True Grit: Post Release Discussion - Page 5

It's kind of amazing how much my estimation of this film has risen while watching the John Wayne version.

Tzu... Costner is very solid in Open Range.  I thought he did a lot with a little while playing his stoic character.  It's nicely balanced by Duvall's playful performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

Nope, general question, and I was typing it before I saw your post about your daughter! I was actually only considering the appeal among generations of adults, something I don't think has happened with any of the Coens' films before now, not on a widespread basis. I hadn't even considered it might also be the first Coens film to appeal to a younger audience.

I would guess that with the baby boomer generation being the largest, plus their parents sticking around a lot longer, you have a sizable crowd who would take an active interest in this flick for a number of reasons. They've all seen and enjoyed the John Wayne version; Jeff Bridges is their age and a respected actor and, that generation is largely ignored at the box office. Give them something worth seeing and let word of mouth do the marketing for you. Besides, even my Dad - who I saw the movie with - said how much more faithful to the book it was and I haven't seen him read anything in years.

Without wanting to derail (much) 3:10 TO YUMA, IMNSHO, is a much stronger film than APPALOOSA. I also prefer it over OPEN RANGE, but not by much. Both are really excellent films and westerns.

For the last ten tears, I'd order them this way:

1. Assassination of Jesse James

2. True Grit

3. 3:10 to Yuma

4. Open Range

5. Appaloosa

I haven't seen THE PROPOSITION yet.

Also, NPR's doing a story on the film.

 Fucking loved this.  Really challenged Black Swan as my favorite for the year, but didn't quite make it.  Mostly because the relationship between the two seemed just a tad forced and contrived to me.  Nothing too extreme, but I just had a tough time completely buying his absolute affection for the girl.  I would guess that was a problem in the adaptation of the story to the screen.  Maybe the second time will help flesh that out for me.

Assassination of Jesse James is still my favorite western of the past ten years, but fuck if this didn't barrel its way to the number 2 spot.

Finally caught up with this. Thought it was a very good movie, but I'm not quite sure I would call it great. I didn't leave the theater absolutely in love with it as I have with other Coen films. But again, some Co bros flicks grow upon repeat viewings and I could see this being one of those. It was immensely funny and as quotable as Tombstone. Pretty much everything Rooster said was hilarious, though it was a little hard for me to separate him from The Dude. And the rapport between Bridges and Damon was great.

I went in cold so didn't know Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, or Barry Peppers were in it. They all were reall y good.

But the stand out was the girl who played Maddy. Not only will she appeal to a younger generation, but to women who have few strong, female characters to identify with on screen. She was smart and likeable, until the end. The adult Maddy came off a bit bitchy, particularly to the guy who wouldn't stand up for her, and the fact that she was single popped up a big red flag for me (smart women can't be loveable), though I'm sure her disability played a role in her relationship status. Overall though, I have mostly good feelings about her portrayal and I can't wait to see what the actress does next.

And since I'm on a little PC rant, I know they were meant to be funny, but it pained me to see how the Native Americans were treated (both the hanged guy and the kids). Well, I let out a chuckle at the kids. Who doesn't like a little child abuse?

As usual, the film was gorgeous to look at and hear. The CGI snakes and green screen night sky were a little distracting, but nothing that detracted from the film that much. Glad I caught it in the theater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

 

And since I'm on a little PC rant, I know they were meant to be funny, but it pained me to see how the Native Americans were treated (both the hanged guy and the kids). Well, I let out a chuckle at the kids. Who doesn't like a little child abuse?

 

As usual, the film was gorgeous to look at and hear. The CGI snakes and green screen night sky were a little distracting, but nothing that detracted from the film that much. Glad I caught it in the theater.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the kids were poking the horse with a sharp stick. I missed that, but it would explain Cogburn's seemingly inexplicable burst of violence towards them.

As far as the Indian and the hanged man....I just assumed it was a passing comment on 1) what sort of measures Indians were taking to survive because of the incursion of whites and 2) a bit of demythologizing the noble savage trope. Could be really wrong on that, though.

They were poking a donkey, but still. He sets the donkey free, violently pushes them off the porch. Then he does so again on his way out.

I meant the hanging in the beginning. The guy who didn't get a chance to say his last words because he wasn't White. I was okay with the portrayal of the Indians they met in the woods.

I thought the whole point of that was that, duh, the white man is constantly treating the Indians like shit.

