|
|
Post by wmcclain on Mar 24, 2021 11:34:10 GMT
True Grit (1969), directed by Henry Hathaway. When her father is murdered by a ranch hand, his 14-year old daughter hires the toughest marshal she can find to hunt down the killer. Further: she's going with him into the Indian Territory to bring the man back so he can be properly hung. "Grit" is supposed to apply to the marshal, but it suits them both. Fascinating, funny dialogue throughout. This made a big splash and earned John Wayne his only Oscar. In some ways he is playing off himself but never so much as to make the drunken and none-too-scrupulous lawman ridiculous or unbelievable. He returns in Rooster Cogburn (1975). Kim Darby lights up the screen as the determined Mattie Ross, simultaneously innocent and ruthless. Mia Farrow was intended for the role but backed out. Wayne wanted Karen Carpenter, which I would have liked to have seen. She had no acting experience but could have sung the theme song instead of Glen Campbell. Campbell is an unfortunate bit of stunt casting. He has only a couple of expressions, both sneering. Robert Duvall is excellent as the outlaw leader. Called "Lucky Ned Pepper" is more than lucky: he's smart. He and Rooster Cogburn seem to know each other well. In fact, everyone knows everyone: the community of lawmen and criminals and the gray area between. He has only one scene but I want to make special mention of Dennis Hopper as poor "Moon", wounded by Cogburn, confused by Mattie, then killed by his own partner. A selection of other familiar faces: - Jeff Corey: cowardly murderer Tom Chaney.
- Strother Martin: flustered and much put-upon auctioneer Stonehill.
- John Doucette: sheriff.
- Hank Worden: undertaker.
- James McEachin: courtroom bailiff.
- Myron Healey: deputy.
- Alfred Ryder: defense attorney.
- John Fiedler: Lawyer J Noble Daggett.
Was giving a young woman such an active part considered a new type of realism at the time? The Wild Bunch (1969) came out the same year; was that more "realistic"? Movies are all fantasies. "Realism" is a game played with the audience: give them something new, suppress the old. For a while, but everything old is new again. Decades later, each attempt seems "dated" in its own way. In this case the perfectly clean, expertly coiffed hair care just kills me. The clothes are all pretty neat too. The film was for a time when audiences wanted it that way. It is instructive to compare this film with the fine Cohen Bros remake True Grit (2010): - Hailee Steinfeld was 14, the same age as Mattie Ross in the book. Kim Darby was 22, looking a little younger. Steinfeld's speech is more rapid fire and blistering than Darby's.
- Mattie is a girl performing the duties of an adult without any sexual dimension, although the Texas Ranger does think about stealing a kiss. When he spanks her Cogburn pulls a gun and makes him stop: "You're enjoying it too much".
- Both films follow the book more or less closely, although both are filmed farther west in more scenic territory than the Arkansas and Oklahoma of the text.
- Who would have thought Jeff Bridges would be the John Wayne of his generation?
- Like the gamblers in Guys and Dolls (1955), many of the characters strive to speak correct if stilted English.
- Much of the earlier film is in daylight and summer. The remake has many scenes at night in winter, giving it a different tone.
Score by the great Elmer Bernstein, photographed by the great Lucien Ballard. Available on Blu-ray. In a commentary track three western scholars tend to overwork the revolutionary development of giving a young woman such a good role. 
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 24, 2021 14:02:42 GMT
I remember being disappointed in it when I first saw it. And my thoughts really haven't changed much. I liked the Coen Brothers' remake much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2021 15:23:17 GMT
"His only" Oscar? Like you'd expect he'd have had more?
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Mar 24, 2021 15:33:56 GMT
" His only" Oscar? Like you'd expect he'd have had more? It is hard to evaluate an icon, but several of his roles for John Ford and Howard Hawks seem at least nomination-worthy to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 24, 2021 15:45:28 GMT
The original True Grit depicts a young girl going through an ordeal that involves several hangings and killings, then emerging unaffected. The Coen Brothers' version says that's ridiculous. It shows Mattie physically and psychologically maimed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Mar 24, 2021 16:18:04 GMT
I saw TRUE GRIT at the Drive-In when it premiered. I loved it. (Except for the snakes.) But I was a much younger person then. I saw it again a couple of years ago. Some parts seemed goofier than I remembered but I still think it’s a good film. However, the Coen Brothers’ film is clearly superior. I always thought it was interesting that two very different cowboys were up for the Best Actor Oscar that year. I don’t think the older members of the voting Academy were ready yet for Joe Buck. Oh, and no mention of General Sterling Price? He stole every scene he was in.  |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Mar 24, 2021 16:51:53 GMT
Matt Damon had it all over Glenn Campbell in the acting department -- but Glenn handled the singing better than Matt could have.
