The American Spectator : True Grit

Text Size

True Grit

By James Bowman on 2.3.11 @ 6:03AM

There's much to praise in the Coen Brothers' remake -- except for a key missing ingredient.

One scene from the 1969 version of True Grit, directed by the journeyman Henry Hathaway, that doesn't appear in the new remake by the Brothers Coen comes at a moment of down-time on the trail when John Wayne as federal marshal Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn -- who is played in the remake by Jeff Bridges -- is giving his employer and protégé, Mattie Ross (Kim Darby), a résumé of his life since his disreputable service with Quantrill's Raiders in the Civil War. At some point, he says, he had gone to New Mexico and robbed a bank in order to get the money to start a business. Though he is now an officer of the law himself, he appears to take the view that this was simply a necessity for him to live and so not subject to the usual moral and legal prohibitions against theft. Mattie, who has a highly moral and legal approach to everything and who is especially censorious about Rooster's drinking ("I would not put a thief in my mouth to steal my brains!" she says to him, quoting Shakespeare), firmly informs him that neither morality nor the law makes any exceptions for his necessity. "It's all stealing," she insists.

"That's the view those New Mexicans took!" says Rooster with renewed incredulity that anyone should be so needlessly and heedlessly scrupulous. No wonder Richard Nixon is said to have written Wayne a fan letter -- although the screenplay was by blacklisted Communist Marguerite Roberts -- about the movie! In another scene that the Coens do not include, Wayne drills a rat with his six-gun, explaining to Mattie as he does so: "You can't serve papers on a rat; you've got to kill him or let him be." So much for legal niceties! Most people would then have understood that Rooster is a man of classically heroic stature, a man who stands outside and above the law. "If the President does it, it's not illegal," as Nixon was later to put it to David Frost. Wayne's character, Tom Doniphon, in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) is there to make much the same point. Later, in yet another scene that the Coens do not repeat, Rooster has to rob some people at gunpoint of their horses and buckboard in order to get Mattie to an Indian doctor in time to save her life after she has been bitten by a snake. The suggestion is -- as it also is in Liberty Valance -- that necessity does sometimes justify a disregard for the law.

This inconvenient truth is meant to contrast with the quaint moralism of the revenge-seeking Mattie, who has hired Rooster to bring her father's killer in dead or alive. In the Coens' version of Mattie, there is still a touch of her Old Testament grandeur in demanding a strict moral accounting for that death -- which (unlike Hathaway) they do not represent -- though only a touch. The impressive young actress who plays her, Hailee Steinfeld, was actually younger when she made the movie than her 14-year-old original in Charles Portis's novel. But the more salient contrast with the Mattie of Miss Darby (who was 20 at the time), is that she is less religious, less moralistic and more interested in the law, of which she has a considerable knowledge, acquired we don't know how. Miss Darby's Mattie is a less interesting and less attractive person, but she has the strict sense moral rectitude which seems to me at least to ring truer of a frontier lass of the 1880s. Her successor has something of that newer movie favorite, the child prodigy about her.

The new film isn't really interested in what I regard as the serious question of the moral ambiguity of the heroic so much as it is in the less interesting and more general moral chaos of the world that was also characteristic of the brothers' view of things in such recent films as No Country for Old Men and A Serious Man. In one way, however, this makes for a better picture -- as does the fact that, like all its authors' movies, it is a much more highly crafted piece of cinematic workmanship. It means that it is more focused on the heroism of its heroes -- who include Matt Damon in the role of the Texas Ranger La Boeuf, played by an absurdly miscast Glen Campbell in the earlier version -- and less on its moral significance. The season of their quest to capture and bring to justice the murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), is changed from summer to winter in order to stress the hardships they must endure, and the violence, including the hanging at Ft. Smith which occurs near the beginning of both films, is more graphic.

