anticipate TRUE GRIT by the Coen brothers

Tried really hard with the snakes, though

did the snakes really bother you? who cares!!!

sorry... its your prerogative... to hate fake snakes...

It's not that they were fake, it's that they looked fake. The town looked real.

To be fair, if a bunch of computer graphics started slithering over my shoulder I'd be pretty wigged out

Josh should've called up his dad. James Brolin didn't fuck around with fake rattlesnakes... Ate the real one in Capricorn One, and shot the real one *playing a fake one* in Westworld.

I realize this is a stretch but I couldn't help thinking of parallels with US foreign policy. Go into a foreign land to avenge a wrong done to your "family", hire some local talent with dubious ethical history, get your satisfaction through extra-legal means, and come home an amputee.

damn

def flew thru my head, cept Chaney actually did kill her father, presumably

Presumably

Wait... is Dr. Morbius suggesting something about 9/11? Just trying to read between the lines here!

of course not, we all know Saddam did it

Oh yeah! Heh. Whoa.

"He tried to kill my daddy"

exactly. The best thing about the movie and the book is the shades of grey within all of the characters.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:36 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is kind of a political statement too ... call it a reaction to the reactionary-ness of american conservative's idea of a 'fall' where at one time in the past morals were clear & clean, things have always been messy & complicated

the phrase "shades of grey" irks me. it seems to deny some basics of dramaturgy. basically the coens gave their characters several traits: a few admirable, a few less so. the film isn't exactly infinitely complex. it just presents its characters as a mix of good and bad.

this is kind of a political statement too ... call it a reaction to the reactionary-ness of american conservative's idea of a 'fall' where at one time in the past morals were clear & clean, things have always been messy & complicated

that's stretching things. see almost every western since 1950.

i dunno if i can think of specific examples but in my mind a lot of films ive seen would be more likely to position the person getting revenge as a morally righteous one.

rather than a person who, proactive or not, is dealing w/ outside confluence of events

Saw the '68 version tonight, and man, did it just seem silly.

COMMUNIST!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL6cwB-L6Uw

"flouridate our whiskey"

not merely morally righteous but cinematically satisfying - clint's final reel shoot em up in "unforgiven" announces its moral ambiguity with red flashing sirens but the way it's directed and edited you're like "FUCK YEAH CLINT" - the new true grit doesn't traffic in that at all, which is i think at the root of a lot of people's complaints that it feels a bit flat or whatever

yeah, that Unforgiven climax tries to have it both ways, no doubt

I questioned whether this was a good idea way upthread, but as the great reviews started to come in, I realized I was being kind of silly and started looking forward to seeing it. The Coens have made a number of great films, so no matter what they're filming, there's always the chance they're going to make another one. They usually don't, but the chance is always there.

I didn't like it, though. It seemed like the same overly reverential, overly sombre western I've seen many times before. I didn't like Unforgiven, either, so clearly I don't have any feel for this kind of movie.

"reverential" and "somber" are not words I would use for this.

Am I alone in feeling a kind of tonal kinship pat garrett and billy the kid is a kind of cousin-in-temperament to coens' true grit?

okay, less idiotically written:

am i alone in feeling a kind of tonal kinship between PG and BTK and coens' true grit?

"reverential" and "somber" are not words I would use for this.

I guess people who like this--and clearly a lot of people do--would agree, or maybe they also find it reverential and somber, but connect with that kind of mood. I don't know. I won't make a list, but to me it had the kind of deference for genre conventions that you find in this kind of western; I didn't see how it strayed at all, although I'm not the best judge.

well, the hero is a drunken fool with a morally questionable background.

clemenza here's the essay i was trying to remember from before. it's by stanley fish (and could possibly have a used a bit of editing):

[In the original] we are told something about the nature of heroism and virtue and the relationship between the two. In the movie we have just been gifted with, there is no relationship between the two; heroism, of a physical kind, is displayed by almost everyone, “good” and “bad” alike, and the universe seems at best indifferent, and at worst hostile, to its exercise. ...

[T]here is no relationship between the bestowing or withholding of grace and the actions of those to whom it is either accorded or denied. You can’t add up a person’s deeds — so many good one and so many bad ones — and on the basis of the column totals put him on the grace-receiving side (you can’t earn it); and you can’t reason from what happens to someone to how he stands in God’s eyes (you can’t deserve it). ...

It is, says Mattie in a reflection that does not make it into either movie, a “hard doctrine running contrary to the earthly ideals of fair play”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/narrative-and-the-grace-of-god-the-new-true-grit/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As I mention above, this is a pretty consistent theme in the Coens' movies, that the universe doesn't reward virtue except by accident.

