|
Post by markpatrus on Jun 21, 2011 11:29:49 GMT -5
Which film was more faithful to the book? That's a tough one. They both draw so much from the novel. And both actors playing Rooster Cogburn were 20 years older than depicted in the book.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 21, 2011 12:32:50 GMT -5
Agreed, Mark. I felt the more recent film was more faithful in one sense - it placed the girl, Mattie Ross, at the center of the story and she is very much the main character AND the one who shows "true grit" throughout. I enjoy the first film more, although it is clearly Wayne's film and Rooster is the center. Both are good and I think the Coen brothers conned us a bit by suggesting that their film was not a remake and was a different take, based more closely on the book. That's not really true. The film is clearly a remake and the dialog is almost identical. A few notable differences, like LaBoeuf dying in the Wayne version, but surviving (as he does in the book) in the Coen version. The ending in the Coen version also is straight out of the book, whereas the ending in the earlier film was clearly written to focus, again, on Wayne.
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jun 21, 2011 12:51:34 GMT -5
The Coen's version seemed to give you more of a feel and look of what life was like in the Nations. Wayne's version had Colorado written all over it along with that Hollywood look that was so stamped on Westerns in cinema up through that time. Wayne made it known that in his opinion, Peckinpah had killed the western forever with 'The Wild Bunch.' How many westerns did Wayne wear that same gunbelt in? I think he wore it from Rio Bravo all the way through 'The Shootist.' Since Kim Darby and Glen Campbell weren't very good at acting. And that aweful haircut she had in the Wayne version. There seemed to be a lot more talent and effort went into the Coen's version.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 21, 2011 13:15:35 GMT -5
Definitely a more talented cast in the Coen's version and, you're right, the terrain was authentic. If you watch the Wayne version after that one, the bright color just splashes all over the screen (and I believe it was filmed in Colorado).
|
|
paul
Full Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by paul on Jun 21, 2011 15:41:12 GMT -5
If you watch the Wayne version after that one, the bright color just splashes all over the screen (and I believe it was filmed in Colorado). It was. Here's a link to an interesting Youtube video that shows the locations of the Wayne version today: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EUP9rOLf30
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Jun 21, 2011 17:20:23 GMT -5
That was just oustanding. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 21, 2011 18:49:13 GMT -5
Great video, Paul! Thanks for posting. Looks like most of the sites are still there.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 6, 2011 16:21:01 GMT -5
Allen et al: I just finished reading True Grit a few days ago in three sittings. I couldn't put it down. It's hard to say which movie is most faithful to the book. However, as I read the book, especially when Rooster speaks, I kept visualizing John Wayne. I don't know if it was because I've been such a JW fan for years, but somehow, it always sounded like him speaking. Overall, the Coen Bros. was probably more faithful, but after seeing what Hollywood usually does to classic novels, both movies were remarkably faithful to the spirit of the story, even if details don't always match. For example, I don't know why they killed Leboef in the JW version but not Matt Damon. (The sarcastic side of me says Campbell killed himself with his awful acting. Did John Wayne ever realize he didn't have to include a teen hearththrob like Ricky Nelson, Frankie Avalon and Fabian to make a movie?) And, I think it was better that the Coen Bros. completed the story line with Mattie looking up Cogburn so many years later. I was also surprised when Rooster's age was given as early 40s since Wayne and Bridges were both in their 60s. I kept having to picture Wayne in the "Sands of Iwo Jima" and Bridges as a "Fabulous Baker Boy." Both films did a great job portraying the supporting cast who all seemed to take their characters very seriously and matched Portis' text very well. You know, True Grit was the first novel I've read in since "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. Mostly I read histories and biographies. Maybe it's time to read another novel. Any suggestions??? (I've already read "The Gates of the Alamo.")
|
|
|
Post by markpatrus on Jul 7, 2011 10:21:25 GMT -5
As was suggested to me earlier in the string that if I enjoyed reading 'True Grit', that I would definitely enjoy reading E. L. Doctorow's 'Welcome to Hard Times'. Forget the movie that came out in the late '60's with Henry Fonda. This was Doctorow's first novel and is absolutely brilliant. Another good read is 'Gates of Fire' by Steven Pressfield. It is an incredible story that culminates with the Battle of Thermopylae.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 7, 2011 16:24:14 GMT -5
Let me second the recommendation for Pressfield's "Gates of Fire," it's some of the best historical fiction you're likely to find.
I also enjoyed Bernard Cornwell's series of Richard Sharpe novels, set during the Napoleonic Wars. If you elect to dive in, I'd suggest trying to read them in order; it's not absolutely necessary, but the characters develop chronologically and there are some recurring characters. The Sharpe books aren't high literature, but they're entertaining and informative.
Jim
|
|