Wonderful Westerns: ‘True Grit’ (1969 vs. 2010)
When I was in my late teens, I was one of those film-goers who was really picky and snobbish. I would nitpick any trailer I saw and would discredit it immediately without even giving the film a shot. It was bad, but that all changed when I saw the Coen Brothers’ adaptation of Charles Portis’s 1968 novel True Grit. Before that, I was discrediting it because it was technically a remake, and I was a John Wayne fan. But once I saw that the Coens were attached to it, and Jeff Bridges was cast as the male lead, I got more optimistic. Then I read the original novel, and I recall saying to myself, “This is a Coen Brothers movie!” It has a lot of the dry humor, the unique characters, and so forth. When I finally saw the film, I positively adored it! It also completely changed my outlook on film potential, but it also taught me to not be a snob and wait for the film to come out before I judge it.
But of course, many fans of the Western genre still express disdain towards the 2010 film because of their love of the 1969 Henry Hathaway-directed film starring John Wayne. As for me, while I do still enjoy the film, I can’t deny the fact that the film is very much just a traditional Western; nothing that grand that makes it stand out. It does stick close to the book in many regards, but it lightens the tone and makes it a bit too, well, typical. This doesn’t make the film bad by any means, and I would still watch it over a ton of other films, but it loses a lot of what made the story unique.
But let’s take an actual look at these two films and see why each one is good in their own way. Yes, I am aware that the Nostalgia Critic (Doug Walker) did a very similar post for his website, Channelawesome.com, and I do agree with him on a lot of points, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make a similar post. I do recommend checking out Walker’s video.
Let’s start off similar to Walker’s video by talking about the lead first — Mattie Ross. To quote Walker, “She’s the main character and we all know it.” Brace yourselves, because this is going to be a bit lengthier than the other parts.
Mattie Ross is a young lady who’s out to avenge her father, who died at the hands of a pathetic drunk named Tom Chaney who worked for the family. In the Hathaway film, she’s played by Kim Darby and in the Coen Brothers film she’s played by Hailee Steinfeld in her breakout role.
I’ll just come out and say it: I don’t think Darby is that great. She’s too peppy and almost Mouseketeer-like in her performance. She’s not bad, but it just doesn’t work for the character to me. Steinfeld is just amazing, and I totally buy her as the almost stone-cold, years-ahead-of-herself girl. Many people found her too cold and emotionless in the film; first, you can’t tell she wasn’t upset when her horse, Little Blackie died. Keep in mind, she grew up on a farm, a farm on which she is the eldest child which means she probably had to take up massive responsibilities at a young age. No, obviously not every child who grew up on a farm is going to be like that, but this was during the late 19th century in the Oklahoma territories — it’s going to be a bit rougher. But it’s her determination and her almost psychotic dedication that makes her interesting and compelling. It makes you ask questions and form discussions about this bizarre little lady, and that for me is a good thing. With Darby, it was just, “Well, gosh-golly-gee! I’m going to get that bad man!” So I’m going to have to go with Steinfeld’s performance.
Now we move on to the most famous character of the story — Deputy US Marshal Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn. The fat, drunken, one-eyed lawman who is hired by Mattie — who he calls “Baby Sister” — to track Chaney down as he has been referred to as one of the best lawmen in the territory, despite his appearance and character. In the ’69 film, he’s portrayed by John Wayne, who won Best Actor at the Oscars for his performance. In the 2010 version, he’s played the Dude, his Dudeness, Duder, El Duderino himself, Jeff Bridges.
Now, John Wayne’s version is very legendary and stands out as one of his best, right up there with his performance in The Searchers (1956). My theory with the Oscars is that a lot of times they pick an actor who does a performance that’s different from usual screen persona. For John Wayne, his characters are usually were clean shaven, 10-gallon-hat-wearing cowboys who rode tall in the saddle, in this case he’s a fat, bumbling drunk.
But that being said, I do feel that Jeff Bridges’s performance beats him out because he seemed more like what was intended. Wayne’s is still iconic, but it has hints of being a typical John-Wayne hero. Bridges’ is unpredictable and seems more pathetic in a lot of ways, which makes his heroic antics even greater. Duke, I still love you, but I gotta give it to the Dude.
As for supporting characters, both are filled with top-notch characters actors of the time. In the ’69 version, you’ve got greats like Strother Martin as the eccentric Col. Stonehill, Jeff Corey as the villain Tom Chaney, and even Dennis Hopper filling in as a young outlaw Rooster, and company interrogate, named Moon. The real highlight among those is Robert Duvall as “Lucky Ned” Pepper, the leader of a gang that Chaney has taken up with. You just can’t go wrong with Duvall in anything. But I can’t deny myself and say that Glen Campbell as the Texas Ranger LaBeouf is probably the weakest of the bunch. He’s not bad but seems out of placed. According to the movie’s Wikipedia page, “For his part, Henry Hathaway hated the casting and performance of Glen Campbell, whom he felt had been pushed on him by the studio to get a hit with the film’s title song.”
In the 2010 version, you’ve got some greats as well including Matt Damon as LaBeouf, Josh Brolin as Chaney, Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned, Domhnall (son of Brendan) Gleeson as Moon. The Coens also decided to write in a character who wasn’t in the original book named Forrester but is better known as “Bear Man” (Ed Lee Corbin), who is a complete scene-stealer. It’s hard to decide in this regard.
Both films also sport fantastic music score. The 2010 version features compositions from the very underrated Carter Burwell who drew references from several Christian hymns. But for me I still ultimately prefer the 1969 Elmer Bernstein composition. Maybe its because I miss grand, sweeping, epic scores like that but it really does add to the mood and hits the right spot for me.
When it comes to the style of the film, both films have the own unique vision which very much fits for their time period. Hathaway’s version is definitely more upbeat with a more traditional outcome which left it open for Rooster’s further adventures, African Queen style. Where as the 2010 version sticks with the tone and style of the original book. It removes the romanticized elements and offers a commentary on revenge and asks, “Is it worth it?”
Ultimately, the 2010 version remains superior to me, but that doesn’t mean the other is “bad.” By no means is it bad. It’s still worth a watch if for no other reason than to have a conversation and discussion about the two films and see what holds up and what doesn’t.
Also, this can show that just because something is a remake doesn’t automatically mean it’s a lesser film. In the end, while I do prefer the 2010 version I do recommend checking out both. So fill yer hands with both copies and pick which one you prefer.
Which version of True Grit is your favorite? Let us know in the comments!