Mr. Bridges is inevitably a less-imposing screen presence than the Duke, but then who isn't? And the fact that he brings the heroic more down-to-earth is in keeping with the darkness of the rest of the film's vision. I also like that they have kept so much of Mr. Portis's old-timey language in the dialogue -- what the New York Times reviewer called its "twisty, funny sentences." The smack of authenticity is doubtless an illusion, but it is no less an effective one for that, and an unbiased viewer will find in the film itself no trace of the reviewer's mistaken and ideologically motivated attribution to it of an obsession with "that old- time American religion of vengeance."

Its other negative virtue is that the Coens manage to resist the temptation -- which they did not resist in the two films mentioned above -- to make too much of a point of the moral indifference of the universe to our ideas of justice. If you doubt this, just look at the fact that their use of the hymn tune, "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" as a musical leitmotif does not immediately strike one as being ironic.

Leaning, leaning, safe and secure from all alarms;
Leaning, leaning, leaning on the everlasting arms… 
What have I to dread, what have I to fear, 
Leaning on the everlasting arms?
I have blessed peace with my Lord so near, 
Leaning on the everlasting arms.

Charles Laughton's Night of the Hunter (1955), another film about children endangered by an evil man, used the same trick except that its irony was at the expense of the evil man, a faux preacher played by Robert Mitchum who sings it as part of his pose of religiosity. By piping it in over the soundtrack and making no obvious connection to the drama on-screen (except for a brief and otherwise irrelevant scene of hymn-singing at the hanging), the new movie merely hints at the consolations others have found in the idea of a just but merciful God without -- quite -- sneering at them. Mattie is still allowed the frontier wisdom that "Nothing is free but the grace of God" even if the film-makers themselves are agnostic about this. And she does, after all, get her man -- though the price she pays for the justice she seeks is enormous and apparently includes her never getting a man in the sense that young ladies were once expected to do.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course! But by bringing in the grown-up Mattie as old maid (Elizabeth Marvel) at the movie's end, the Coens restore Mr. Portis's framing device, whose omission from the John Wayne version was part of what made that movie at once simpler, sunnier, and more satisfying than the remake. Such virtues are rather thought to be vices these days, however, and I expect that most people will prefer the newer, more up-to-date True Grit. Undoubtedly, it's more to our contemporary taste. Yet I think I have to go with the 1969 version, even in spite of Glen Campbell's warbling of its brain-dead theme song, "One Day, Little Girl" (music by Elmer Bernstein, lyrics by Don Black) with its glib assurance that

Though summer seems far away 
You'll find the sun some day

The Coens may have a juster appreciation of the difficulties we all have in coming by any sense of the moral order in the universe, but the earlier film reminds us that without one there's not much point to even the most craftsmanlike representation of its heroes' sufferings.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 7:16AM

I think this is the reason the *Little House on the Prairie* books were re-crafted to cater to the willful ignorance of the current generation about what life was really like back then. Nobody under 35 has the context to appreciate the realities upon which America was founded and grounded; anything that happened before the Sixties has been sanitized for the protection of anybody who had no grandparents or great-grandparents who kept journals or told stories or even lived in the same town as the tweethead generation. It is difficult for these kids to understand things that arent laid out to them in excruciating detail, because the old films and stories assumed a bedrock of knowledge the tweetheads no longer have.

Nunya| 2.3.11 @ 11:48PM

Appleby,

I guess it goes back to the question: How many of us have actually had to use an outhouse? Or, had not not had running water without using a hand pump, or who have not had electric power at the "flick of a switch"? Probably very few, although I would have to put myself in the "experienced" group, mostly because of my grandparents.

Most of those who exist today have never even imagined a toilet or shower that was not inside the home, much less not even connected to it-- Or heated, for that matter. I would guess that 90% or more who read this have never even THOUGHT about having to deal with such issues, though, I could be wrong.

Me, I'm not a "tweeter" so to speak, I actually have a life. :-) And.... nobody who knows and cares about me really cares about me talking to someone on the phone, or communicating in the shower, or using the bathroom...(or whatever my daily life expectations might be).

