True Grit

True Grit OO 1/2
PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images [See Full Rating]   

Back when I saw "The Social Network" I was surprised to see a trailer for an updating of the 1969 John Wayne western "True Grit."  The question that came to my mind immediately was, why?  Is Hollywood really so bereft of new ideas that it has to go back to retread a movie that was a bit behind the times even when it came out (remember that 1969 was the year "The Wild Bunch" was released)?  I have to be fair, and state upfront that I've never been a big fan of westerns.  I like John Wayne, but was more familiar with him in movies like "The Quiet Man" and "Flying Tigers."  It always struck me that the original "True Grit" was a bit overrated, as was the Duke's performance (if he was going to get an Oscar it should have been for "The Shootist," or maybe "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance").  I know a number of Duke fans that are probably pretty sore at me right now, but that's the way it goes, Pilgrim.

My greatest fear when I saw that trailer was that this was going to be some postmodern, Sam Peckinpah meets Quentin Tarantino, bloodfest.  I was determined not to see it, but succumbed  to the temptation, mainly because it was made by the Coen Brothers.  The 2010 "True Grit," based, as was the original, on the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, is darker than the 1969 vintage.  This is to be expected considering the team tackling the project, but its no "re-imagining."  In fact I was surprised how much of the original dialogue was left in tact (I cheated and saw the John Wayne version again to prepare myself).  The violence here is more graphic, as you might imagine, but not over the top.

The Coen Brothers' goal was to be more faithful to the book, and from what I gather that is where the main differences between the two versions can be found (not having read the novel, I have to take their word for it).  So, It's the same story as the older movie.  14 year old Mattie Ross hires U.S. Marshall Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn to chase after her father's killer, Tom Chaney, who has escaped into Indian territory, and is thus out of reach of the local authorities.  They're joined along the way by Texas Ranger La Boeuf (pronounced La Beef) who wants to bring Chaney, who goes by several aliases,  back to Texas on a separate murder charge.

Jeff Bridges has the unenviable task of following the Duke into Rooster Cogburn's eye patch, and takes the sure road by moving the character in another direction.  Rooster is still a surly drunk, but he allows his face and eyes (I mean eye) to do more of the talking.  Any one is an improvement over Glen Campbell, who was shockingly awful as the La Boeuf  the first time around. In his place Matt Damon brings humor and, at times, his best Matthew McConaughey impersonation to the show.  The real revelation is young Hailee Steinfeld in the role of Mattie Ross, the 14 year old girl seeking to avenge her father's murder.  She has good presence on the screen, and comes off as smart, naive, tough and innocent all at the same time.  Not an easy task for an experienced adult actor to pull off, let alone an adolescent of any kind.  Josh Brolin, who plays Chaney, has very little screen time for someone who got his name listed above the title.  While he does what he can with the little screen time he has, he's not even the most interesting villain in the movie.  That distinction has to go to Barry Pepper who plays the leader of a gang Chaney has joined up with.

The Coen Brothers are talented film makers, and "True Grit" is very well made.  While the film displays their trademark use of light and dark, comic and action timing and a generally engaging visual style, I found this a very straight forward movie, which is a change for them.  This is possibly because they weren't looking to reinvent the wheel this time out, as much as grease it up a bit. 

For all my reservations walking in, this ended up being a movie I wanted to like and recommend.  It was slow in parts, but the Coens always seem to bring you back to something interesting eventually.  Through it all the question that came back to me was why was this movie made to begin with?  I won't spoil the end, which differs in some specifics from the original, but to say we get to see Mattie as an adult.  We see the consequences of her journey, and I could only wonder if it was worth it.  Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel use to always criticize films that used children in danger as a plot point.  They felt it was cheep and exploitative.  This doesn't exactly fall into that category, but Mattie sees and does things that no 14 year old should have to.  In a sense we see her innocents taken from her before our eyes.  There is no way that the physical and emotional scars she experienced didn't change her, and not for the better. The ending doesn't take that into account, one way or the other.  The film makers never ask the deeper questions, which is a missed opportunity, really.  Unlike most Coen Brothers movies I can think of we have the style, but it's not serving any real purpose.

I've started giving these "hallow" ratings, which is all a bit of a lark, to tell the truth.  But I actually had trouble deciding on a number rating for "True Grit."  The production values, the acting, the cinematography, the writing are all of the highest caliber.  But the lessons are murky, if at all, and that's a shame.  In a world ruled by violence and the will to power, "True Grit" seems to be saying that revenge is its own reward, no matter the cost.  In my book no amount of movie magic can make that right.  While I'll be rooting for Ms Steinfeld to get a nomination for best supporting actress (you could even argue best actress since the story is told from her perspective), I'll be hoping the Coen Brothers return to deeper waters the next time out.