Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
kimpunkrock

steaming mad over true grit remake.

Recommended Posts

I read the book before I saw either movie and I just fell in love with Mattie Ross.  I think she's one of the great literary characters of the last century so when I watch, I don't really care about the other characters  half as much.  It's her story and none of the other actors should be allowed to overpower her.

 

I thought Kim Darby captured the strong heart of Mattie better, and delivered her lines with more authenticity, but I liked the new Mattie for speaking more word for word lines from the book.   The new one gets points for a better ending, too.  If I could drop Kim Darby down in the new version, I think it would be about perfect.

 

Both films are good and can be watched over and over, still finding new lines to appreciate.  Charles Portis is an American treasure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the book before I saw either movie and I just fell in love with Mattie Ross.  I think she's one of the great literary characters of the last century so when I watch, I don't really care about the other characters  half as much.  It's her story and none of the other actors should be allowed to overpower her.

 

I thought Kim Darby captured the strong heart of Maddie better, and delivered her lines with more authenticity, but I liked the new Maddie for speaking more word for word lines from the book.   The new one gets points for a better ending, too.  If I could drop Kim Darby down in the new version, I think it would be about perfect.

 

Both films are good and can be watched over and over, still finding new lines to appreciate.  Charles Portis is an American treasure.

 

Wasn't  Darby at 22 a little too old to play Mattie?     Yea,  Kim looked younger than she was but she didn't look 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is 6 years old, (with posters MIA) thought they were making a 2nd reboot.  

 

Yes, can you believe it's been six years already? When the remake was announced, people were not happy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, can you believe it's been six years already? When the remake was announced, people were not happy about it.

 

Well there were far more people that didn't care it was a remake since it did very well at the box office making a very good profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there were far more people that didn't care it was a remake since it did very well at the box office making a very good profit.

 

But I think it's interesting people are still defending the original John Wayne version, and not out of nostalgic reasons. Which tells me even if a remake is highly successful, the original can be seen as having an edge, regardless of how old or flawed it might seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't taken the time to read every post in this thread, so I apologize if I restate something that has already been said.

 

A couple of days ago I was having a discussion with someone about sequels and remakes and the subject of True Grit came up.

 

I'm one of those who generally prefers an original version over the remake, however there are exceptions.

I saw the 1959 version of Ben-Hur long before I saw the 1925 version. I like them both, very much. And the 1925 version was NOT the first filmed adaptation which, as far as I know, is a 1907 version directed by Sidney Olcott.

 

All are "based" upon the 1880 Lew Wallace book, though neither the 1925 nor the 1959 versions truly encompass it. So to me, they are equally "faithful" and equally "flawed" in that sense.

Whereas the 1959 William Wyler version has many matching scenes, and appears to be a "remake" of the 1925 Fred Niblo version, I think that the earlier sea battle and chariot race segments are, in many ways, actually more exciting than the Wyler color version.

 

Regarding True Grit, I saw the 1969 John Wayne version when it came out. And loved it! Later I read the Charles Portis book, and saw where Henry Hathaway had strayed from the source material.

When the Coen brothers made True Grit in 2010, it wasn't a remake, nor a sequel, they went right to the source material and created a more faithful adaptation, that, in my opinion, is every bit as good as the 1969 adaptation, perhaps even better.

I can only say this because the calibre of the actors and direction in both versions was outstanding. But, having read the book, I found the extra attention to some of the little details by the Coen brothers actually enhanced their version, fleshing it further out and making it closer to the novel.

Of course both versions have some of the same or very similar scenes, even to matching dialogue, as both are derived from the same novel, one would expect such similarities.

I have watched both versions back-to-back, and will compare the key actors renditions of their characters, Jeff Bridges "Rooster" Cogburn interpretation vs that of John Wayne's.  Matt Damon's LaBoeuf vs Glen Campbells interpretation. Josh Brolin's Tom Chaney vs Jeff Corey. Barry Pepper's "Lucky" Ned Pepper vs  Robert Duvall's. Domhnall Glesson vs Dennis Hopper, as Moon.  Dakin Matthews vs Strother Martin, as Colonel Stonehill, and so on, down the line. With the greatest contrast (for me) being the two outstanding Mattie's (Hailee Steinfeld and Kim Darby), both girls produced superb interpretations, however the Coen's Mattie, carried a little more of the novel in her script, even including a one armed Mattie at age 40. 

