-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
March 27, 2013 | 96 comments
-
Baseball Saints and Sinners
March 13, 2013 | 13 comments
Another Perspective
Nothing But Grit
Who in his right mind would dare remake True Grit?
While watching a football game last week I noticed with interest the PR campaign surrounding the release of the remake of the 1969 classic, True Grit. It was at first, like most intrusions upon my enjoyment of televised sports, an occasion for mild distraction that with repetition became a downright annoyance. As I watched Jeff Bridges emote with growling menace in the movie trailer, I grew nostalgic for the effortless ease of John Wayne’s portrayal of a role that fit him like a second skin. I questioned the futility of an effort to try and top it.
Now, I don’t begrudge Tinseltown’s constant desire to reach back into its past glories for inspiration; many classics were themselves the result of previous incarnations, like The Maltese Falcon, which in 1941 was the third filmed version of the Dashiell Hammett novel. And some stories must be retold every few years or so — A Christmas Carol quickly comes to mind, although for me, nothing can top the 1951 classic with Alastair Sim — just to keep them fresh in movie-going minds.
But there are some characterizations that should be off limits, like Rooster Cogburn. Yes, it’s true that there was a dreary TV remake and a big-screen sequel starring the Duke himself, but these paled in comparison to the original. One of the reasons for the popularity of True Grit was not so much the against-type casting of Wayne as a boozy bounty hunter, but that he could make such a reprobate an engaging character. And this was largely possible only because he was John Wayne.
Modern movie-goers who only know the Duke from watching a few of the 200 or so movies he left behind have missed out on what made him so beloved by most of the country: his innate goodness and sense of fair play; the embodiment of all that was America. He was also handsome in a way that stands in glorious counterpoint to the weepy, navel-gazing adolescents that are said to appeal to women today. Wayne as a young man, fresh off the USC playing fields was lean, lank and sported the kind of gaze that would later be labeled “bedroom eyes.”
Now Jeff Bridges is a fine actor and most probably a good Joe in his own right, but, like most of today’s entertainers, he lacks that imprint of individuality that made a Wayne or most of yesterday’s stars shine. This is why, with few exceptions, the art of mimicry no longer exists. There is no Frank Gorshin, Rich Little or John Byner; men whose routines consisted solely in delivering prop-less impressions of actors and actresses like Jimmy Cagney, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Bette Davis, or Katharine Hepburn. Why? Because there are no characters in Hollywood today. How would you imitate a Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, or Julia Roberts?
Now, it’s not really fair to speak about this movie without having seen it, but I would be very surprised if Bridges’ Cogburn displayed anything but a smattering of the wayward charm infused into the character by John Wayne; who could? This ability to make even hard-bitten characters — think Tom Dunson in Red River or Ethan Edwards in The Searchers — attractive and even lovable, is one of the things that endeared him to most of America and made the left despise him even more than for just his politics. This is beautifully summed up by Salon writer Jonathan Leithem, in a strange piece that seems to argue that his politics invalidate whatever acting skill he might have had: “Thank heaven he’s also a laughable political ignoramus, a warmongering hypocrite who never served in the armed forces. Thank heaven he’s associated with the western, an easily dismissible film genre.”
Of course the western is not so easily dismissed, as we have so sorrily seen in the past few decades. Every couple of years or so, the leftists in Hollywood try and fail miserably to capture the spirit of the West as so wonderfully done by directors like John Ford and Howard Hawks, who gave us not just cardboard heroes, but real men confronted by the complexity of western expansion. The truth is, Americans have loved westerns as a connection with their predecessors who were brave, bold and free, and mostly contemptuous of government nonsense: men like Rooster Cogburn.
Remake True Grit? You might as well try and outdo Gable in Gone With the Wind or Bogart in Casablanca. Some folks are already suggesting that this remake might eclipse the beloved original, but I call that pretty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!
Letter to the Editor View all comments (143) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/24/nothing-but-grit
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jeremiah| 11.24.10 @ 6:24AM
I saw that movie trailer while watching a football game with my father. I didn't realize what it was until the very end - and then was horrified.
"Oh my god," I said. "Pity the poor fool who's going to try to portray John Wayne."
I'm kind of astounded that Jeff Bridges would attempt such a feat. Maybe kids who have never watched Wayne will like it. But the rest of us will know that no one can play John Wayne except Wayne.
Tomas| 11.24.10 @ 1:14PM
It seems Hollywood has forgotten what makes classic films such a part of our collective culture. The remaking of "The Wizard of Oz" is probably the best example. WHY would ANYONE even think they can outdo - or even mimic - such a masterpiece.
"The Maltese Falcon" was remade because previous versions were dreadful. Once the masterwork had been found, any subsequent version could only be a shallow attempt at a box office whoring on the currency of the very concept of the masterpiece. (Compare the Bogey Philip Marlowe in "The Big Sleep" to Robert Mitchum's sleepwalking imitation in the 1979 remake.)
Re-do "Citizen Kane?" "2001?" "Apocalypse Now?"
The horror. The horror.
-
Tripp | 11.24.10 @ 3:14PM
I disagree entirely- the point of the remake is to make it pertinent to young folks like me, and no one could do that with more aplomb and gusto than the combo of Jeff Bridges and the Cohen brothers- what, did you hate the Big Lebowski and No Country For Old Men? Classics both by any objective standard.
Skippy| 11.24.10 @ 3:42PM
The Big Lebowski? Really?
That was one of the last 3 or 4 Coen Bros. films I saw that eventually convinced me I don't like the Coen Bros. movies.
It stank.
I never meet anyone in their films that I have the slightest interest in knowing.
But hey, I like James Bowman, so I must be on the fringe!
Evanston2| 11.24.10 @ 4:58PM
I, too, found Lebowski to be crapulous. And I like Bowman so you're not alone on the fringe. Regarding True Grit, I thought Kim Darby was tremendous. We shall see, but I suspect that Bridges will do OK replacing Wayne, but that the Darby replacement falls flat.
Skippy| 11.24.10 @ 6:38PM
I spoke cruelly of Miss Darby's performance. She played the part of young girl forced to grow up too fast quite well. She had grit!
But who could outdo the frustrated and exasperated Strother Martin?
"I would not pay that for Winged Pegasus!"
And the original location shots!
I still see them in my western road trips, and my sweetest dreams.
They helped motivate me to move 3 time zones closer to Asia.
Less Pastrami, but much better scenery.
scot mac| 11.26.10 @ 8:01AM
i agree--to a degree. Young ppl today have no idea who Wayne was. His True Grit was a classic. However, young ppl identify with todays actors and i look at it this way---maybe, just maybe, when young ppl see the remake, they'll get a sense of what America USED to be when The Duke was at his zenith.
A.M.| 11.26.10 @ 11:43PM
Don't worry, Mr. Mac--there are still some of us well-brought-up by our grandpas on "real" westerns starring John Wayne. My high-school aged brothers still turn off their XBox to watch The Duke. I think the saddest thing is for those of us in our 20's-30's is knowing that we're not only missing a time when great movies were made, but a time when that kind of story and character could be considered heroic. I guess at least "The Searchers" is safe--can you imagine modern Hollywood trying to tackle THAT one in a PC manner?
stmichrick| 11.28.10 @ 8:45PM
My first reaction to the trailer was that we will be subjected to a much earthier version of Rooster Cogburn this time. I frequently get the feeling that many of today's filmmakers think they need to enlighten the audience about how nasty life can be. That is, when they are not presenting tales of yuppies in peril.
Appleby| 11.24.10 @ 6:54AM
Dont even suggest remaking Gone With The Wind. I think the pitiful attempt to remake The Day The Earth Stood Still showed the futility of taking a movie out of its zeitgeist and thinking it will still work.
Dustoff| 11.24.10 @ 11:59AM
The Day The Earth Stood Still
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That had to be one of the worse re-makes of all time.
Appleby| 11.25.10 @ 7:13AM
Kind of makes me wish MST3K was still on the air.
C. Vail| 11.24.10 @ 6:59AM
The original, including Duke's performance, was far from perfect. Wayne did a whole lot of mugging, maybe more than he did in any other film he made. And Glen Campbell was just awful, as he admits. But it is a beloved film, certainly by me. Nevertheless I was happy to hear of the remake, and pleased by what I saw in the trailer.