They only want to know about the important stuff---like my lasagna recipe. :-)

Alan Brooks| 2.4.11 @ 12:26AM

Don't know if someone else has mentioned this; but the remake lacks a crucial, indispenable ingredient: JOHN WAYNE.

There was only one Duke. That which is unique is irreplaceable.

PJ| 2.3.11 @ 8:38AM

I loved both film versions of the story. IMO both films need to be seen on a large screen to appreciate the grandeur of the settings.

I don't think one can compare both movies. The original version was made for John Wayne who represents the hero like Superman ---- fighting for truth, justice, & the American way. (I do wish we would see more of that in today's movies.)

The Coens' version is more spiritual. It depicts justice with mercy (Cogburn) & without (Mattie). There are a lot of biblical quotations appropriately stated. Even the last hymn-song is spiritual.

Like various productions of a Shakespeare play, each of the True Grit films emphasizes different themes, events, & characterizations of the story. Both are equally great for different reasons.

John Gardner| 2.3.11 @ 12:21PM

Your take matches mine exactly! I found the earlier film to be more "satisfying" as a sort of "romance" about the west, but the new one more realistic AND uplifting.

Anthony| 2.3.11 @ 8:59AM

A great movie. Bridges and Steinfeld are superb.Damon and Brolin however, should have exchanged parts. Brolin's talents were wasted and Damon was unconvincing.

Scott| 2.3.11 @ 9:15AM

Haven't seen the new version, but it seems to me that crediting or criticizing a film for leaving in or out certain phrases from the book that suggest faith, morality, etc., is a bit like criticizing a painting for not having enough "blue" in its sky. Can't agree enough that historically accurate character types are an essential struggle. But the overall message in a film can, for example, be extremely negative, provoking contemplation in questions of faith, morality, etc., which is clearly the case in No Country for Old Men. As in music, painting, sculpture, dance, etc., sometimes it's what you leave out of the composition.

Steve A| 2.3.11 @ 10:59AM

Scott, In your opinion, what is the overall message in No Country & why do you consider it to be extremely negative?

Evanston2| 2.3.11 @ 11:28AM

Steve A, I'm curious about the overall message in No Country. What is your "take?"

Brian B| 2.3.11 @ 11:46AM

Can't speak for Scott or Steve but I found No Country to say basically that evil is ever present and implacable (true) and undefeatable (false).
To a Christian like myself that message strikes me as false and that fundamental flaw is not much addressed by Tommy Lee Jones's rambling philosophizing at the end. In fact the question of evil's omnipotence seems simply assumed and never questioned. That may not have been intentional. The Coens may have merely been noting evil's ominpresence and effects on us all, but if so I think they cut the story and its implications short.

John Gardner| 2.3.11 @ 1:57PM

Agree with you and Steve A's comments. I think they cut the message short, too --- but it still 'worked' for me.

One of the Sheriff's lines from the book which they chose not to use was something like "Good people don't need a lot of governing", which I took to mean that he had pretty much seen people as basically good by nature. His father (all of McCarthy's stories are ultimately about fathers and sons, to the point of being didactic) and other lawmen he had known or been related to had known better, as his uncle very clearly spells out for him. He, quite literally, had "seen no evil" his entire life and career --- and when he finally does see it he retires (and dreams of his father carrying "the fire" ahead of him to build a fire (world) in which he can be safe and warm although surrounded by darkness and cold.

Steve A| 2.3.11 @ 11:55AM

I have nothing to back it up, but here is my take.

In this world, very often, darkness is stronger than light. It can not be reasoned with, compromised or bargained with. It can be completely random, like the flip of a coin, with no real meaning lurking behind. It is true unto itself & will roll on like the tide of the ocean until the end of this world. All despite the best efforts of good men & prayers of the just.

Brian Mc| 2.3.11 @ 6:47PM

And why we must continually turn towards the light and focus on it as with every ounce of energy given to us by the grace of God.