So in this rare case, I find myself loving both movie versions almost equally, appreciating the talents of the actors from each of their respective generations. However, with a critical eye, I must say that of the two, the later adaptation is the one that rings truer to Portis's novel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I buy the fact that the Coen brothers' version is independent of the Hathaway version. Though it seems more faithful to the source material (which doesn't always make something superior), it is still derivative of the first film and thus a remake. Would there have been any interest in the book and reproducing the story in 2010 if the Coens had not seen Hathaway's version and not been influenced by it?

 

In a similar way, if someone comes along in 2025 and remakes it yet again, it will draw inevitable comparisons to the two earlier films. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the Coen Bros. saw the 1969 version, and were influenced by it. No doubt they were fans of the Portis novel and thought they could produce a more faithful adaptation of the book than was rendered in 1969.

But, similarities aside, their movie was NOT a "remake" of the 1969 movie. Theirs was a fresh look at the source material and yes, a noticeably "different" adaptation that holds truer to the novel than the 1969 movie adaptation. 

Will audiences draw comparisons of two (or more) films with the same title based upon the same source material? undoubtedly.

But there have been numerous "remakes" of movies where the source material was an earlier movie version (or earlier movie script, with or without the same title).
In some cases the "remake" is a scene for scene duplicate [i.e. The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 & 1952)] & and has even been remade by the same director [i.e. Five Came Back (1939) and Back From Eternity (1956), both directed by John Farrow, and Los que volvieron (1948)]. This is NOT one of those.
And there have been numerous "updated" versions of an earlier movie (with or without the same name). Nor is it one those.

I reiterate, the Coen bros. True Grit is Not a "remake," or a "redo," of the earlier film. It is a fresh and closer adaptation of the same novel as source material. For anyone who has read the book and seen both of these movies, the answer is quite clear!

Does that automatically make this adaptation a "better" movie than the earlier one? Of course not!

But in this case, IMHO, both films are on a par for excellence, each in their own right! Great actor performances all around!
I personally prefer the John Wayne version for nostalgia sake, but critically thinking, I believe the Coen brother version is a tad meatier, possibly because it does hold truer to the novel, which I thoroughly enjoyed!

 

We may be nit picking here, but...

"The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake

 

See the following for an example of numerous "remakes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_film_remakes

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the Coen Bros. saw the 1969 version, and were influenced by it. No doubt they were fans of the Portis novel and thought they could produce a more faithful adaptation of the book than was rendered in 1969.

But, similarities aside, their movie was NOT a "remake" of the 1969 movie. Theirs was a fresh look at the source material and yes, a noticeably "different" adaptation that holds truer to the novel than the 1969 movie adaptation. 

Will audiences draw comparisons of two (or more) films with the same title based upon the same source material? undoubtedly.

But there have been numerous "remakes" of movies where the source material was an earlier movie version (or earlier movie script , with or without the same title).

In some cases the "remake" is a scene for scene duplicate [i.e. The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 & 1952))] & and has even been made by the same director [i.e. Five Came Back (1939) and Back From Eternity (1956), both directed by John Farrow, and Los que volvieron (1948)]. This is NOT one of those.

And there have been numerous "updated" versions of an earlier movie (with or without the same name). Nor is it one those.

I reiterate, the Coen bros. True Grit is Not a "remake," or a "redo," of the earlier film. It is a fresh and closer adaptation of the same novel as source material. For anyone who has read the book and seen both of these movies, the answer is quite clear!

Does that make automatically make this adaptation a "better" movie than the earlier one? Of course not!

But in this case, IMHO, both films are on a par for excellence, each in their own right! Great actor performances all around!

I personally prefer the John Wayne version for nostalgia sake, but critically thinking, I believe the Coen brother version is a tad meatier, possibly because it does hold truer to the novel, which I thoroughly enjoyed!

 

We may be nit picking here, but...

"The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake

 

See the following for an example of numerous "remakes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_film_remakes

 

You're not nit picking here at all;   There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation and you provided a sound write up to back that point up.

 

It is difficult for a viewer to judge a film as 'standing on its own' when they have seen another version.  What typically makes a difference to a viewer is the order in which the films are viewed.  

 

E.g. Unless one is over 90,  the odds are high one saw the 41 version of The Maltese Falcon before one saw the 31 version (because the 41 version is more famous and one would have to be very old to have seen the 31 version when it was released in theaters).

 

But for remakes released in the last 25 years or so,   the odds are higher that one has already seen the earlier version.       