Most of Wayne's westerns were of an earlier Hollywood era and thus there was a lot of artifice about them. In recent decades the genre has become more, shall we say, nitty-gritty, and the remake looks to be no exception. I can't wait to see it.
Alert1201| 11.24.10 @ 7:40AM
I saw the trailer a while ago and thought it looked pretty good. It made we want to see it. I usually do not judge a remake by how much better/worse it was then the original. Hopefully, those who make the movies are not looking back and thinking how can I make it like the original; but using their own interpretation of the story, its characters and the abilities of the actors to make it unique in its own way. Much like the way a composer interprets a piece of classical music.
Alert1201| 11.24.10 @ 7:40AM
I saw the trailer a while ago and thought it looked pretty good. It made we want to see it. I usually do not judge a remake by how much better/worse it was then the original. Hopefully, those who make the movies are not looking back and thinking how can I make it like the original; but using their own interpretation of the story, its characters and the abilities of the actors to make it unique in its own way. Much like the way a composer interprets a piece of classical music.
Alert1201| 11.24.10 @ 7:41AM
Opps! Sorry for the dup post.
SpiralArchitect| 11.24.10 @ 1:59PM
Remakes of movies are not always to "top" the previous version. Often they are a diferent perspective.
Why would that be so bad?
Don't like the notion, don't view the movie.
Who in their right minds... you ask? Obviously you have not done your homework - at all.
The Coen brothers are very skilled and will make a great movie no matter the title.
What does mimicry have to do with anyhting at all? Again, this is a remake, but is it a copy, I doubt it...
Speaking of impressionests you mention several prominent actors of decades past - all with very profound speech for one reason or another.
Now, conversly you mention a set of'today' actors that do not have very distinct vocal patterns to falsely support your point. Many actors today can play a wide range yet to not normally speak with such accent or a 'souther draw'. Yet you choose to list three that are not speaking with accent or a regional dialect. Why not mention Jack for example... Yea, no one ever impersonates him; nah.
Sorry I read this piece- yuk.
Rebel Without A Pause| 11.24.10 @ 3:51PM
I'm sorry you decided to comment on this piece - yuk.
What a maroon!
Cabermon| 11.24.10 @ 5:03PM
Maroon? A 17th century insurgent native of Jamaica? Did you mean "macaroon," "Moonie", possibly "moron"?
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 6:18PM
I thought it was "maroon" meaning moron from the old WB Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Frank Mendez| 11.26.10 @ 12:37AM
A maroon was a pirate who betrayed his comrades and consequently punished by abandonment on a islet and with little provision in the expectation that he will die alone of thirst and hunger. He is marooned. Bugs Bunny picks up the term to mean a jerk, and that is how most of us become acquainted with the word.
You maroon!
Yosemite Sam| 11.26.10 @ 2:31PM
What a maroon. What a nin-cow-poop!
Don't over analyze, please
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.30.10 @ 5:39AM
What a tar-rar-rar-GOON-de-ay!
(I think Bugs might have only used that one once)
Mark| 11.25.10 @ 8:08AM
Jack is a million years old.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 4:07PM
"The original, including Duke's performance, was far from perfect."
Which is why, I suppose, Hollywood brought both the charter, AND Mr. Wayne, in another remarkable, memorable performance 4 years later in the movie "Rooster Cogburn."
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 4:14PM
I should add that "Rooster Cogburn" was filmed only because of the popularity of Mr. Wayne's performance in "True Grit." Had the "Duke's" performance been as bad as you imply, that second move wouldn't have been produced.
Evanston2| 11.24.10 @ 5:10PM
Popularity = good? So by that "logic" Snoop Dogg, etc. must be great.
Like it or not Ray, some people find Wayne to be tolerable, at best. I thought Kim Darby carried the original flick, Wayne was OK, but Duvall was surprisingly lame as a bad guy.
WTF| 11.24.10 @ 7:12AM
I can think of two westerns that put Wayne in the shade: the lighthearted Silverado and the somewhat more serious Dances With Wolves. Both featured Costner, who was much more watchable.
The author would have us believe Wayne was beloved. Not by our troops, he wasn't.
Intelligent Design| 11.24.10 @ 7:27AM
John Wayne was respected and admired by soldiers. I had the pleasure of meeting him when he was filming part of The Green Berets at Fort Benning, GA. He was a larger than life guy who really appreciated our efforts. It was a thrill to meet him!
Ryan| 11.24.10 @ 8:30AM
What troops are you talking about? My Grandpa - a WWII vet - loved John Wayne.
And to think that the pretentious Costner is "watchable..." ugh.
Expel "The Ruling Class"!| 11.24.10 @ 8:51AM
You didn't grow up when John Wayne was actively making movies did you. My best friend is the last remaining Navy Soldier from a WWII submarine which was in combat in the Pacific theater. John Wayne was absolutely LOVED by most soldiers & the ones who disliked or dislike him today don't bother to learn about the man & find out the U.S. Military rejected him for a sports injury which occurred in college. Even after that rejection he still felt he could have done more which was a big reason why he was unwaveringly devoted to our soldiers.
Regarding Kevin Costner I have only one thing to say to you & that is "Waterworld". Wayne's worst movie is much more watchable than that dreck. There isn't a single actor in Wayne's league today & Steve McQueen was the last one who came close.
Sparhawk| 11.24.10 @ 8:59AM
Re the inanity of your comment, you have the perfect acronym.
Bill| 11.24.10 @ 9:10AM
Kevin Costner was absolutely abysmal in Silverado. He overacted a part that was crappily written to begin with. He gave new meaning to the term "ham."
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 10:17AM
Silverado? LOL You've got to be kidding. Only Danny Glover was the least bit convincing as a cowboy in that cartoonish version of a western. It was like the weekly western serials made in the 1930's, but without the nostalgic charm.
Dances With Wolves was a revisionist morality tale about how the white man is the evil destroyer of all things innocent and good, that also was set in the west. Maybe that's no longer considered revisionist.
Neither of these films even come close to Wayne in Red River or The Searchers for example.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.30.10 @ 5:53AM
I just saw "The Searchers" for the first time, a few weeks ago. A modern audience wouldn't be able to appreciate it. I'm sure it would be very difficult for me to Google up numerous references to its "racism." I found that aspect of it rather refreshing, myself, although I do think its somewhat overrated.
"True Grit" came out the year before I was born, and I grew up watching it many times during the 70s & 80s, and its a good film, even a minor classic. Never-the-less, I'm looking forward to this remake. While "The Big Lebowsky," as previously noted, was a bit uneven, I don't think there's a Cohen brothers movie that isn't well worth viewing. And their version looks like it will be played out a little less for the laughs, with a greater degree of Old West authenticity. While "The Searchers" was fairly authentic, a lot of John Wayne western feel very fake, like you just know the old buildings are really mere facades. Everything seems a little too sterile and staid. The Old West was a chaotic and murderous place. More "Blood Meridian" than "Rooster Cogburn." I think for the Coen brothers to do a traditional mid-19th century western will be great. That they went the remake route is surprising (I believe this is their first remake), but I have high hopes for how this will turn out.
JD| 11.24.10 @ 10:41AM
You think the Kostner crap puts Wayne's films "in the shade"?
"Dances with Wolves" was a conventional White Liberal Guilt paen to Rosseau's (entire fictional) noble non-Western cultures, a sort of preview of the Obama apology tour.
The actual natives in north America were no more or less noble, in touch with nature, kind or victimized than any other group of humans that has ever existed in any place or time. Like most tribal societies they regarded anyone outside the group as subhuman (nearly every tribe's name for itself means "The Human Beings", and non-tribesman were lesser beings of one kind or another.) They murdered warred and tortured with gusto long before the White Man arrived on this continent. And they were an ecological disaster for the continent, clear cutting, burning whole forests and wiping out whole species. (There were horses in the Americas before the Spanish arrived. They were hunted to extinction by the people already living here. And the bison were heading that way even before whites arrived and made a policy of undermining the natives' support system.)
"Dances with Wolves" sucked the first time, and it sucked harder when it was remade with CGI as "Avatar".