Charley| 2.3.11 @ 9:47AM

Pertinent and percptive observations, as always, Mr. Bowman. (You must, however, have made a trip to the concession stand or the bathroom at one point, for Rooster's account of his robbery in New Mexico is in the new version, albeit underplayed almost to the vanishing point.)
Another mistake I think the Coens make is summarizing in a voice-over the killing of Mattie's father. The original's treatment of this key event serves the narrative better.
May I put in a word in favor of Glen Campbell? No, he is certainly not a gifted actor, but I think his performance in the movie suffers from the fact that LaBoeuf is just not a very likeable character, even though he's one of the good guys. Damon doesn't come off very well either for the same reason, although he gets one poignant scene, his farewell to Mattie shortly before the climax, which Campbell never got.

Roughcoat| 2.3.11 @ 11:43AM

Both movies are great, in part for different reasons, in part for the same reasons. Bowman's comments on the two are insightful and thought-provoking. But as Charley pointed out, Bowman seems to have missed the scene in the new version in which Rooster talks about the bank robbery in New Mexico.

Dan Hirsch| 2.3.11 @ 11:45AM

The Coen brothers have been lionized for their wonderful creativity. Are they such weak salesmen that they just can't find funding for a new story?

I haven't seen the new movie, but I truly doubt that the new 'Grit' will replace the old 'Grit'. Surely our world offers enough material for a new story that could easily become a classic on its own that would stand next to, rather than on top of the earlier Grit.

I'm just saying...the Coens would have more 'sand' if they told us new stories...

J Harris| 2.4.11 @ 1:13PM

Dan, You really need to see it. It's not a remake of the 69 movie - it's as if the Wayne movie didn't exist. They went to the source novel and made a wonderful film. Rooster's ride through the night to save Mattie is among the more beautiful and moving scenes I've ever seen.

Brian B| 2.3.11 @ 11:50AM

Glad Mr. Bowman mentions Night of the Hunter.
If you haven't seen it have a look.
Bob Mitchum's creepiest role and Laughton somehow makes a poem out of a psychopathic killer's pursuit of two innocents.
The overt Christian themes would of course not pass the current Hollywood Hays code.

bookworm| 2.4.11 @ 12:57AM

And don't forget the wonderful Lillian Gish -- she is CRUCIAL to that haunting, unforgettable film.

John Gardner| 2.3.11 @ 12:18PM

"One scene from the 1969 version of True Grit, directed by the journeyman Henry Hathaway, that doesn't appear in the new remake by the Brothers Coen ..."

Sorry, but the dialogue in fact DOES appear in the new version of the film in the scene where Rooster and Mattie are waiting to ambush Ned Pepper and his gang at the cabin ...

John Gardner| 2.3.11 @ 12:52PM

"If you doubt this, just look at the fact that their use of the hymn tune, "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" as a musical leitmotif does not immediately strike one as being ironic."

I, too, started out seeing this as ironic. Upon further reflection, however, I see the strength and protection Mattie derives from the "everlasting arms" is moral as much as if not more than physical --- and it is that moral strength (and perhaps the lack of an arm) that leads her to forego the married life to take care of her mother (as she says in the monologue in the closing scene). It is that certainty in her mind about the laws of God vs. the laws of men which, I think, are why Rooster "follows" (in a manner of speaking) her and acts heroically to save her.

Red Bubba| 2.4.11 @ 2:46PM

I agree that the source of Mattie's strength came through better in the new version. On the other hand, leaving out the speach about the rat writ and Lawyer Dagget's appearance omitted the law/violence juxtaposition captured in the first one. Neither one is perfect, but both are good films.

star| 2.3.11 @ 12:59PM

Your take matches mine exactly! I found the earlier film to be more "satisfying" as a sort of "romance" about the west, but the new one more realistic AND uplifting.

free download

Seek| 2.3.11 @ 1:26PM

The Coens' version is so superior to the original as to leave it in the dust. The acting, the editing, Roger Deakins' remarkable (as always) cinematography. There was nothing "amoral" about this film any more than "A Serious Man," "No Country for Old Men, "Fargo" and other Coen delights.

bookworm| 2.4.11 @ 1:01AM

"Leave it in the dust"? You are, I strongly suspect, suffering from what C.S. Lewis would call "chronological snobbery."