Come on, it's not like showing that is some tacit approval of the way things were back then. The humor is in how callous and horrible it is, and how absurd to modern eyes (even with the persisting problem of racism) that it was that socially acceptable. You just have to laugh. That's extremely dark humor, but not problematic on a moral or philosophical level. I guess the laughs do kind of come at the expense of those Native American characters, but the joke is ultimately on the whites.

Yeah, the Indian being hanged in the beginning was one of my favorite gags in the movie. It's kind of difficult to talk about politically correct in the 1890's wild west, hmmm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I thought the whole point of that was that, duh, the white man is constantly treating the Indians like shit.

Yup. It saddened me that the audience thought it was hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

I guess the laughs do kind of come at the expense of those Native American characters, but the joke is ultimately on the whites.

No its not. That type of stuff still happens every day. It's sad that very little has changed.

I'm not denying that it's sad, but sometimes you have to find humor in tragedy. Haven't you heard the expression "laugh to keep from crying?" And when I say the joke is on the whites, I don't mean things have been flipped (although it's ridiculous to say that the hanging scene happens in real life, now, on a daily basis. I agree the world hasn't changed nearly enough, but come on) just that the Coens aren't laughing at the Indian, they're laughing at how awful the whites are for treating him that way. Do you disagree with that, or are you saying it's inappropriate either way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I thought the whole point of that was that, duh, the white man is constantly treating the Indians like shit.

Yup. It saddened me that the audience thought it was hilarious.

 

 

Then the joke is on the audience. There was nervous laughter in my theater when they hung the Indian, but also a lot of "what the fuck." 

Cockburn kicking the crap out of the Indian kids was pretty funny, but they were little shits anyway. I think that one's funnier because it's violence directed at children, as opposed to violence directed at Native-Americans. God bless the Coen Bros. 

First, before this goes on any further, this was a minor thing that popped into my head when watching the movie. It didn't ruin the movie, they weren't inappropriate scenes for the time period, but my gut emotional reaction was sadness, not laughter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

I'm not denying that it's sad, but sometimes you have to find humor in tragedy. Haven't you heard the expression "laugh to keep from crying?" And when I say the joke is on the whites, I don't mean things have been flipped (although it's ridiculous to say that the hanging scene happens in real life, now, on a daily basis. I agree the world hasn't changed nearly enough, but come on) just that the Coens aren't laughing at the Indian, they're laughing at how awful the whites are for treating him that way. Do you disagree with that, or are you saying it's inappropriate either way?

See above. I don't find humor in tragedy (or rather this type of tragedy). Particularly when I see this type of treatment happen every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov 

 

Then the joke is on the audience. There was nervous laughter in my theater when they hung the Indian, but also a lot of "what the fuck." 

 

Cockburn kicking the crap out of the Indian kids was pretty funny, but they were little shits anyway. I think that one's funnier because it's violence directed at children, as opposed to violence directed at Native-Americans. God bless the Coen Bros. 

 

There was no nervous laughter in my audience. It was straight guffaws.

Like I said, I chuckled at the kids stuff. I can abide violence against kids. :p
 

There was some guffawing in my theater too.  I personally did this kinda cringe/laugh thing with the hanging and pretty much guffawed when Rooster kicked the kid off the porch on his way out of the cabin.  What I did find humorous with the Indian about to be hanged was in just the few words he said, he sounded more educated than both white guys.

I'm wanting to see this again, and the reaction to the Indian hanging is as good as any excuse.

Is it possible that the Coens' find it funny, in a "this isn't supposed to be funny" way? Isn't bleak/dark humor firmly in their wheelhouse - laughing at the tragic absurdities and injustices of simply being alive?

The mistreatment of Indians, in reality and in and of itself, is not funny. It's tragic, it's horrid, and amounts to essentially genocide in the name of perceived racial superiority and manifest destinty. But couldn't that same awful offense be turned on its head for dark comedy? Does finding the gallows scene funny mean you're a clueless git?

Dark humor is definitely the Co-bros wheelhouse. I think in this instance, its just a personal bias. I work in social justice so it particularly stung. My goal would be to see a world where people don't just nervously laugh at how fucked up it is, but get angry enough to want to change the system. As a teacher, I've found that institutional racism (and sexism) is particularly hard for students to discuss. Even if they concede that it exists, they feel helpless to do anything about it. Acknowledging it is a good first step, but I also teach things they can do personally to ensure they aren't part of the problem.

