Coen Brothers’ Next is True Grit
Source: Variety
March 23, 2009
Joel and Ethan Coen will next put their spin on True Grit, the iconic Western that won John Wayne an Oscar.
The Paramount film will be more faithful to the Charles Portis book than the 1969 pic, also distributed by Paramount.
Portis’ novel is about a 14-year-old girl who, along with an aging U.S. marshal and another lawman, tracks her father’s killer in hostile Indian territory.
But while the original film was a showcase for Wayne, the Coens’ version will tell the tale from the girl’s point of view.
The project reteams the brothers with Scott Rudin, their partner on the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men. The Coens wrote the screenplay.
The original starred Kim Darby as the teen, Wayne and Glen Campbell as the lawmen, Jeff Corey as the killer and featured Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper as fellow outlaws.
The Coens and True Grit following the novel? Strnage combination.
Well, the Wayne/Hathway film followed already the novel and was already told from girl’s point of view. So what’s new?
Whether it’s considered a remake - of a decent, though hardly classic, movie - or a new adaptation of the book, I could get seriously excited at the prospect of a full-on Coen Brothers Western. Especially given the quality of their adaptation of No Country for Old Men.
Jeff Bridges is in the saddle to play Rooster Cogburn, and now two more quality actors have signed up - Matt Damon and Josh Brolin.
[quote=“Col. Douglas Mortimer, post:2, topic:1669”]Oh crap…You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Just what the world needs. Another remake.
::Pukes::[/quote]
You are right, the world doesn’t need another remake, but with the Coens at the helm, it could be interresting (a very good friend of mine said that their “The Ladykillers” was excellent), but wouldn’t it be much better if they made something original?
I like True Grit very much. The first 3 or 4 min are pretty bad and so superfluous that they should be cut out. Apart from that the film is mostly excellently directed by Hathaway.
The world does not need a remake of this, but with the Coens at the helm it could become interesting. And maybe very different to the Wayne film, which would be the only good reason for a remake.
Not viewed the original in years, but do remember it being one of the Wayne westerns I enjoyed more than some of his others. As a kid I used to be fascinated as the years went by on how big Waynes belly became.
So is this a remake or a re-adaptation of the source material? Are they gonna be more faithful to the book? Was No Country for Old Men a faithful adaptation? Either way, I can’t wait to see this in the cinema.
I am a fan of the Big Lebowski but I haven’t seen many other Coen Brothers films. I saw the trailer for this True Grit remake a few days ago and I think it looks cool.
I’m excited!! ;D Love the Coen’s films. No Country For Old Men was one of the best movies to come out in awhile. Big Lebowski is one of my all time favs. Everyone love’s “The Dude”. Even though it’s a remake I love the fact that a new western is coming out. Hopefully it will be huge and this will spark a new interest in the genre.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:10, topic:1669”]Looks good, but I’m still ondering what the Coens have (had) in mind for this remake. In what way will it be different to the John Wayne movie?
Like Stanton I like True Grit, even the first minutes. A very fine movie, with an excellent Duke.[/quote]The Coen’s have said it’s more of a readaptation of the book. Being much closer to the source material than the Duke film.
Haven’t read the book, so can’t say if this pleases me or not
No Country for Old Men certainly wasn’t very faithful to the book (the historic setting and the motivation of the main character - played by Tommy Lee - both were radically different), so maybe it’s Coen’s revenge …
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:17, topic:1669”]Haven’t read the book, so can’t say if this pleases me or not
No Country for Old Men certainly wasn’t very faithful to the book (the historic setting and the motivation of the main character - played by Tommy Lee - both were radically different), so maybe it’s Coen’s revenge …[/quote]
It was not?
It followed the book often very exactly in story and dialogues.
What was different with the setting and the Jones character?
In the book the one eyed Marshall was only 40 years old. But Bridges looks older than necessary, he even looks older than Wayne. So maybe not too close.
I have read the book long ago, and it was fun to read, but still don’t remember much of it. The film owes the book a lot, which means I remember it taking a lot directly from the book, but thought that despite this, the film was the better work (similar to Hombre).
Don’t you think the film would have had a better beginning by starting with Mattie arriving at the railway station of Fort Smith?
We then learn in the next minutes everything we need to know anyway, which makes the first 4 min superfluous. I think these 4 min look also pretty old-fashioned and don’t fit with the rest of the film.