"Silverado" was a conventional Hollywood film of its time, all about the evil corporations and the wonderful outsiders who resisted them. The exact same plot could have been played out against the background of Wall Street and only the costumes and a few lines of dialogue would have had to be changed.
Kevin Kostner made three great baseball movies and one great golf movie. He also made one pretty decent Western, but it doesn't even make WTF's lis. Probably because it actually is more like a Wayne film, and less like a stale left-wing parable about the evils of Capitalism and Western (no pun intended) Civ. That film is "Open Range", in which Kostner and Robert Duvall shoot up a townful of nasties in as businesslike a manner as the Duke or later Clint Eastwood would have. Still not in Wayne's league, though.
Compare the three Kostner films cited to the following:
"Stagecoach" (in which Wayne wasn't even the lead character, but he stole the picture and became a star.)
"She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"
"Fort Apache"
"The Searchers"
"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (another Wayne anti-hero)
"The Sons of Katie Elder"
"Red River"
"Rio Bravo"
"El Dorado"
(Bo Catlett: Only this time it ain't no John Wayne and Dean Martin shooting bad guys in "El Dorado."
Chili Palmer: That was "Rio Bravo." Robert Mitchum played the drunk in "El Dorado." Dean Martin played the drunk in "Rio Bravo." Basically, it was the same part. Now John Wayne, he did the same in both. He played John Wayne.
- "Get Shorty" MGM, 1995)
;-)
Regards,
Joe
Skippy| 11.24.10 @ 4:16PM
Liberty Valance is, hands down, my all-time favorite Western.
Wayne's tragic character is played so strongly and so vulnerably.
A fearless independent man, brought to his knees by a love that slips through his calloused fingers. Haunting. Unforgettable.
The whole film speaks to so many authentic American characteristics. I always rank it at #1.
That said, True Grit, though flawed(Le Boeff; Matty)is the first Western I recall in which the dialogue was written in the syntax of its time.
Wayne towered in it, and his Oscar was very well deserved.
As an aside, I see Silverado as a revivalist, rather than revisionist film. And Costner stole the show.
Open Range, however is Costner's finest Western. The characters are so understated and believable.
I refer to the final showdown whenever I am challenged re: the wisdom of invading Iraq.
Shoot the baddest, ugliest, most dangerous guy first.
Hey Ken, how long you boys down there been mounted on sheep?
Evanston2| 11.24.10 @ 5:29PM
I'm afraid Dancing With Wolves tainted all the rest of Costner's (with a "C" -- not a "K") work for me. Basically because his acting doesn't vary much, so much like your comment about Wayne, I feel like I'm looking at the same guy in every Costner film. The self righteous prig from a ChiCom film.
Mike W| 11.25.10 @ 2:40PM
Wolves was horrible pc garbage. More importantly, it was boring. And long.
The most over-rated movie of all time.
Jen | 11.28.10 @ 10:03PM
Great response (and stroll down cinematic memory lane), Joe. Same goes for Skippy's remarks about one of my favourites, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". It is so nice to see others that appreciate Wayne!
I feel blessed that I grew up in a household where John Wayne movies were frequently watched via rentals or when they were screened on television. I grew up on his movies (and films with other Golden Age greats who would find none with similar ability in today's Hollywood). Now, as a young married dame, I rarely, rarely go to theatres to watch a new movie, but am very often found at home with TCM on or a classic like "Liberty Valance" or "The Searchers" on DVD playing.
Not many of my friends or contemporaries—even those who share my affection for other vintage things and classic movies—understand my liking of Mr. Wayne. But then they are often very quick to deride my beloved country, too. A shame on both counts, and it's all due to miseducation.
"Silverado" was okay, but I agree that "Open Range" was surprisingly good. Of course, Mr. Duvall's presence alone would improve just about anything!
"Wolves" is unbearable. I wouldn't even let our collie watch that movie, because he'd probably scratch his eyes out.
Calabrese| 11.24.10 @ 11:08AM
I put the movies that I have seen into one of two catagories--would or would not watch again. Kasdan's Silverado is an ambitious but unimportant tale. It is category two material--would not watch again. Costner's Dances is better at story telling [the relationships of natives of the expanding American frontier in this case]. At first I put this movie in the would watch again category. During my second viewing a few years later, I realized what a poor screen presence and actor Costner is, and Dances is now and forever in category two.
John Wayne and Steve McQueen, as another example, were far better actors than Kevin Costner. They could communicate even while looking away from the camera.
Dustoff| 11.24.10 @ 12:01PM
Say what............ care to back it up with some REAL proof. Not your opinion.
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 12:24PM
I'm thinking 'Doorgunner' was a disgruntled draftee who served late in the conflict, if he's not just an outright poseur. Either way those of us who served in VN know that Wayne was very popular with the troops overall.
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 12:30PM
Correction: I meant to say 'WTF', not Doorgunner. Mea culpa.
Ret_Vet| 11.24.10 @ 3:01PM
Not sure how old you are but as a retired vet, I grew up on John Wayne. Probably one of the reasons I went in the military. Snads of Iwo Jima, WIngs of Eagles, Fighting CBs. I still fast forward to see the one eyed fat man bust those 4 bad guys. Remake is like Lucky Ned Pepper said, "You think 4 on one is a dog fall?" No doubt is for Jeff Bridges to even try. That saif 310 to Yuma was an excellent remake.
Darrell Smith| 11.24.10 @ 6:55PM
WTF You have no idea on what you speak
USMC 68
GreyLion| 11.25.10 @ 4:15PM
wtf.....
John Wayne was near and dear to my heart (and, parenthetically, my stomach) as I had to eat "C" rations. If you do not know what I am talking about then you are a lucky man.
All of that to say this......I liked the "Duke", he was a stand up guy and one I would not mind my son being like.
MTank50 | 11.24.10 @ 7:50AM
I am so hungry for a good Western that I'll go see this. But realizing what Hollywood is calling entertainment lately I will be extremely surprised if the remake doesn't include some vampires, lesbians and zombies or that Rooster and The Ranger don't fall in love!
Melvin| 11.24.10 @ 7:52AM
WTF, your wrong, I can only speak for my generation, John Wayne is an icon period. My generation of Marines didn't slice, dice, and overly analyze what this man stood for or didn't stand for.
To the Social Democrats in this Country John Wayne is something to be torn down and degraded because to them he is not an accurate representation of America.
To Social Democrats, a more accurate representation of the persona of being an American is more patterned after the likes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bawny Frank, Timothy Geithner, and Jane Fonda to name a few.
But to my generation John Wayne was larger than life that every kid aspired to be, and many a afternoon of assaulting the beaches of Iwo Jima at Sauvie's Island Oregon, next to the Columbia River.
Maybe growing as a young impressionable kid watching his movies subliminally influenced me to join the Marine Corps. Maybe I can secure a government stimulus grant to study that phenomena.
I just find it very difficult for American youth to emulate Bawny Frank or John Kerry as American icons.
Doorgunner| 11.24.10 @ 8:01AM
Marion Morrison, up until his mortal run-in with cancer, thought he was John Wayne. That might sound like a cruel thing to say, but, it's true. And he only played one character in his films- John Wayne.
Now, that made for a few good films, some possibly even great -my personal favorite being "The Cowboys"- and many more that were at least entertaining. But most were crap, especially "The Green Berets".
And as for Hanks, Pitt and Roberts, well, they're actors. Wayne was a movie star. There is a difference, but it's negligible as they both exist just to sell fantasies.
Ryan| 11.24.10 @ 8:32AM
My personal favorite is pretty standard fare - "Big Jake;" but I think the best movie that I saw him in was actually "The Shootist."
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.30.10 @ 6:01AM
Yeah, "The Shootist" is definitely one of the best westerns.
Amor de Cosmos| 11.24.10 @ 10:54AM
Couldn't act?
See him in "The Quiet Man" which is charming beyond belief. No movie star there, just a great character portrayal.
Dustoff| 11.24.10 @ 12:19PM
Doorgunner (UH-1?)
But most were crap, especially "The Green Berets".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Granted the movie was not one of his best. But the fact the Wayne made the movie to smack the lib's in the face over their hate of Nam and and our boys.