 

For film over 25 or so years old,  most potential audience members don't view a film as a remake or adaptation since they have seen few if any movies made before they were 10 or so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the Coen Bros. saw the 1969 version, and were influenced by it. No doubt they were fans of the Portis novel and thought they could produce a more faithful adaptation of the book than was rendered in 1969.

But, similarities aside, their movie was NOT a "remake" of the 1969 movie. 

 

I think you're trying to define this in a way that bolsters the argument the 2010 version was better. But hair-splitting aside, while the 2010 version may not be a remake of the 1969 movie (though on some level I feel it still is), it is definitely a remake of the story itself, because we cannot say it wasn't already told to some extent in the '69 production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not nit picking here at all;   There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation and you provided a sound write up to back that point up.

 

It is difficult for a viewer to judge a film as 'standing on its own' when they have seen another version.  What typically makes a difference to a viewer is the order in which the films are viewed.  

 

E.g. Unless one is over 90,  the odds are high one saw the 41 version of The Maltese Falcon before one saw the 31 version (because the 41 version is more famous and one would have to be very old to have seen the 31 version when it was released in theaters).

 

But for remakes released in the last 25 years or so,   the odds are higher that one has already seen the earlier version.       

 

For film over 25 or so years old,  most potential audience members don't view a film as a remake or adaptation since they have seen few if any movies made before they were 10 or so. 

I agree wholeheartedly.

The "order" of the viewed presentation most definitely impacts the viewers perceptions.

I've also found that reading the book upon which a movie is "based" prior to seeing a filmed adaptation also sets one up (more often than not) for disappointment, as few filmed adaptations can satisfy a viewers anticipation or expectations. This also can happen the other way around, as well.

However, if one see's the movie version first, and really enjoys it, and then (despite the inevitable differences), later reads and equally enjoys the book, both the film and the book have a better chance of standing on their own (each on their own merit) in that viewer/readers mind.

Knowing more about the background can most definitely enhance a movie viewers appreciation, but also allows the viewer to see things more critically as well.

And this also applies when contrasting two (or more) filmed adaptations of the same source material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to get all worked up over remakes of classic films but I guess I've mellowed as I've gotten older. Unless it's a shot-by-shot, line-by-line, remake such as the 1998  version of PSYCHO was,  I just see these things, not as a remake of the movie, but simply as a different interpretation of the  original source material.

 

That's certainly the case with TRUE GRIT which was based on the Charles Portis novel. I think it's closer to the darkness of the novel than the original movie. Not to say it's better. just different.

 

I haven't seen the new BEN-HUR, I probably will when it comes out on DVD, but from I've heard about it, the movie is very different from the two previous versions.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still think that remakes are a lazy way of making a film. Instead of trying to create something original, the producers just try and take advantage of a classic film's reputation and title.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to get all worked up over remakes of classic films but I guess I've mellowed as I've gotten older. Unless it's a shot-by-shot, line-by-line, remake such as the 1998  version of PSYCHO was,  I just see these things, not as a remake of the movie, but simply as a different interpretation of the  original source material.

 

That's certainly the case with TRUE GRIT which was based on the Charles Portis novel. I think it's closer to the darkness of the novel than the original movie. Not to say it's better. just different.

 

I haven't seen the new BEN-HUR, I probably will when it comes out on DVD, but from I've heard about it, the movie is very different from the two previous versions.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still think that remakes are a lazy way of making a film. Instead of trying to create something original, the producers just try and take advantage of a classic film's reputation and title.

 

I agree with what you say here except that remakes are a lazy way of making a film.    If the source material is sound but the producers didn't feel prior versions did that source material 'justice',   making a more faithful film isn't an act of laziness.   (the exception are films like the 88 Psycho like you mentioned).     If anything this type of 'laziness' was more likely during the studio-era where the studio already had purchased the rights to film the source material and had directors, actors and staff under contract.  E.g. The 41 version of The Maltese Falcon.     

 

In addition depending on the number of years between different version release dates,  I assume most current viewers are not even aware there was a prior version IF that version was made before they were born.    I would love to see some stats;  what percentage of Americans under 50 have seen Casablanca?    I suspect < 5%. 

 

So how much marketing values is there in a remake of a film released 50 or 60+ years ago?   I believe a lot less than us studio-era fans may suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, after six years and going back and revisiting the OP's opening remarks the other day when this thread was revived, I have to wonder if he ever eventually watched the Coen Bros' version of it, and so maybe formed a more "informed opinion" about this whole thing?

 

(...doubt it, though...I mean, YOU know how some of those "John Wayne can do no wrong" types are, doncha?!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...