anticipate TRUE GRIT by the Coen brothers

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.

late to thread...but as far as revisionist status of the original novel goes, it's about the characters that Portis chooses to include in his Western, and their behaviour. The setting and time period easily leads you to think it's straight down the line...but there are a couple of particular beats to the story that reflect its 1968 publication date

a) independent unmarried female protagonist who really isn't a love interest nor does she consider either La Bouef or Cogburn a potential love interest (though La Boeuf certainly crosses her mind, lol)...

b) heavy focus on the recent Civil war as a parallel to Vietnam...regular back and forth about the nature of Quantrill and his raiders in particular. Portis deliberately chooses to raise uncomfortable truths about that war as a parallel to the uncomfortable truths that were abounding about Vietnam.

That's just a couple. But the genius of the way Portis chose to write the book is that he never actually waves his arms and draws attention to the subversion of the genre. He plays it straight down the line and keeps the irony just under the surface. I think that's why I enjoy the Coen's movie so much, is they bring back that subversion. the Wayne movie is fine, but it becomes the Rooster Cogburn show which really wasn't my way into the book. Mattie's my gal.

i gotta read this book

veg have you ever read oakley halls warlock?

No, I haven't. What is it?

terrific 'revisionist' western from '58. not quite like true grit (the movie) in tone, maybe closer to deadwood. but i just finished it so its on my mind.

I'll check it out thanks Max!

I absolutely loved it. Matty was amazing, and it was often very funny despite being essentially quite a sad film.

i got warlock for xmas! havent started it yet tho

re: the discussion upthread about this being a "religious" movie: the last part of this post outlines my general take on the Coens' sensibility and why I see it as more "religious" than absurd/nihilistic/whatever; I'm having trouble directly connecting it to this movie, tho, and the stuff I throw out there at the very end is just kind of speculation.

oh yeah uh also I just saw this movie! it was good! I don't understand why everyone had to talk like that but it was an... interesting stylistic choice

("like that" = excessively witty and lightning-quick volleys of convoluted verbiage from which contractions would seem to be almost entirely absent)
felt like gilmore girls/aaron sorkin at times

Frank Rich attempts to read TG/TSN sociopolitical tea leaves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23rich.html

pretty all over the place, that article

yeah I don't really get what point/s he's trying to make (though that might be bc I'm tired, lol)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/kewlsan/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud_001.jpg

haha

While “Social Network” fictionalizes Mark Zuckerberg, it mines the truth of an era — from the ability of the powerful and privileged to manipulate the system to the collapse of loyalty as a prized American virtue at the top of that economic pyramid.

the (relatively) powerful and privileged people in the social network are comically defeated, and i'm pretty sure there were movies about business betrayals before 2008

You almost wish Rooster were around to get the job done.

what

also, a movie in which a preadolescent's utterly cold obsession with justice leads to a life as a crippled spinster with a single alcoholic fuckup friend who dies at the end is maybe not so much a comforting ode to strong punitive principles?

not saying that it's relativistic and opposed to mattie but i mean it is not exactly an untroubling movie!

Yeah I mean harkening back to the 'simpler' time of frontier justice in True Grit is wtf because the justice that is served is not just served on the wrongdoers, the avengers themselves pay a heavy price personally, even physically. Dude is just hammering the corners off that story to make it fit some crazy rant he came up with in the shower that morning.

I think someone drew that cartoon of Rooster and Zuckerberg sitting next to each other, and the editor assigned someone to write a story around it.

haha I think you're right

Frank Rich doesn't get assigned. He was the Times' theatre critic for a dozen or more years, and now writes about whatever he pleases in Op-Ed.

That said, his column didn't make a whole lotta sense to me (nor does the profundity he, or anyone else, sees in The Social Network).

The column was kind of rambling and wtf already, and then he brings in Social Network and I'm like "Okay now I have NO idea what you're on about"

(he also though The Talented Mr Ripley was a great film) xp

The column was worthless. Frank Rich is a dream of a columnist: he writes cogently, is liberal, and utterly predictable.

did rich write a dark knight/wall-e mccain/obama column in 08? seems very his style. also he was crazily feared as a theater crit right? was it for any reasons specific to him or just 'he was the times theater critic'?

http://vimeo.com/19373173