I was one of them.
So I enjoyed it.
Jack Olson| 11.24.10 @ 2:56PM
I agree with you, Doorgunner. Wayne's dramatic talent was deep but narrow. He never played a weak character, like Fred McMurray, Jack Lemmon, Humphrey Bogart or Bing Crosby. His comedy roles were only moderately successful. He never played an intellectual or a villain, just John Wayne.
Ned the Red| 11.24.10 @ 8:14AM
Ned Pepper: I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.
Rooster Cogburn: Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!
One of the great scenes of all time. My granddaughters often hear me refer to myself as the one-eyed fat man.
JimH| 11.24.10 @ 8:29AM
There was a remake of Stagecoach a some years back which was truly horrible.
Red Bubba| 11.24.10 @ 8:30AM
The brothers claim the new version is truer to the book. It will be interesting to see if Hollywood shows where Mattie's grit comes from. In the book, she often quotes scripture.
Appleby| 11.24.10 @ 4:58PM
To which Generation Tweethead says, "Duh, what's a book?"
John Wayne played John Wayne, which is why we went to his movies -- because we knew what we were getting, and we liked it.
P.S. Wasn't Kevin Cosner the disastrous "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" who wandered through the movie as if he was trying to find the movie he was supposed to be making? The guy who was mocked so ably in "Men in Tights" by a man who "unlike some Robin Hoods, [he] could speak with an English Accent"?
jt| 11.24.10 @ 10:02AM
Why would Jeff Bridges attempt to walk in the Duke's footprints? Maybe because like most actors, a chance to work work the Coen brothers should not be passed up. It also gives him a chance to make up for the Big Lebowski.
canuckistani| 11.24.10 @ 10:46AM
Careful......
Sardonikus| 11.24.10 @ 1:06PM
MAKE UP for the Big Lebowski?!?! STFU Donny!!
Cpm| 11.26.10 @ 3:40PM
The Dude abides....
Fred| 11.28.10 @ 10:40PM
The Duke abides . . .
Eric| 11.24.10 @ 10:04AM
My favorite of his will always be 'The Quiet Man"
Ret_Vet| 11.24.10 @ 3:06PM
Queit Man, every St Patty Day. True Grit for his best portrayal of himself. Cowboys for a great story. Any war flick when I am nostalgic for the military.
Jen | 11.28.10 @ 10:11PM
To me "The Quiet Man" and "Liberty Valance" are tied. The former is quite the charmer...One of my earliest movie memories is watching John Wayne drag Maureen O'Hara through the fields!
Havoc| 11.24.10 @ 10:05AM
Loved 'True Grit' and John Wayne. Also, loved 'The Big Lebowski' ... I will give the Cohen Brothers a try on this remake ... and hope for the best.
PJ| 11.24.10 @ 10:11AM
I'm going to give this flick a try. Why? Because it was written & directed by the Coen Brothers. They gave us Fargo, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading, etc.... I happen to like the Coen brothers' work.
I can safely say the new True Grit will be very violent & bloody. The dialog ought to be exceptional, (might even take quite a few lines from the novel) witty, quick, & some slow periods to take a breather.
Jeff Bridges was great in The Big Lebowski, Josh Brolin was excellent in No Country for Old Men. The only weak spot might be Matt Damon, although he did a good job in All the Pretty Horses, a cowboy flick.
I liked the original movie & the actors who work in it: John Wayne, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hooper, Kim Darby. But that version didn't do justice to the novel. The Coen Brothers can't do worse!
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 11:29AM
Wayne, IMO, became such an icon and beloved figure in America because his film roles reflect what made the country great. Not perfect of course, but great. Wayne’s film character(s) embodied America. Big, tough, self reliant as much as possible, self confident and self made, determined, generous and kind when appropriate, a risk taker, rough and tumble at times like all boys/men (no metrosexual gender confusion), tender and sentimental in a masculine way, and when a fight came his way, fierce and resolved to win.
Was he imperfect as a human being? Sure. As are we all. The chickenhawk label has never stuck because his pals in Hollywood (Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda and others) took no issue with Wayne not enlisting (And he wasn’t the only one who didn’t enlist, btw). He was and still is hated by leftists because of his unwavering anti-communism. It’s as simple as that. They call him “chickenhawk” and a “bully” among other things, but it has never stuck. In a classically revealing real life moment of my own, an ultra leftist with whom I worked, who almost routinely made disparaging remarks about Wayne 20+ years after his death, once remarked to me that she couldn’t stand John Wayne, but it sure is nice to have guys like him around when there is a crisis. LOL They hate him, and say they want to get rid of him and all like him and turn all American ‘males’ into Alan Alda. But when the spam hits the fan, as they know it inevitably does, they know who to call.
If you can find it, Gagdad Bob of Onecosmos blog wrote a great review of the original True Grit several years ago. I was going to post the link, but I haven't been able to find it this morning.
Seek| 11.24.10 @ 11:35AM
The reason why nobody imitates Brad Pitt, George Clooney and other modern actors is because they are versatile; they have an ability to play more than one type of role, unlike the one-trick ponies from the "Golden" age. Can any serious filmgoer suggest that Jimmy Stewart remotely has the talent of, say, Michael Caine, Ben Kingsley, Anthony Hopkins or Sean Connery? Not even close.
I'll see the remake of "True Grit" because the Coen Brothers are masters of great film. That alone suffices.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 4:21PM
Now that's an ironic statement as all of the actors you named have stated that the Duke was one of the most influential actors they had while "growing up." In other word, it was actors, like the Duke, that influenced those later actors desired to become, to you know, actors and those new actors have "incorporated" aspects of The Duke's, you know, acting style into their own acting styles. That's about as high of a complement that an actor can make.
Evanston2| 11.24.10 @ 5:44PM
Really, Clooney is versatile? I won't argue with the Michael Caine-to-Sean Connery comparison, but they're heyday is long gone. To me, Wayne is like Elvis. To some people he's an actor, to others he's The Duke -- just like Elvis, for some he's a singer and to others The King. I may not like Wayne that much but I certainly don't dislike him, while many "modern actors" are "versatile" because they take roles that attack America and anything resembling decency. I'll take the one-trick ponies over your versatile Brokeback Mountain actors, thank you.
Seek| 11.24.10 @ 6:56PM
I see at least one movie a week. None to my knowledge has "attacked" America. In any event, Michael Caine in particular continues to astound. Check him out in very recent films such as "Is Anybody There?," "Harry Browne," and "Children of Men." His heyday is still going strong.
Evanston2| 11.26.10 @ 9:41AM
Seek, I was trying to (1) say that Caine, etc. may be "modern" actors to you, but they're long in the tooth now and (2) today's "modern" actors like Clooney, Costner, Damon, etc. definitely attack America and anything resembling decency on a regular basis. Not your fault if my writing isn't clear. I haven't seen Harry Browne, will check it out based on your recommendation, have already enjoyed the other 2 Caine flicks. So overall I agree with your approach but disagree with your taxonomy.
Jim| 11.26.10 @ 1:10PM
The Coen brothers are a master of modern-day teen to 20 something angst and arrogance. Jimmy Stewart flew in WWII, and earned the rank of Brig. General - that ALONE puts him MILES beyond Michael Caine, et al (look it up.) George Clooney versatile?? Do you ever forget you are watching GC? I don't, and most others probably don't either. Hardly the epitome (look it up) of versatile.
iamfree| 11.26.10 @ 5:25PM
Are you joking? You don't think Jimmy Stewart has the acting chops of the four fine actors you named? What are you, about 10 years old? Stewart could play any kind of role. You need to delve a little further into the Golden Age you deride.
NavyBrat | 11.24.10 @ 11:47AM
I've seen the original "True Grit" & loved it, just as I do ALL of the Duke's movies. I grew up watching them because my parents were fans. As to the remake, I'll wait & see til it comes out on pay per view (I HATE going to the movies). I thought Daniel Craig was too "pretty" to be a good Bond, & was pleasantly proven wrong, so I'll reserve judgement on Bridges' portrayal of a badass.