If you want to get really pseud about it this goes all the way back to Achilles' speech in the Iliad, where he refuses the hand of Agamemnon's daughter in marriage. He's just had a huge realization and is in a kind of strop about it. "Equal fate" he says "befalls the negligent and the valiant fighter; equal honor goes to the worthless and the virtuous." Paul Feyerabend says this is the moment in Greek thought when honor and the rewards of honor became separate things. Previously they had been one. But now there exists the notion that a real yet hidden virtue can underlie a misleading - false - skein of material existence. (Feyerabend goes on to compare this with the current idea that there's a real atomic physics which underlies the misleading world of the visible). If we accept Fish's ideas about True Grit you could almost say that the Coens have gone back to a pre-Achilles point of view: that there is no hidden virtue to Mattie - or anyone - that goes rewarded or unrewarded. There is simply the will to do things, and the material rewards which accrue are what they are, neither true nor false.

(Which makes Fish's conclusion that this is a "religious" movie a strange one)

Thanks for the quote. As I say, I'm just not sensitive enough to fine distinctions within the western genre. I can listen to two power pop songs that would sound identical to someone else, but to me there'd be obvious differences; power pop is something I have a good feel for. Westerns, no. The limitation is mine.

Well, in most (all?) Hollywood movies the spine of the story is about characters getting what's coming to them. Redemption, comeuppance, closure, whatever. If you don't have that your movie doesn't get greenlighted (greenlit?). Westerns might lean on this in a more visible way but it's not particular to them.

Finely acted and played all around. Bridges straddles the comedic/dramatic line almost too much on the comedic side (stumbling around, playing up the physical comedy) - esp. noticeable in his scenes with Matty. She (the actress or the character? not sure) is so deadpan sober and serious. When Damon comes on he hams it up even more than Bridges - to the point where I thought, oh, here's the comic relief character. A live-action action figure.

It took an hour until the first real moment of tension creeped into the film for me - when Damon arrives on horseback at the house and the gang riding up behind him in the distance.

Brolin was the highlight for me. His facial expressions said so much more than his words. It instantly gave his character more dimension than just being the 'bad guy.'

And yeah, when Damon returns at the end to save Matty - the Han Solo save, etc... So much action in about a 5-minute span - the showdown with the gang, the shooting, Mattie falling into Slash's snakepit.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leyxh2NGww1qarjjvo1_r1_500.jpg

:/

Born nine months after Fargo was released.

whoa... did her parents... you know... on opening night...

I thought this a lark, but generally enjoyed it. It's like the Coens took a really square story and encouraged eccentric acting choices: Bridges' "Sling Blade" homage, Damon biting his tongue, Brolin's own mumble-mouth, Barry Pepper's spit-fostering fake teeth, a random weird gruff dude in a bear suit that briefly made me think of "Dead Man" ...

My only real take away was that this was another death of the Old West movie, with the girl wielding the 20th century threat of suits and lawyers as her principle weapon, and Rooster ending life relegated to a traveling Wild West show. Nothing new, but satisfying.

Damon biting his tongue

Pretty sure this was not an "acting choice" but part of the square story [sic] written in 1968

That's just being pedantic (story vs. novel). There is a story being told - in novel or film form - and it is relatively square. As in, standard western, not revisionist.

Anyway, I haven't read the book. Does the author write all of LaBouef's dialogue like his mouth is numb? In the movie it's played for comedy. Is it played for comedy in the book? The acting choice is telling Damon to be funny about it, and Bridges, too. Was I supposed to be horrified when Rooster threatens to yank his tongue out? Because as directed, it was funny, and everyone else in the theatre seemed to think it was funny, too. That's a directing/acting choice.

ask Vegemite Grrrl, I haven't read the book

The reaction to the tongue-yanking at my screening was aieeeee/laughter.

lit-crit consensus seemed to be the Portis novel was a revisionist western.

Really? That's ironic, considering the first movie(1969) is considered the last gasp of old school corny westerns - replete with theme song!. I mean, The Wild Bunch and Butch Cassidy, to name two, were also released the year after True Grit was published and both of them seem radically, miles more revisionist. In what context was True Grit (the book) considered revisionist, at least as we understand the word now? (Not being snide, I've just always thought True Grit the book was much like True Grit the movie - pretty traditional/conventional).

again, I am underqualified to say why. See Wiki.

It's not surprising that by 1969, a lauded western book was streamlined/altered to serve as a John Wayne vehicle.

Hmm, interesting. I've indeed dug up several references to the book being considered revisionist, which I suppose makes the Wayne version revisionist-revisionist! Even more convoluted, the Coens version, by honing to the then-revisionist text pretty faithfully, ended up making a movie that doesn't seem terribly revisionist by contemporary standards, compared to all the revisionist westerns that came before it.

also, Butch Cassidy is an easygoing, mildly 'serious' star comedy that's a skin-deep western.

For sure. But there's no doubting the credentials of its contemporary the Wild Bunch, the ur-revisionist western, in the modern sense. Both Butch and the Bunch do share similar "down" endings, at least in theory if not exactly in execution.

you would doubtlessly find it "corny," but Wayne's last film The Shootist, by Eastwood mentor Don Siegel, is far more touching (and honest) than Clint's Unforgiven.