InLineFour| 2.3.11 @ 1:56PM

Am I the only one a bit stunned that Mr. Bowman liked this film? I have enjoyed his reviews, if sometimes just for his prose, since Rush introduced me to TAS back in the pre-internet days of '92. Nearly two decades of those reviews have conditioned me to think Mr. Bowman likes only foriegn films. Happy to know that he and I can occasionally like the same films.

Stuart Koehl| 2.3.11 @ 4:52PM

"Nearly two decades of those reviews have conditioned me to think Mr. Bowman likes only foriegn films. "

And only the pretentious ones, at that!

Tex Expatriate| 2.3.11 @ 4:38PM

I wouldn't waste my time on the remake. The first film was a classic, the second only a knock-off. I was born in 1937 and saw my first sunrise in Oklahoma and many sunrises afterward in Texas. As a boy I knew many men with hard fists who carried pistols in their pockets and took care of things when the law didn't do it for them, which was more often than not. I've observed over all this time that genuine Americans and real men are sadly outnumbered in the United States, especially in the northeast, northwest, and California.

bookworm| 2.4.11 @ 1:04AM

You've noticed that too, eh?

egscmt| 6.16.11 @ 12:54AM

I did not like the remake. Why remake something that is already perfect? The remake was too dark for one thing. It was dark indoors! the same lines were spoken but you could barely understand them. The acting was terrible, they had the lines memorized, but they were not believeable. Hubby bought me the DVD for $11 and I am SOOO glad I didn't waste the money seeing it at the theater. To each his own in this. It was also jumped around from scene to scene and since it was dark, you couldn't see for sure what was happening. It was dreadful. I won't watch any more movies by those two brothers again, remake or otherwise.

Willy| 2.3.11 @ 4:46PM

I liked both movies. Politically, they are like comparing Reagan with LBJ.

Stuart Koehl| 2.3.11 @ 4:49PM

"Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course! But by bringing in the grown-up Mattie as old maid (Elizabeth Marvel) at the movie's end, the Coens restore Mr. Portis's framing device, whose omission from the John Wayne version was part of what made that movie at once simpler, sunnier, and more satisfying than the remake."

Who would have thought Mr. Bowman subscribed to the principles of Socialist Realism. He wants a Swan Lake in which the Swan does not die--it's so much simpler, sunnier and more satisfying than the downer Tchaikovskiy wrote--or so Stalin believed.

Ken Roberts | 2.3.11 @ 6:56PM

I watched the movie with no regard to the original it was a well done movie about life as it must of been at that time period. what we have is written words to tell us about those times and this I think pretty much sums up justice along with hardships to a tee, at that time. It is different as we have no such thing as political correctness to deal with then and it was many times upon the law officer no matter how wrong they might be or how right they were, they represented the law at that time. I think they did a great job of bringing that out with the trial of Rooster at the onset of the movie . he did what he had to do to stay alive,even if someone had to die instead of him. By the way I enjoyed the movie very much and would recommend it to any one.

John B.| 2.3.11 @ 7:20PM

Lost in the mystique of the cinematic western, I ride in the saddle with Wayne and Bridges. Grip the reins and spur the flanks beneath the saddle. Kill the bad guys and sip the whiskey. Life is good for those who will live it!

size38pants| 2.3.11 @ 9:02PM

Both are fine movies that need not be compared to one another because though from the same book were filtered through two completely different times, politics, film making styles, and techniques.

Negro X| 2.3.11 @ 9:18PM

The remake is garbage.

ME tea| 2.3.11 @ 10:00PM

-----Jolie doing a 'Cleopatra' retread.

----Beyonce doing a 'Star Is Born' retread.

----Talented Bridges doing a 'True Grtit' retread.