The best western EVER was "The Magnificent Seven." Good plot (base on "The Seven Samurai," another classic), even BETTER cast. As for modern westerns, I like "Pale Rider," "Unforgiven," "Toombstone," "4:10 to Yuma," & "Appaloosa."
Yosemeti Sam| 11.24.10 @ 11:47AM
The eye patch Bridges sports is - too big for him!
Natural Born Texican| 11.24.10 @ 12:10PM
The Searchers is my all time fave John Wayne movie!!!!! Along with many more.
True portrayals of the American West?....maybe not so much, but certainly intertaining.
Ditto on the remake of True Grit AND Gone with the Wind. Don't!!!!
Grace| 11.24.10 @ 12:41PM
I have never understood why Hollywood has to remake any movie. Can't they come up with more original storylines/scripts on their own? I grew up a John Wayne fan because he appeared to emulate the American Spirit at least on screen. Off-screen he was a boozer, gambler and womanizer but we still loved him or maybe we just didn't know all of his dirty laundry unlike today where "Celebrity News" is everywhere. In the 1950/60’s it was a good thing to be a Patriotic American. Now the liberals want to liberate us all from these antiquated patriotic reminders.
True Grit is an iconic movie and should be left alone.
My favorite John Wayne film though was "The Sons of Katie Elder".
Senor Mick| 11.24.10 @ 12:59PM
Robert Duvall would have been a very acceptable alternative to Jeff Bridges. Wayne has nothing on him.
c. j. acworth| 11.24.10 @ 6:07PM
Robert Duvall as Rooster? After being Lucky Ned Pepper in the original? Don't think so.
iamfree| 11.26.10 @ 5:28PM
Duvall is a magnificent actor, particularly in westerns, but I would wager that even he wouldn't touch a remake of Wayne's "Rooster Cogburn" role if given the chance. Any more than Wayne would have been dumb enough to try Duvall's exceptional "Boo Radley." These are men who know their strengths.
Ronin| 11.24.10 @ 1:12PM
I too almost fell out of my chair when I saw that advertisement. My immediate response was "what's next..Gone with the Wind"?
As stated earler, some movies just should NOT be remade. John Wayne was born for that role.
While he may have been repeatedly type cast, he was an accomplished actor i.e. The Quiet Man.
He learned his trade over a long period of time, and admittedly made some dogs, but he is, and for the vast majority of american males always will be, THE american male hero figure. You could do alot worse than to have his kind of patriotism and lifelong friendships.
Modern westerns that are any good are rare, and many of those featured the heir to the Duke's fief...that would be Clint (early spaghetti westerns notwithstanding). Unforgiven ranks right up there with any for me.
As far as the Coen Bros. being must see directors...I'll only say "Big Lebowski" ugh.
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 2:08PM
Re: Unforgiven. The leftist loon I referred to in my post on Wayne once said after seeing the movie (on tv, not first run) that she thought the movie evidenced that Eastwood had become a pacifist. This statement was another belly laugher for me since the closing scene was Wil Munny telling the towns people he would come back and "kill everyone of you sons of *itches" if they did not do as he said they should. Lefties can be genuinely funny and entertaining at times, even though they aren't trying to be.
NavyBrat | 11.24.10 @ 2:24PM
I'd almost forgotten that line! There was one right before it between him & Hackman.
Lil Bill: "You'd be William Munny, outta Missouri. Killed women & children."
Wil Munny: "That's right. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawls, at some point. And I'm here to kill YOU, Little Bill!"
Ret_Vet| 11.24.10 @ 3:11PM
Lil Bill, "I don't deserve this." Wil Munney, "Deserve has nothing to do with it."
JimP| 11.24.10 @ 6:23PM
Yeah! Both were great lines. Thanks for reminding me guys.
Ted R.| 11.27.10 @ 7:00PM
Actually, if there were a conservative on this site who said that they DID like 'The Big Lebowski,' something would not be all right with the world. It's a brilliant movie, one of the best of the last quarter-century, but it's not a movie for conservatives. They are not going to get it.
However, the Coen brothers have made many movies, dark and funny ones alike, which I think conservatives should like - a lot. I'm assuming that even conservatives are cultured enough to have seen 'Fargo,' so let me make two more suggestions: 'Miller's Crossing' and 'The Hudsucker Proxy.' Trust me.
Andrew B| 11.24.10 @ 1:32PM
Too many film snobs complain that "John Wayne always played John Wayne". Watch Sands of Iwo Jima followed immediately by North to Alaska and tell me those are the same characters and the same performance. What they mean is that Hollywood used to figure out what your "type" was and put you in movies to suit it. What that meant was that when you went to see John Wayne, Gary Cooper or Barbara Stanwyck, you had some idea what sort of film it was. That saves money, in my opinion, as I would sooner spend money on a Randolph Scott picture than one starring Nelson Eddy.
As for this new film...I will have to wait and see. The Coen Brothers created one of my favorite films, Miller's Crossing (which, interestingly, starred two of the last real men in Hollywood, Gabriel Byrne and Albert Finney), so I am going to withhold judgement.
Like hell I am.
OldSeabee| 11.24.10 @ 1:55PM
Rooster Cogburn was a man who had been a Confederate guerilla fighter and had become a US Marshall. John Wayne accurately protrayed the conflict within Cogburn quite well. How can a man settle his feelings and not seem crotchety? I would like to see how Jeff Bridges (whom I like as an actor) handles these emotions. I, too, grew up watching John Wayne serials and movies, like "The Fighting Seabees", which was shown every year on the Seabee birthday at my homeport. Great movie based on actual events involving USNCB6 on Guadalcanal. When my batttalion was in DaNang, John Wayne was in country getting briefings on his movie, "The Green Berets", and he dropped by and helped us dedicate our EM club. He also did a film during the Korean War in which he portrayed a LEO who was combating communist sabotauge on our West Coast waterfronts. So, yes, the commie bastards hate him still.
larry| 11.24.10 @ 2:20PM
yes to all, see it if you want..........but I will tell you this........John Wayne's movies seem to always convey a message, to be straight and strong....my kids enjoy his movies and they are in their teens...........I know they will learn values for the most part........most actors and movies are always trying to beat the system, create parody, create different moral or sexual messages, what movie would you say is intelligent enough or even watchable enough that you can leave your kid to watch and you know what they just watched will make them better people (they can watch Karate Kid but even that is too soapy for them) My kids cannot sit long enough to watch a "good movie" but will sit forever watching a violent, vampire, or just shoot em up cuss em up movie....but an old western they truly enjoy........so Im hoping true grit today is just that....a good ol western........
Melvin| 11.24.10 @ 2:22PM
Imagine this people. For the True Grit and Big Lebowski fans combine the two stories. Jeff Bridge sitting astride Old Bo in a old robe, slippers and a huge Sombrero .
Again he would face off to a much older Lucky Ned Pepper Robert Duval with a rifle in one hand and high ball in the other.
Susie| 11.24.10 @ 3:26PM
Melvin, not a high ball. A "caucasian."
Melvin| 11.24.10 @ 3:33PM
Thats right, jeez I forgot. Thanks for reminding me.
Cpm| 11.24.10 @ 4:42PM
I read the novel "True Grit" by Charles Portis when it came out in 1968 and didn't envision John Wayne in the role of Rooster Cogburn, but it turned out well in the film.The novel is certainly open to the Coen brother's interpretation and I'm looking forward to it. Sure, my first reaction when I saw it was being remade was "Why?" but then I saw it was the Coens and I knew it would be in good hands. I'm a little uneasy about Maaaattt Daaaamon and Josh Brolin being in the cast, but knowing what happens to their characters I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 5:03PM
It's always interesting to see the debates that occur whenever a "classic" is being "remade" and the claims that people make without even seeing the movie, whether one man's performance will be better than the other, whether the new movie will closely follow the original or not, whether the people producing the movie is "better " or "worse " that the people who originally made the movie. and the like. But the whole debate revolves around one single aspect, one single factor; nostalgia.
Does anyone remember the remake of Psycho? Here we had a remake that was nearly total clone of the original, including the exact same script and set designs, camera angles, lighting, the works. The ONLY difference was in the casting itself and in who made the movie, who produced it, who directed it, ect. That movie didn't do too well, did it?
