I appreciate that for once they're willing to tell me pleasant lies.

This is interesting in light of our previous discussion, no?

The genius of No Country lies almost squarely with Cormac McCarthy, an artist who is incapable of telling pleasant lies. Having said this, whilst I found the Coens' tone overly comic at times, particularly their camping up of Chigurh/Bardem, they do deserve some credit for translating the book to the screen relatively untouched (compare to Billy Bob's atrocious rendering of All the Pretty Horses to see how much worse it might have been). Anyway, it's not really surprising that the tone of this latest self-penned effort is quite different, and far more frivolous by the sounds of it.

[Mr Sausage]

Anyway, it's not really surprising that the tone of this latest self-penned effort is quite different, and far more frivolous by the sounds of it.

By all accounts True Grit's script is very close to the book it's adapting, right down to transcribed dialogue. I don't think it's any more "self-penned" than the No Country script.

[matrixschmatrix]

frankly I appreciate that for once they're willing to tell me pleasant lies.

This is interesting in light of our previous discussion, no?

I wouldn't make too much of it- I was happy to see them take a much darker tack when they moved into the sort of bleakness that No Country entailed, too. It's more that I'm happy to see a different direction from them than that I inherently like the more Hollywood storytelling style better, I was worried that they were going to paint themselves into a thematic corner.

edit: Also, perhaps I should point out that I don't think that the worldview of True Grit is necessarily inherently more deceitful than that of No Country- it's a question of pleasant lies versus dark and challenging ones, maybe.

[talker]

I wish less had been made mediawise over the fact that this is a remake. For one, it isn't, really. It's a new adaptation. It goes, book then movie, and book then movie again; not book then movie, then movie updated with more fx and less plot for an attention deficit audience. For another, the so-called remake surpasses the original film, with all due respect to the Duke et al. for the art form they pioneered. It is now improved upon.
_______________________________________

dad jokes

[Nothing]

By all accounts True Grit's script is very close to the book it's adapting, right down to transcribed dialogue.

Ah, okay. Haven't seen it yet (or the Hathaway - not a fan).

edit: Also, perhaps I should point out that I don't think that the worldview of True Grit is necessarily inherently more deceitful than that of No Country- it's a question of pleasant lies versus dark and challenging ones, maybe.

What 'dark and challenging' lies does Cormac tell then?

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, it is fiction, lies are kind of part of the package.

[flyonthewall2983]

I wish less had been made mediawise over the fact that this is a remake. For one, it isn't, really. It's a new adaptation. It goes, book then movie, and book then movie again; not book then movie, then movie updated with more fx and less plot for an attention deficit audience. For another, the so-called remake surpasses the original film, with all due respect to the Duke et al. for the art form they pioneered. It is now improved upon.

I get where you're coming from, but then again they can't ignore that a very successful film was made from the same source material once before. Especially with an Oscar attached to it.

I saw this Sunday. Loved it. I was originally expecting a way more violent, grittier affair which would have been on the level of something like No Country. So I was a bit surprised when it had earned a PG-13 as opposed to a hard R. But after watching the interview with the Coen's on Charlie Rose, it makes sense that they tried to go for a younger audience.

I'd love to see them try and do an original Western, and given that this film is doing so well at the Box Office, I'm sure that door has opened for them now.

[Nothing]

Well, it is fiction, lies are kind of part of the package.

I believe a narrative can be fictional whilst representing inherent truths about the world.