I guess I'm ready for change. I recently got into a similar converstaion in the Conan O'Brian thread because I don't find their racial humor funny either. Conan has a Black writer that he's been featuring and they have a bit where he creates commercials geared to attract more Black viewers to Conan's show. The commercials show Black people in an extremely stereotypical light. And while they are likely a commentary on how Conan and his writers think White netwok execs perceive Black viewers and not a joke at the expenseof Black people, I don't find them funny. I think I have the Dave Chappelle disease where I'm realizing that there's a responsibility that comes with showing those kinds of images.

I don't think there should be limitations on comedy, and there's certainly a place for this type of humor. I've personally moved past it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

 

And since I'm on a little PC rant, I know they were meant to be funny, but it pained me to see how the Native Americans were treated (both the hanged guy and the kids). Well, I let out a chuckle at the kids. Who doesn't like a little child abuse?

 

As usual, the film was gorgeous to look at and hear. The CGI snakes and green screen night sky were a little distracting, but nothing that detracted from the film that much. Glad I caught it in the theater.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the kids were poking the horse with a sharp stick. I missed that, but it would explain Cogburn's seemingly inexplicable burst of violence towards them.

 

As far as the Indian and the hanged man....I just assumed it was a passing comment on 1) what sort of measures Indians were taking to survive because of the incursion of whites and 2) a bit of demythologizing the noble savage trope. Could be really wrong on that, though.

Yeah, the scene with the kids was handled better in the book. The kids were pretty much torturing the horse. That's what set Corgburn off. The hanging scene is also from the book, but I'm not exactly sure if the native american's last words were cut off. I don't think he tried to speak. I'll have to reread. One of the speeches moved Mattie to tears, though (in the book, at least). It was a little jarring for me, too. But, obviously, quite effective. To damn the audience for laughing in the spot, though, is troubling. People laugh sometimes when something jolts them. Certainly, there are racists and idiots that are going to watch that scene and think its hilarious. But not everyone that laughs in this spot is the worst thing that ever slithered into a multiplex. It's a brutal few seconds, for sure.

 I hope that's not how my comments came off. I don't begrudge people for laughing. Just commenting that my emotional response was sadness, not laughter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

 I hope that's not how my comments came off. I don't begrudge people for laughing. Just commenting that my emotional response was sadness, not laughter.

No, you expressed it well - making what you bring to it clearly, giving us something to think about, and not passing judgment. Re-reading my post, I realized my last question could read far more confrontationally than it was ever meant. Mia apologia if it came across as smug or in-your-face.

I thought she was referring to Rooster's age, not LaBoeuf's, but I'm not sure. I was surprised he'd still be kicking 25 years after the events of the movie (well, almost still kicking), but hey.

I saw this with a friend a couple of days ago -  I really enjoyed it, she didn't particularly like it. Particularly Damon, interestingly, she though his performance was too obvious, and it suffered for being a Cohen brother's film and the high expectations that carried. The only person I had a problem with was Bridges really - I thought all the other actors were spot on.

I'm trying to catch up on all the 2010 releases, but I still haven't seen anything better than this.  The movie is so damn effortless... it doesn't strain for significance in any way.  Most of the thematic elements are totally low-key, but by the end I felt like I had seen a truly great film.  A kind of quasi fable about America- not just how its myths and morals are shattered, which is almost trite at this point (and the film wisely plays it as a matter of fact rather than as a big idea), but about how beautiful things must be destroyed*. How difficult this country is, how it hardens, as well as strengthens us. About the dark side of that can-do self reliance and spirit of determination that we celebrate, and that forged this country.  How concepts like justice are brought down to a simple, human level... just people making choices.

* The scene where Blackie's life is traded for Mattie's is a perfect thing.

Loved it.

Other great films this year, like The Social Network and 127 Hours could be compared to being in an acrobatic airplane, all gravity defying stunts and vertigo inducing maneuvers. Others, like Black Swan were like riding on top of a rocket heading for outer space, in a constant upwards trajectory until you reach orbit and explode. The King's Speech was like riding in the best first class section ever. All huge leather seats, great food, superb wine and hot stewardesses. True Grit was like riding in the Concord. It wasn't the fastest, it didn't have the most awesome individual moments, it wasn't the classiest. It just was consistently and effortlessly great. Watching it the most impressive thing that came to my mind was the almost unprecedented level of quality that the Coens now seem to be operating by default. The script, the direction, the photography, the acting (holy shit, where did that Steinfeld girl come from?), everything was just so great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ujkle 

I thought she was referring to Rooster's age, not LaBoeuf's, but I'm not sure. I was surprised he'd still be kicking 25 years after the events of the movie (well, almost still kicking), but hey.