Now, most people who didn't like the movie didn't really complain about the acting because it didn't mirror the original actors performances, they complain because it DID mirror the original, it was TOO MUCH of a copy of the original. The biggest complaint was that is was a true copy.
Much to the chagrin of so many people (those who loved the original when it first debuted), the movie copied, cloned, all of the aspects of the original, the suspense, the drama, the character development, the visual style, the works. It was a TRUE "remake." But it was STILL seen as a "bad" remake. But what was different from the original? Two things: It was shot in color and the actors didn't look like the originals (even though the actors were carefully chosen because of their resemblances to the original actors)!
Even after the "remake' actors spend months learning to mimic the original actors mannerisms, physical and vocal inflections, and the rest, (I thought that they did a remarkable job at the, for the most part) a lot of people said that the new actors didn't "capture" the original actor's "charm" and "charisma." That's the "nostalgia" factor in action, people rejecting the remake because it is too much of a a remake, rejecting the acting because it wasn't being performed by the original actors.
Now, this nostalgia factor argument doesn't even take into account those "remakes" that don't even TRY to emulate the original. I think we all know the "nostalgic" reaction for these types of "remakes."
I wonder how much the nostalgia factor will have an effect on this "remake?" Will it be rejected because it's too similar to the original or because it's too different?
I do know one thing, it's going to be hotly debated long after the film is released even if it is popular.
JmsA| 11.24.10 @ 7:15PM
"They Were Expendable" is one of the Duke's many great movies I continue to enjoy most---and belive most unlikely to be remade.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY TO AMERICAN SPECTATOR AND ALL OF ITS READERS!
Michael| 11.24.10 @ 7:39PM
"True Grit"--another classic that Hollywood should leave alone. Remember the terrible remake of "3:10 From Yuma"? Except for a great performance by Russell Crowe, it had nothing going for it. Leave the good stuff alone.
XKarenX| 11.24.10 @ 9:01PM
Don't think anyone has mentioned another great one - They Were Expendable - with the brilliant, inimitable Robert Montgomery. (There's so much real testosterone in that film it could be used as a marital aid). John Wayne's best films (and his best roles) are full of heart, spirit and, usually, weary masculine regret barely kept at bay through manly action and/or the bottle. The aforementioned film plus The Searchers, Stagecoach, The Three Godfathers and The Quiet Man -- all helmed by John Ford -- are my favorites.
To touch on other folks' comments: Re: Michael Caine -- perhaps the greatest living actor.
Also count me as a big Big Lebowski fan. Like my favorite John Wayne films I can watch it over and over. The Coen Bros. are like kinda like oysters, caviar and artichokes -- not to everyone's taste, but I like 'em. They're fine and original film makers (and, boy can they discover new, terrific actors). So, though redundant and containing the odious Brolin, will see True Grit.
(BTW, the Bridges Brothers, both of them, are a national treasure, IMHO). Excuse the long post.
james lee| 11.24.10 @ 9:13PM
John Wayne was a pretty interesting guy and most of those who comment on him don't know much about him. John Wayne was the president of the Latin Club and class valedictorian in high school. He was very very intelligent. He was first string All-State in football in California and attended USC on a scholarship.
John Wayne is by far and away the greatest leading man in the history of movie making.
Richard Aubrey| 11.24.10 @ 10:05PM
One of Wayne's directors remarked, "Son of a bitch looks like a man." He was also said to be good at the business an actor is doing while speaking. Loading a gun, hammering a horse shoe.
True Grit reads well if you keep in mind the author was seeking a century-old voice and style. Very effective but sounding strange when spoken aloud. Of all the actors in the movie, only Wayne could speak those lines naturally. None of the others could sound anything other than artificial, and Campbell was dreadful.
blue water sailor| 11.24.10 @ 10:36PM
if all of the people against the remake of this movie knew anythhing at all about "Duke" so much as some of you claim to, you would know that were he alive today he was a man of too high a caliber to consider the remake of one of his best movies as a slap in the face. He would consider it a compliment and give it all the support he had. I am 25 and have countless hours of his films dating back to the 30's as well as several biographies on "Duke". If you think that it is wrong of the cohen bros. to try and walk in a small part of the enormous shadow one of the greatest Americans that ever lived then i say, HOW DARE YOU!!! you need to check your facts before you just assume you know anything. get a clue. and i say kudos to the cohen bros. give it all you got. "Duke" you still have real fans
ATG
Jeremiah| 11.25.10 @ 9:44AM
Touche, Blue Water Sailor. The idea of trying to remake this John Wayne film is appalling to me, but I have an older friend that knew John Wayne. I suspect you are right...Wayne, himself, would probably be flattered at the idea of a remake and be supportive of it.
The only guy I know who could take on a role that Wayne defined and have a remote chance of pulling it off is Clint Eastwood - and he is smart enough to have stayed away from such a thing.
blaze| 11.24.10 @ 11:00PM
I thoroughly enjoyed the original True Grit. But irreplaceable? I haven’t heard more wooden acting (the Rhinestone Cowboy and Kim Darby) since the latest Twilight! John Wayne was awesome….his fellow actors not so much. That was a combination of bad typecasting and poor writing. Hopefully the new film improves both.
Answers1| 11.25.10 @ 3:36AM
Bridges lacks individuality? He's an insolent jerk, always ready to say FU to authority, that's Bridges individuality.
Douglas Fletcher | 11.25.10 @ 6:31AM
Isn't this a Coen Brothers film? Given all the interesting work they've come up with in the past 20 years, I have trouble understanding why anyone would be so dismissive as some of the comments here without seeing the film first.
blue water sailor | 11.25.10 @ 8:18AM
AMEN! Fletcher, read what i had to say, you might find it interesting
GORDON| 11.25.10 @ 9:35AM
The remake that I found most interesting was Cape Fear. I've had more discussions on this original vs. the remake than any other original vs. remake. So many facets to compare between the two films and so different that I see them as two separate films.
Mitchum's portrayal of Max Cady delivered more under the surface threat of fear than De Niro's and Mitchum did it while wearing a suit and tie. Years later I saw a duplicate of Max Cady in James Earl Ray.
As a bit of trivia, the remake of Cape Fear has more of the original actors in it than any other remake.
blue water sailor| 11.25.10 @ 10:54AM
thank you jeremiah, why shouldnt we give it a chance and grade it on its own merit, and not trying to stand it up against an actor that could never be matched. after all like "Duke" said in is acceptance speech for the academy award for "True Grit" he said "If i had known, I would have put on that patch 35 years ago"
ATG
Topper| 11.25.10 @ 12:43PM
The genius of "True Grit" was Charles Portis, the man who wrote the novel. Portis has perfect pitch, and the great lines people remember from the movie ("one-eyed fat man"), Strother's "winged Pegasus," Rooster's "fill yore hand you sunavabitch" and so one, were drawn word for word from Portis' novel. "True Grit" is a classic in the genre of Mark Twain, and will one day be remembered as such. Wayne recognized this and said he read the book three times preparing for the role. Portis, by the way, said he sort of envisioned George C. Scott as Rooster, having much enjoyed Scott in the "The Flim-Flam Man." Great movies are always sprung from the mind and imagination of a good writer, but, alas, in our post-literate age, few write well because nobody reads good writing any more. Too bad.
Topper| 11.25.10 @ 12:47PM
One last thing: though a Western, "True Grit" was set in Arkansas, a Southern state then (1880) on the frontier. Hence the respectful and admiring references to Confederate heroes. Be interesting to see what the Coen brothers do with this.
Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 11.25.10 @ 1:00PM
I think one aspect overlooked here is the sensibilities of the age reflected in a screenplay and that is what gives us older (I would wager) Wayne fans pause. Cohen Brothers? I like some of their stuff too like Fargo, Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing. The Big Lebowski? Just watched it a couple of weeks ago. It stunk and even though I was a bit like "the Dude" in my youth, many moons ago, I found nothing likeable or admirable about him whatsoever. As an aside I think Jeff Daniels would've been a better fit. Bridge's Lebowski is a callow, shiftless, cowardly, empty shell of a boy-man, a "dude", who's first response to anything, even the "pressure" of awaking to a new day, is to flee by way of a drink and a joint. He trips through his mis-adventures like a single-cell, single purpose organism instinctively recoiling from anything that would make the slightest demand of him and gravitating toward anything that promises to either anethesize or sheild him from the trauma of consciousness. He is the kind of aging hippie teenage stoners think is cool and to whom the old burnout typically plays. I remember many like him. To the adolescent wanna-bees he shows a life spent stoned and on the lam from reality is possible, to the old hipster the teenager's adulation affirms a life wasted. But in the real world grown men, responsible men of duty and action, see and scorn the likes of him for what he is. In true Cohen fashion, that he comes out ok is in no way thanks to any of his own will or efforts but rather to the dumb, blind luck in having phony, hypocritical, cynical and equally amoral villains thwarted by their own blind obsessions. In other words, the mostly stock characters of Cohen films.
The Cohens are the pre-eminent purveyors of the amoralism and irony of our age. Post-modernism. There is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, black nor white. It's all a gray mush and no one is ever either innocent or consciously on the side of the angels which is to also say guilty or evil, either. Any good one does is largely accidental as they go about their selfish pursuits. Everyone is purely self-interested and governed by their varying degrees of enthrallment to the seven sins and once you've got that it's easy to predict their course both inside the film and as an outside observer. It's practically Pavlovian.
It's usually said that the old westerns are "simplistic" in their lessons but I disagree. I find the best westerns are profound tales of civilization's advance and imposition of a moral order. So, will it be possible in a Cohen film that a flawed and jaded man like Rooster Cogburn could be goaded and shamed into doing a self-consciously good thing by an honest and precocious girl against his better professional judgement? Will the film reflect the common, and fairly accurate, theme in many Wayne westerns, most notably Liberty Valance, that before the nicities and formalities of law and order could be had by all it must first be imposed mercilessly against the lawless? That an actual physical space for law, a geography, must first be carved out of the void by the will, physical force and, many times, the summary judgement of imperfect but better men over worse? That to men like Rooster Cogburn, Tom Doniphon and Ethan Edwards we owe a thanks that that space exists and who we used to exalt precisly for their effort and sacrifice but now mock? Ransom Stoddard fully recognizes it in Liberty Valance and in the end chooses to let settled fables rest to protect their hard-won civilization but do the Cohen Brothers?
That's what will be interesting to see- which character shows up for the Cohens are capable of portraying both. Will the new Rooster, like the original, be roused from his stupor to catch a murderer and his marauding pals because his more noble manhood is questioned by a sincere and indignant girl? A girl who is appalled to find that any man who calls himself a capable one, let alone one she came to believe a righteous one, would stand by while such barbarians roam free? Will the Cohens portray western womanhood as the generally civilizing force they represented onscreen in the past and in fact (read Mark Twain's Roughing It for a primer of women's effect on men on the frontier)? Or will we see another demoralizing tale of muddled, flawed people surrendering to their weaknesses rather than striving to rise above them? Will the new Rooster be a replay of Ed Tom Bell from No Country for Old Men who is too jaded, too old, too uncertain and too tired to rise above the soul deadening carnage unfolding around him? Or will we get something more like Margie of Fargo? In Fargo, Margie is a truly wholesome example of a good and decent person doing her job. There is no guile in her and never a sense she's motivated by anything other than to see right triumph over wrong and to do her duty come what may. No angst, no self-questioning, no doubts, no calculating trade-offs, just a cheerful, pregnant gal upholding civilization while literally nuturing its future. Or would another Rooster in the original mode, or a Cohenesque Margie, be too "simplistic" for them now? I like their production values and appreciate quirky scripts but I'm hoping they play Rooster straight.
BTW, regarding Kevin Costner, I'm no big fan but he delivers one of the best lines in a fine modern western, Open Range, that is straight out of the John Wayne school and the reality that was the West. His performance is pitch perfect to the genre as a formerly bad man repented of his ways and since seeking to atone for his sins in a quiet, unoffending life of hard and honest work under the wing of an older and good man. They are in the saloon on the rainy night of crisis knowing that a showdown with the local cattle barron and his henchmen will come with the dawn. A few honest citizens, particularly the local freighter and his two grown sons, are talking to them about how they recognize and condemn the injustice of the ruthless barron's self-appointed rule. A digusted Costner asks why they don't resist. The freighter laments he doesn't want to see his boys killed who, to their credit, are game to fight. Costner replys, "Well, you may not know this but someday they'll learn there's things that gall a man worse than dying." A perfectly American call to liberty, equality of the law, order and justice. And, in the old school way, he goes on to vanquish the bad guys as only one who knows how to fight fire with fire can. In the end, it is only by the sheer will and force of arms born by imperfect men intent on doing good that creates the space and conditions for those American virtues to exist and flourish. It's a terrific film and one of the best in the fine tradition of westerns made in the last 30 years.
Lastly, John Wayne did not get a medical draft deferment. In 1941, he was age 34 and married with four children. He was not yet a top star but on the cusp and career cosiderations played a part in his decisions. Just after Pearl Harbor, FDR publicly stated Hollywood had an important part to play in the war effort and to that end, was accorded a similar status as all industries vital to our war effort. In Feb. 1942, Gen. Louis B Hershey, director of Selective Service reiterated FDR's policy aims and granted a more liberal deferment criteria for Hollywood who, to the Screen Actors Guild, publicly declared did not want it. At his age, familial status and position in a vital industry, Wayne was granted such a deferment. It was a status he felt guilty about the rest of his life but no objective observer can deny he probably did far more good for the morale of our fighting men and nation in motion pictures than in a foxhole somewhere. To paraphrase the authors of John Wayne: American, Professors Randy Roberts and James Olson (Chap. 9, p.210; John Wayne and Hollywood Go to War), Wayne was more valuable to the war effort as Sgt. Stryker than as Sgt. Wayne.
Pilgrim| 11.25.10 @ 10:19PM
"...upholding civilization while, literally, nurturing its future."
A friend of mine expressed roughly the same insight re: the character, Margie, during a discussion of "Fargo", years ago.
We both agreed that rather than a snobbish put-down of American, rural sensibilities, "Fargo" SHOULD be regarded as an endearing tribute to those who exemplify our national, moral center.
Richard Baker| 11.26.10 @ 6:59AM
The problem is that the modern Hollywood types don't know how to write or tell a story.
WTF| 11.26.10 @ 7:23AM
Mark Shepler, the deferment Wayne got didn't sit well with USO audiences. Wayne's [and Bogart's] appearances were received with sullen silence. Why this should bother posters here so is a question for the analyst couch.
Evanston2| 11.26.10 @ 9:52AM
WTF, were you there, sitting in these USO audiences? What I've seen here from others is that they personally witnessed and experienced appreciation for Wayne, and that many of them served. Did you??? My father is a Korean War veteran and a fan of Wayne. I am a retired Marine and found Wayne tolerable, but many Marines who trained me (Vietnam vets) had his poster up and remembered the treachery of Jane Fonda, etc. So unless you're providing a first-person account, you should quit pushing notions just because they fit your Dancing With Wolves viewpoint.
iamfree| 11.26.10 @ 5:35PM
My dad was a Korean and Vietnam vet, and a huge Wayne fan, as were all of his military friends as I recall. Sorry, but I think you're off base (no pun intended) on this one.
Louis Jenkins| 11.26.10 @ 10:06AM
OK, all you John Wayne affectionados, name the 8 movies John Wayne died in. Do not list the Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, as John Wayne is already dead.
I always have trouble with the 8th one. It is the hardest to remember.
tom ritter| 11.26.10 @ 10:22AM
The left hates John Wayne simply because he looks like America.
grant1863| 11.26.10 @ 10:40AM
Just watched the new trailer thanks to the excellent comments here and how come no one mentioned Johnny Cash on the soundtrack. Worth seeing just for that and being a western.
WTF| 11.26.10 @ 11:47AM
Evanston, why don't you use that giant brain to google up the facts, as I did. Ritter, the "left" hates you..and other simpleton simians.
scott| 11.26.10 @ 12:28PM
OK, Wayne was good in True Grit, but the movie kinda sucked. You know that you can't possibly defend Kim Darby or Glen Campbell (though for a country singer, he wasn't bad), try as you might. That sick feeling in your stomach right now is your conscience.