--------------Guess decades of RED China
franchise slum enabling and genocide
denial REALLY DO take a creative toll...

Kim Overall| 2.4.11 @ 12:14AM

We just saw the movie today and loved it. Tonight I was thinking that Mattie was bitten on the right hand by a snake but her left arm was amputated when it flashed forward 25 years.

Red Bubba| 2.4.11 @ 2:55PM

Didn't notice that. I did notice though, that when Rooster started his ride to save Mattie, he went right past Ned's horse standing in the field. A real cowboy would have brought the spare horse along. Carrying no load, he would have had some miles left in him when little Blackie collapsed.

Benchwarmer| 2.7.11 @ 12:56AM

"A real cowboy would have brought the spare horse along. Carrying no load, he would have had some miles left in him when little Blackie collapsed."

I actually thought that the horse could be used by LaBoeuf to get back home? That was my impression on my second viewing.

I thought this was a wonderful film, superior to the original. Charles Portis would have been just as happy with the Coen adaptation IMHO.

D. Duncan| 2.14.11 @ 2:00AM

I just watched the original. I never liked John Wayne that much but I thought he did a good job with Rooster. Jeff Bridges is good too. Both Matties were excellent. Both La Boeuf's were miscast. Robert Duvall would have done a better job. The original had a better story; the final scene at the graveyard is a better summation of the story's themes, dogged faith and reconciliation with death, than the remake's circus-like, cynical surrender to the meaninglessness of life at the end. A Coen Bros. film MUST BE dark, random and irredeemable, so their Mattie is finally a defective, hard unreconciled woman, while her younger self was just an unstoppable moral force. The original Mattie showed tenderness, pain, empathy, and she was strong enough to smile innocently (like a 14 year old) without compromising her dogged nature. The Coen Mattie surrendered to nothing; you could not imagine her ever falling in love ever, even later in life. The cinematography of the original was sentimental, almost boring to post-modern taste, while the Coen presentation was stunning and moving in almost every frame. If I had to pick a better version, I would choose the original because it is more honest, while the Coen Bros. version is more artistic. So which is more important, truth or beauty? No, they are not the same thing. Well, maybe in the best movies they are.

FX Dillon| 2.17.11 @ 9:35AM

This new film is a masterpiece, the older one good but not stunning.

A few points not made above: The film is squeaky clean and completely rejuvenates the two neglected genres of Western and non-Risque movie. I can take my 84 year old mother to it without cringing or having to explain to her sordid double-entendres.

The film is woven with lots of rich humor of the Coen type, a dimension which the older film completely lacked.

The films were opposite in orientation regarding the past. The older one was made at a time when most Westerns were made with a modern spin to them: Glen Campbell had his skin-tight double-knit synthetic drawers and Beatle mop coiffure, and the last scene in the old movie was a freeze-smear 70s device of John Wayne jumping a fence. Other such scenes and modern accessories were found in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and other period movies of that era. The attempt was, I suppose, to hybridize the hip and mod with the olden times to prompt some kind of weird identification for modern audiences.

On the other hand, the new movie turned its back to the present. It tried to represent the past realistically and unvarnished. PC was absent in the new film as it was anathema to the people then.

True to the reality then, young persons (Mattie) in the 8th grade (their terminal educational level at the time) were far more highly educated and more capable of reason and original thought compared with today's lazy and ignorant 'Tweetheads' with PhDs.

Citizens of that era corrected misbehavior and nonsensical speech on the spot, and vigorously, when they encountered it. People were very brave and considered bravery a virtue, not a psychopathology. Persons were unmedicated with serotonin-reuptake inhibitors or soy-derived estrogenic trace pollutants or cattle hormones. Death and suffering were everywhere. Neither were glossed over, concealed, denied. They were the boundaries and the teachers of the living.

This film portrays the ambiguity of heroes, to be sure. But the emphasis in this new movie was the tremendous strength of persons in that era compared with us. The contrast is strong enough to make the West seem like another world. I believe the title of the book and movies makes this obvious.