1 versus 2

VS.




When a film remake comes to the screen, many choose which version they like better. When I teach Romeo and Juliet I show both versions because each has strengths the other doesn't. The fact that they use the same original language is a certain help in comparing the two films. Think in terms of multi-generational comparisons of the tragedy.

When the Coen brothers remade True Grit I was interested. I'm one to read reviews and articles before seeing movies. Maybe my mind has become so feeble that I forget what I read when I am watching the movie. Or maybe the movie is so good that I get lost in the story and forget. So when I read that none of the main characters watched the original movie with John Wayne, Glen Campbell and Kim Darby my interest was piqued. I had enjoyed the movie when I saw it in high school. I saw the movie not to see a western or a John Wayne movie, but because I had cherished the book by Charles Portis.



When I read that this new film didn't use the first screenplay, but used the book and dialog from the book as its base, I knew I had to see the movie. Brad tried to talk his brothers into seeing it over Christmas, even saying it would be a Garver men adventure, they wouldn't bite. I agreed and we saw the movie recently. It so happened that TMC had the original on at the same time, so we TIVO'ed it to watch after going to the theater.

The new version is great. I expected to have the language be realistic to the time period. Other than "Son of a female dog" and "fatherless child" I remember only one instance of swearing. That was refreshing and more realistic. As one reviewer said in the late 1880's most people were illiterate or close. Their source of learning language was the King James Bible, that somewhat stilted version of antiquated English. The movie captured that, at least to me.

The girl, and she was a girl instead of a young woman, playing Mattie Ross is worth the ticket price alone. What a precociously wonderful example of someone on a mission that will not be denied. Determined just as someone growing up on the frontier would be. And the language is something an English teacher would enjoy.

Jeff Bridges plays a great Rooster Cogburn; irreverent, cheeky, not suffering fools, and yet respectful when it is earned. Mattie earns that respect. Matt Damon plays a good Texas Ranger, diligent and determined.

After coming home I felt it would be hard to do better than what we had just seen. I was wrong. Take for granted John Wayne being his somewhat stiff self, the first movie is also good. John Wayne does a good Rooster Cogburn, certainly good enough in his time to warrant a sequel with Katherine Hepburn. The language was pretty spot on also. It was an enjoyable to watch.

I have to admit that I was prejudiced by the articles I had read. Though it wasn't too long before I realized I was wrong about the first being inferior to the second version. The first stands on it's merits. For its time.

The one item that stands out the most to me is that the second version is technically advanced. I would guess that the first used the best film had to offer at the time and so too would the Coen brothers. Lighting and night scenes were better. They should be. 41 years should make a difference in how a movie looks and it does. The rest is semantics.

See the new version, but don't be afraid to watch the first either.