Rooster Cogburn is the better flick. If you don't agree, you should watch it. Or, you're probably like those dorks that buy certain clothing for the label, but still buy the wrong colors, patterns, etc., and are merely unattractive billboards for a name.
Alear| 11.26.10 @ 1:27PM
Going on memory here, but Rooster's cat in True Grit was called General Sterling Price. Price had a hand in some of the more bloody battles in Missouri, and was associated with Quantrill and his raiders, including the Younger and James brothers. I'm interested to see if the Coen brothers bring in this aspect of Cogburn's history. If so, it could make for some fine drama.
Cowboy| 11.26.10 @ 2:42PM
The closer I watch John Wayne the stranger he becomes. Watch him walk up to a bar; he doesn't so much walk as do a real strange dance. He's usually got his arms held up kinda like a prissy, and he glances forward on the balls of his feet. It is kinda, well, "gay". In fact there's a scene in some forgotten gay film where they idolize the John Wayne Walk-Dance.
Yet when Wayne did it he comes off with authority, with masculine, bold authority. Try to imitate it sometime. Or, try to roll out, "Howdy, pardn'er!" in your best John Wayne cadence. These and so many other intangible things, his glances, his facial expressions, his cadence and delivery, add up to an actor with commanding presence. He often dominates scenes in which he's a bystander.
Few if any study John Wayne in any actors' studio, and he's got a rap amongst practioners of the craft as being a one-dimensional, role-bound product of the old studio system. But in reality he was a dominating actor with a strange, commanding presence. And, a decent man to boot. He was worth his weight in gold.
Best of luck filling that man's shoes, Jeff Bridges. Best of luck.
iamfree| 11.26.10 @ 5:38PM
LOL! I'll never forget Robin Williams trying to teach his drag queen partner in "The Birdcage" how to walk like a man by telling him to visualize how John Wayne walked. After he tried it, the partner said "not right?" Williams says, "no, I just never realized John Wayne walked like that." Hilarious.
Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 11.26.10 @ 5:43PM
He walked funny because he had small feet. They caused him to walk kinda pitching forward, almost like he'd fall on his face at any moment. But they didn't prevent him from getting what amounted to a full football scholarship at USC. Definitely recommend reading John Wayne: American if you're interested in his story.
Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 11.28.10 @ 12:12PM
You know, it's funny how wedded we can become to a shibboleth or myth. I've heard the "small feet" explanation for Wayne's walk so often I thought I'd read it in the very book I've cited here and so just regurgitated it. Then last night, prompted by this discussion I was re-reading John Wayne: American (Profs. Randy Roberts and James S. Olson, Free Press; 1995) and stumbled upon this regarding Wayne's deliberate, self-conscious efforts to improve his craft (p. 136):
"He copied the relaxed, informal delivery of Harry Carey. But even more importantly, he sought the advice of Paul Fix, a friend from his days at Fox, Warner's and Monogram. A versatile actor with a smooth delivery and relaxed manner, equally comfortable as good guy, or heavy, Fix understood the mechanics of acting. During the 1930s he became Duke's informal acting coach. Early in his Monogram career, Wayne confessed to Fix that he felt stiff and self-conscious in front of the camera. "Duke was bright enough," remembered Fix, "but he didn't know how to move, what to do with his hands, and after three lines he was lost." Wayne particularly disliked the way his walk looked on screen. Fix told him to point his toes into the ground as he walked, an action that made his shoulders and hips swing in a distinctive manner. The walk, Harry Carey, Jr. later said, was not unlike Marilyn Monroe's. "When Duke first did it, it was ballsey as hell." "Paul taught Duke to walk," Mary St. John recalled (Wayne's life-long personal secretary), "Duke's mannerisms were more studied than most people realize. He said it took him years before he could watch himself on the screen and not wince."
I stand corrected.
Merlin| 11.26.10 @ 6:29PM
Great movies are the result of a rare combination of actors, director, screenplay, and much more. Some of these movies live with us for all of our lives. Their is a compulsion in Hollywood to try and capture the glory of these rare events. Instead, Hollywood should be trying to redo the movies that didn't quite work: the acting was off, the director was a dud, the screenplay missing something. There are a lot of stories that have been told badly, and these are the ones that Hollywood should be targeting for the retelling. But no, that would require hardwork and talent; instead they hope to make a buck by imitating great movies rather making great movies.
general summerall| 11.27.10 @ 10:24PM
One Western I would like to see remade someday is Cowboy, orininally with Glenn Ford and Jack Lemmon. An interesting effort, even if Lemmon did all his nervousness schticks, but maybe in the 50s there was a problem with Jack's role being based on that great lover Frank Harris on a cattle drive, but the studios thought they could not portray the real Frank Harris. And please let us never hear of a remake of Hannie Caulder. Nobody could replace Raquel, Elam, Borgnine, and Strother Martin. My idea of the perfect casting of all time.
general sumerall | 11.27.10 @ 10:26PM
"originally"
Jack in the Midwest| 11.28.10 @ 3:43PM
Phooey on both Coen and Costner. I never saw any of their movies that I liked.
GENE HAUBER| 11.28.10 @ 7:19PM
FRANK GORCHIN OR RICH LITTLE WERE VERY GOOD, BUT IF THERE IS ONLY ONE ACTOR TO REPLACE JOHN WAYNE AS ROOSTER COGBURN ,....IT CAN ONLY BE KURT RUSSEL...NO ONE ELSE. HE IS JOHN WAYNE'S HOLLYWOOD CLONE....A GOOD MAN.
TRY HIM
P. Aaron| 11.29.10 @ 9:50AM
Movies are recordings, so people who work in that genre think they can 'cover' originals and in some cases, the re-make makes more money. It doesn't mean that it's better in terms of becoming a classic. Some do remakes under the guise of getting the technology current. Technology however, doesn't help a lousy director, a poor script...or lackluster acting.
Certain movies & songs shouldn't be remade for the same reason classic books are not re-written.
P. Aaron| 11.29.10 @ 9:50AM
Movies are recordings, so people who work in that genre think they can 'cover' originals and in some cases, the re-make makes more money. It doesn't mean that it's better in terms of becoming a classic. Some do remakes under the guise of getting the technology current. Technology however, doesn't help a lousy director, a poor script...or lackluster acting.
Certain movies & songs shouldn't be remade for the same reason classic books are not re-written.
Josh| 11.29.10 @ 9:56AM
Just for reference purposes, this new version of True Grit isn't actually a remake. It's a re-adaptation of the novel on which the John Wayne version was based. The filmmakers wanted to make it much closer to the source material and do a more faithful adaptation of the book.
My dad and I are both gigantic John Wayne fans. My personal favorites are The Searchers, The Cowboys, The Quiet Man, The Shootist, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and of course, True Grit. But I have to say, I am still excited about this new movie, and I think bridges will be great in the role.
Also, Open Range is a great, old school Western. Other great recent Westerns are Tombstone and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma.
Louis Jenkins| 11.29.10 @ 10:37AM
No takers eh?
The Cowboys
Sands of Iwo Jima
The Fighting Sea Bees
The Shootist
Wake of the Red Witch
Central Airport (an older movie, he played a walk on part)
The Alamo
Reap the Wild Wind
Kevin| 11.29.10 @ 11:46AM
Could you imagine a remake of "Blazing Saddles"??
general summerall| 11.29.10 @ 2:06PM
I suppose the Portis novel of Grit could be redone, but the high point of the movie is Duke growling "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!" Not Jeff Bridges, not nobody, can say that sentence the way Duke said it.
REB| 11.30.10 @ 6:27PM
He exemplified what is good about America,he made us proud...he loved America,not with empty lipservice but for real,he was a real mans man!
Not some milk and toast girlie man like so many so called heroes are today,someone to emulate,a personification of Americas rebel outlaw toughguy attitude that he carried on and off the screen!
America loved him...still does....where are you Duke when we really need you? Gawd I miss that man...he really did have "TRUE GRIT"!
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 4:02AM
Q:what is the strongest muscle?
A:the tongue—it can raise a woman’s hips.
Q:what is the lightest muscle?
A:the penis—it can be raised by a tongue.