It followed the book often very exactly in story and dialogues.
What was different with the setting and the Jones character?[/quote]
Tommy Lee is a good actor, but I was asking myself rather soon what he was doing in the movie, all the time mumbling in himself and to others. The book is far more introspective and the similarities between the Tommy Lee and the Josh Brolin character are emphasized more: the one a WWII veteran, the other a Vietnam veteran, the first experiences feelings of solidarity and sees his own fate reflected in that of the other one. By parallelling the two wars - one a so-called ‘good’ war, the other a so-called ‘bad’ war - the story also becomes an analysis of a society in disarray. In the book the Bardem character is more spectral than human, his empty eyes symbolize an Old Testament atmosphere of a ruthless God, always watching, always there on the background, always threatening to interfere. These things are all absent or only vaguely glanced at in the movie.
I saw the film first and read the book afterwards, mainly because I had the idea the movie was only a reflection of a far better, more meaningful story. I have a difficult relatioship with the Coen brothers, some of their movies leave me cold, others I love. No Country falls in the first category.
I just read the chapter on True Grit in Gary Willis’ excellent study John Wayne’s America
The novel is apparently a first person narrative, told by a middle-aged Matty looking back on what happened when she was a young, blosomming girl, who hired a ruthless sheriff, Rueben Cogburn, to execute a bloody revenge. Her (and Cogburn’s) not always fair behaviour (he shoots people in the back, she hires a man who shoots people in the back) foreshadows her suppor for a rather ruthless politician in later life, against politicians who are even worse. Willis says Cogbun is 51 in the novel, and that there is a lot of suppressed sexual tension between Matty and him. The political and sexual elements are absent in the movie, if only because of Duke’s age. Matty is a blossoming girl, and it’s perfectly credible that she is attracted to a middle aged man. Girls who discover their sexuality often are attracted to such men; They feel a sudden, strong sexual desire and project this on a man who reminds them of their first great love in life, their father. It’s just a phase, but, as said, it’s perfectly credible. As Stanton has mentioned, Bridges looks as old - or even older - as John Wayne, so I guess this aspect of the narrative will be absent again.
here’s what the coen’s have to say about difference
It’s partly a question of point-of-view. The book is entirely in the voice of the 14-year-old girl. That sort of tips the feeling of it over a certain way. I think [the book is] much funnier than the movie was so I think, unfortunately, they lost a lot of humour in both the situations and in her voice. It also ends differently than the movie did. You see the main character — the little girl — 25 years later when she’s an adult. Another way in which it’s a little bit different from the movie — and maybe this is just because of the time the movie was made — is that it’s a lot tougher and more violent than the movie reflects. Which is part of what’s interesting about it
I’ve been watching the film’s two trailers a lot these days, I’m really looking forward to it. Though I’ve gotta say that both trailers are not very good, but the movie looks fantastic even so!
It followed the book often very exactly in story and dialogues.[/quote]
Exactly. I found it to be quite an uncompromising and intelligent adaptation.
I was sceptical about the Coens doing another remake, especially after The Ladykillers. However, I think it makes a difference that the original True Grit may have been a good film, but it wasn’t a flawless adaptation; that gives the Coens scope to do their own thing.
I am seriously looking forward to this film and I’m surprised it hasn’t generated a bit more excitement.
I’m looking forward to it too, but I’m a bit worried about what to expect.
I always liked True Grit and therefore the film is a strong memory (it is to most people I suppose, it was, after all, the film who brought John Wayne his Oscar)); this will inevitably lead to comparisons. I pity Bridges a little in this aspect. If you like John Wayne or not (I do), he’s a legend, and it’s not easy to step in the boots of a legend. Just imagine someone remaking For a Few Dollars More. Who would you cast as Manco and Mortimer? Names like Eastwood and Van Cleef cast such a giant shadow, that every actor pales in comparison, even if he turns in a good performance.
I won’t be surprise with that with the success of True Grit’s remake, some other famous western will be given the remake treatment, who knows maybe a Leone one.
Believe it or not, my favourite for a remake (a good one) would be Django.
Yes! I mentioned this on the “last movie you saw in the cinema” thread.
I have seen TRUE GRIT twice. It is really a good film!
Much more like the book than the previous version. Yet, at the same time, there are quite a few pretty good “new bits” that aren’t from either the book or the John Wayne film. I’ll be buying this one when it becomes available!
[quote=“El Topo, post:37, topic:1669”]I won’t be surprise with that with the success of True Grit’s remake, some other famous western will be given the remake treatment, who knows maybe a Leone one.
Believe it or not, my favourite for a remake (a good one) would be Django.[/quote]
Well I’m hoping, after the flop that was Jonah Hex, that it might help bring the Western genre back from the (semi-) dead.