|
Post by markpatrus on Mar 14, 2011 8:56:09 GMT -5
Just finished reading the book for the first time. Never read it before. After seeing both versions of the film, hadn't realized what I had missed out on. Especially in the end of the book. You are left with a different dynamic all together with Marshall Cogburn being twenty years younger than he is depicted in both films.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2011 9:21:54 GMT -5
Both films are good in different ways, but there's no substitute for the original book. I also re-read it after seeing the new film version and enjoyed it just as much as the first time.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 14, 2011 17:02:09 GMT -5
Neither Rooster Cogburn holds a candle to a cock-eyed lizard named Rango.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 16, 2011 8:51:46 GMT -5
It's been forty years or more since I read the novel, but I re-read it again after seeing the new film. Maybe I should have waited, because I "see" the book differently than the Coens. I get a different tone, a different attitude from the book than the note struck by the Coens. The words spoken are usually the same, but not how the author delivers them. The film is at odds with how the author intends the lines to be felt and spoken. It's a subtle but very important difference. Charles Portis was in a different state of mind when he wrote the novel than were the Coens when they made their adaptation. The hipster put-down nihilist cool of the Coens is getting old real fast.
It is a warm fuzzy feeling to get reacquainted with this wonderful book.
On the whole, the original film interprets the novel more accurately than the new version. Isn't that ironic.
The novelty of the new version wears off quickly.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 17, 2011 19:21:32 GMT -5
It's been forty years or more since I read the novel, but I re-read it again after seeing the new film. Maybe I should have waited, because I "see" the book differently than the Coens. I also find a different tone, a different attitude in the book than the note struck by the Coens. The words spoken are usually the same, but not how the author delivers them. At odds with how the author intends the lines to be read, or spoken. It's a subtle but very important difference. Charles Portis was in a different state of mind when he wrote the novel than were the Coens when they made their adaptation. It is a warm fuzzy feeling to get reacquainted with this wonderful book. On the whole, the original film interprets the novel more accurately than the new version. Isn't that ironic. The novelty of the new version wears off quickly. I like both True Grit movies for different reasons, but I would pick the original for all the wonderful supporting characters from Col. Stonehill to Tom Chaney. They even kill a ranger and hang Clayton Moore's sidekick (Jay Silverheels) in this classic. How could the Coen brothers top that? There's a great comparison between the two films and the Portis book in this month's True West Magazine. There's also a short article on the real-life Rooster Cogburn, although he seems to have been more outlaw than law dog.
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Mar 22, 2011 13:56:27 GMT -5
What I'm getting at from my previous post is when Mattie Ross goes to find Rooster Cogburn in the end, she was quite possibly looking for a husband if he was still alive. Anyone else get the same read from the book?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 25, 2011 0:28:37 GMT -5
Possibly. Perhaps she's looking for a husband, even if he is an older man. Or maybe she's looking for a father like the man Tom Chaney shot. Or maybe she's become aware of her love for Rooster but doesn't know quite how to deal with it, so she goes to find him again to sort things out. Or perhaps she doesn't know what she's looking for. But her hopes, whatever they are, are cut short.
What a wonderful book.
If you like reading True Grit, you're bound to like Doctorow's Welcome to Hard Times.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Mar 25, 2011 8:57:01 GMT -5
I read 'The March' by Doctorow and enjoyed it immensely. Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely check it out when I'm finished with Stephen Hunter's latest.
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Mar 25, 2011 9:17:55 GMT -5
Also, I remember seeing the film, 'Welcome to Hard Times' years ago with Henry Fonda. According to IMDB.com, Doctorow thought it was the worse movie ever made.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 25, 2011 10:42:40 GMT -5
Better erase that 1967 adaptation from your memory, if possible. It's not only a bad adaptation, it's a poorly made film. The people behind the camera had no feeling for, nor understanding of, the material. They also didn't have the budget to pull it off. Burt Kennedy made much better films.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Mar 25, 2011 12:33:01 GMT -5
Roger Wilco and a BIG TEN FOUR!!!!
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jun 13, 2011 10:17:21 GMT -5
Just finished Doctorow's 'Welcome to Hard Times.' Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the tip, Richard.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 20, 2011 17:21:19 GMT -5
I got a copy of True Grit for Father's Day. Even though I'm retired, I'll have to find time to read it. The days go by so fast, when you can do anything you want. Lou
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 20, 2011 19:10:17 GMT -5
You will find it a quick but very enjoyable read!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 20, 2011 19:52:25 GMT -5
I read it for the second time after the new film came out and agree with Kevin. A quick and very enjoyable read. After you finish it, let me know which film you think is most faithful to the book.
|
|