 

I saw this with a friend a couple of days ago -  I really enjoyed it, she didn't particularly like it. Particularly Damon, interestingly, she though his performance was too obvious, and it suffered for being a Cohen brother's film and the high expectations that carried. The only person I had a problem with was Bridges really - I thought all the other actors were spot on.

 Personally, Damon's performance worked for me because he played the character exactly as he is:  something of a buffoon, whose pride is ultimately genuine yet comes off as very grating to Mattie and Rooster on account of how much he pushes it.  As for Bridges, I'm surprised that you had an issue with him (my opinion is that he created a living, breathing, lived-in character, outclassing John Wayne's interpretation in every respect), but I suppose no one performance, even from the greats, is uniformly loved by everyone.

As for the criticism that your friend brought up, I've seen others feel much the same way in that, to them, True Grit felt "safe".  That's perfectly understandable because it is in many ways not an entirely untrue perception.  In my opinion, though, it's not the most obviously "major" Coen production, but it's actually the most layered and represents them operating at the top of their craft, managing to make every element click with a refreshing unassuming style that simply comes from their comfort with what they are doing.  Taken individually, scenes such as Maddie haggling for the price of horses and Rooster defending himself in court are IMO some of the richest dialogue pieces ever produced by the Coens, greatly enhancing the film as a whole instead of trying to "advertise" themselves over the film by being as thematically obvious as other Oscar-bait.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

Yeah, the scene with the kids was handled better in the book. The kids were pretty much torturing the horse. That's what set Corgburn off. The hanging scene is also from the book, but I'm not exactly sure if the native american's last words were cut off. I don't think he tried to speak. I'll have to reread. One of the speeches moved Mattie to tears, though (in the book, at least). It was a little jarring for me, too. But, obviously, quite effective. To damn the audience for laughing in the spot, though, is troubling. People laugh sometimes when something jolts them. Certainly, there are racists and idiots that are going to watch that scene and think its hilarious. But not everyone that laughs in this spot is the worst thing that ever slithered into a multiplex. It's a brutal few seconds, for sure.

So, I am just picking the book up and got to this scene. The Indian's words are not cut off, and in fact, it is a nice Christian plea for the town to heed his example. But, his hanging is messed up. Instead of breaking his neck and killing him instantly, he is instead choked to death.

The implication from this passage seems to be that they wanted him to suffer. Those last three sentences imply that maybe Judge Parker had something to do with the botched hanging.

Maybe it was just me, I saw him kicking the kids as defense of the horse,  not necessarily racism. Horses were valued commodities. There are Civil War stories about people trying to not shoot the horses because they were more valuable than the men.  I also saw him kicking the kids as his general dislike of kids. He would kick Mattie Ross if she wasn't the one holding the money. He goes to the kids parents for information and to trade, so he didn't seem to mind them. I haven't gotten that far in the book.

Well, as mentioned previously, the issue isn't whether those scenes are accurately portrayed in the film. They certainly represent the time and place of the era. Rather it's the reaction of movie goers seeing those moments as comic relief, which I suppose was also the Coens intention. Personally, those scenes would be funny if racism and child abuse still weren't an issue today. Instead, they just reminded me of how little we've progressed.

I've only seen it once - I'd be happy to discover I was completely wrong on a second viewing (I've not seen the Wayne version either so there's no point of comparison there). Maybe it was just some lingering, subliminal resentment from Tron Legacy, who knows.

Watched this today for the second time, the first time being in theaters. What I've now noticed and love is the myth building on display: all the main characters are storytellers.

LaBoeuf is always talking about what it means to be a Texas Ranger, and we're never truly sure if he's 100% telling the truth. That shot at the end may have been luck, right?

Mattie backs up most of the threats she makes with retribution from a lawyer that sounds like, as far as I can tell, a small town old codger.

Rooster, meanwhile, likes to spin a yarn while half letting on the real truth. Like the story about his first wife leaving him, and how he treated his son badly: we can imagine what really happened, but Rooster only half grasps that.

Chaney, as well, has gone by several names and, if we're to believe LaBoeuf, is faking his incompetence. I'm still unsure if we're to believe he really is a dullard (he certainly sounds like it), or if it's all an act.

A theme that runs through the movie (along with "an eye for an eye", and getting what you paid for) is proving you have grit, and that's done by backing up your words. Each character makes claims earlier in the film that are put to the test.

Great movie.