I liked tiny John Fiedler as 'Lawyer Daggett' standing up to the Duke (he was the meek but courageous Juror #2 in 12 ANGRY MEN).
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 24, 2021 17:03:31 GMT
Matt Damon had it all over Glenn Campbell in the acting department -- but Glenn handled the singing better than Matt could have. I liked tiny John Fiedler as 'Lawyer Daggett' standing up to the Duke (he was the meek but courageous Juror #2 in 12 ANGRY MEN). A favorite opening theme:
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 24, 2021 18:22:19 GMT
Glen Campbell and Kim Darby were in a second film based on another Charles Portis novel - Norwood. Saw some of it once.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Mar 24, 2021 20:34:59 GMT
" His only" Oscar? Like you'd expect he'd have had more? It is hard to evaluate an icon, but several of his roles for John Ford and Howard Hawks seem at least nomination-worthy to me. The Duke was nominated for Best Actor once before for "The Sands Of Iwo Jima" (1949). Sometime in the early 1960s, about the time of "The Alamo" (1960), "Hatari!" (1962). and "McLintock!" (the last two titles ending in exclamation points) was when he became JOHN WAYNE - the icon. It was starting about there to the end of his life that people refer to when they claim that he "just played himself." And, yes, he did take a lot of roles that played to that "icon" status. But his earlier films (from about 1939 on) show him to be a pretty fair actor. He would never have played Hamlet, but he did essay some varied and interesting characters through the years in films like: Stagecoach / John Ford Dark Command / Raoul Walsh The Long Voyage Home / John Ford They Were Expendable / John Ford Red River / Howard Hawkes She Wore A Yellow Ribbon / John Ford The Sands Of Iwo Jima / Alan Dwan The Quiet Man / John Ford Island In The Sky / William Wellman The High And The Mighty / William A. Wellman and others I could name.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Mar 24, 2021 20:47:19 GMT
Frankly, I never saw much difference between the Hathaway and the Coen. Clearly, the new could not have existed without the older. The Coens follow the 1969 scene by scene. Many scenes, viz., the father’s death, Mattie trading with Stonehill, crossing the river on Little Blackie, Rooster’s story about his marriage and son, taking the two outlaws at the cabin, Mattie meeting Chaney at the river, the shootout with Lucky Ned Pepper and his gang, are virtually shot-for-shot lifted directly from 1969.
I am beginning to suspect a drop in the Coens’ inspiration and creativity, especially since they have embarked on two remakes of superior films (the other being “The Ladykillers”) that, in my estimation, my not-so humble opinion, did not succeed in bringing anything new or enlightening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Mar 24, 2021 21:44:38 GMT
"Was giving a young woman such an active part considered a new type of realism at the time?"
Wayne was shot by a girl in El Dorado.
And that was because of an error he made--he shot her brother by mistake. I suppose that was realism.
My feeling is that the trend is about canceling the "male warrior" mystique--if it was a cycle then we should be getting a return to Errol Flynn adventures before long. I would be surprised if we did--I don't think the Hollywood brass is very keen to promote that kind of image.
The Logan movie depicted a girl as a warrior and the heir apparent to the dying male hero...I detect a pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 24, 2021 23:32:06 GMT
My mother was a die-hard John Wayne fan, so of course we saw it when it was released! I enjoyed it, and still do. Saw the remake - it was so dark in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 24, 2021 23:54:14 GMT
Wayne should have got a nomination for Red River and he damned well should have got one for the Searchers. Like him or not personally, he was incredible as Ethan Edwards.
I'm a Wayne fan. Yeah, he made some God awful films, the Conqueror, Jet Pilot, The Green Berets. But he made good ones too, Ford's Cavalry Trilogy, Sands of Iwo Jima, The Shootist. I'd put True Grit in the middle somewhere. It was part of the "Funny Fat Man" phase of his career, where he made Westerns that had a lot of humor in them. Big Jake, McClintock! etc. Wayne was good in True Grit, but I didn't care too much for Glen Campbell or Kim Darby. I did like the remake better.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Mar 24, 2021 23:56:25 GMT
Wayne should have been nominated for Red River and
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon.
And he should have won for The Searchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 25, 2021 0:40:44 GMT
One of his best performances was in The Cowboys (1972). Had he not won for True Grit a few years earlier, he might well have won for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 25, 2021 3:21:14 GMT
One of his best performances was in The Cowboys (1972). Had he not won for True Grit a few years earlier, he might well have won for this. Spoiler
The only John Wayne film where a "name" actor kills him, Bruce Dern. The Duke usually got taken out by some unknown, random bullet in Sands of Iwo Jima or the Fighting Seebees, nameless Mexican extra in the Alamo, uncredited bartender in The Shootist, an octopus in Reap the Wild Wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 25, 2021 9:48:39 GMT
" His only" Oscar? Like you'd expect he'd have had more? It is hard to evaluate an icon, but several of his roles for John Ford and Howard Hawks seem at least nomination-worthy to me. ... definitely. Wayne's performance in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (Ford, 1962) combines strength with subtlety and proves quite intricate, with the Duke achieving genuine pathos. And in The Searchers (Ford, 1956) and Red River (Hawks, 1948), he tests the limits and nature of heroism in ways that are quite daring. But Westerns historically received scarcely little Oscar attention, and Wayne was younger then. By 1969, he was aging, and his role in True Grit proved broadly comedic and thus lovably nonthreatening. One might argue, though, that Wayne was at least as deserving of Academy attention for his performance in The Cowboys (Mark Rydell, 1972) a few years later. In one of the seventies' most memorable Westerns, he blends a more naturalistic form of "grit" with unsentimental vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 25, 2021 10:21:57 GMT
True Grit (1969), directed by Henry Hathaway. Was giving a young woman such an active part considered a new type of realism at the time? The Wild Bunch (1969) came out the same year; was that more "realistic"? Movies are all fantasies. "Realism" is a game played with the audience: give them something new, suppress the old. For a while, but everything old is new again. Decades later, each attempt seems "dated" in its own way. In this case the perfectly clean, expertly coiffed hair care just kills me. The clothes are all pretty neat too. The film was for a time when audiences wanted it that way.
The Wild Bunch may or may not have been more realistic, but its "sensibility" was much more realistic, which I sense is the point that you are making. As you indicate, realism in film is ultimately a sensibility, especially for its moment. The fact that True Grit came out during the same year as The Wild Bunch, though, highlights how Western movies internationally and Hollywood movies in general almost operated in two distinct, parallel universes in the mid-to-late 1960s. The Wild Bunch represented newfangled mores and manners and the violent turbulence of the times. True Grit, meanwhile, reflected a traditional sensibility and market that still proved hugely profitable yet almost existed out of time. Aside from Wayne's age and increased girth, there is little reason why the same movie could not have come out in 1959, something that certainly could not have been said about The Wild Bunch. And in that sense, the disparate nature of these two Westerns reflected the alien splits in the genre and the American film industry generally during that mid-to-late sixties period. When a movie tried to blend the two sensibilities in an effort to tap both audiences (the more modernistic and the more traditional), the results proved awkward, as in another Western (of sorts) from 1969, the polygamous musical Paint Your Wagon, costarring Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, and Jean Seberg. The assertiveness, feistiness, and indignant nature of the Darby character in True Grit may seem like an ode toward the burgeoning feminist revival of the time, but I feel that it actually represents retro-girlish spunk, the kind of prairie spirit that could be found in an earlier generation of films and that would prove palatable to 1969's more traditional audiences. Either way, you raise some compelling, thoughtful concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 25, 2021 11:06:02 GMT
I first saw True Grit fifteen years ago, in March 2006 on AMC (which, granted, meant that commercials interrupted it every so often and the original aspect ratio, while not widescreen, proved a bit compromised). It seemed ... okay, in an unsubtle way.
I next viewed True Grit twice in the theater in February 2018 and enjoyed it much more—"pretty good/good" (both times), meaning slightly less than a full-fledged "good" film, but close. My appreciation increased.
I last experienced True Grit in May 2019 in the theater and enjoyed it further still—"good/very good." The film has grown on me, and it now strikes me as one of Wayne's best late Westerns—not as sharp and potent as The Cowboys (Mark Rydell, 1972) or as elegiac and graceful as The Shootist (Don Siegel, 1976), but surprisingly savvy. The range of actors and their performances create texture, flavor, humor, and drama, the dialogue is quaintly lyrical, Elmer Bernstein's music is both endearing and rousing, the direction by Henry Hathaway is consistent, and most impressive is the Western cinematography by Lucien Ballard. Various shots and landscapes are simply classic and awe-inspiring, and the high-country gunfight in which Rooster Cogburn takes on the villains single-handedly proves iconic. Monumental low-angle shots of riders on horseback, the occasional point-of-view shot from high-speed horseback, still frames, stillness within the frame, concisely dynamic movement within the frame, and rustic, autumnal colors contrasting with darkly foreboding figures—all tied together by Warren Low's crisp editing—combine for what we might now term a "masterclass" in how to stage a gunfight from horseback.
If you eventually enjoy a chance to see True Grit in the theater, take it—the compositions, natural lighting, and editing pay off, creating a truly iconographic Western.
|
|
