Yesterday I explained why I gave True Grit a grade of “C+.” (A grade of “B-” would work too if it’d make some of you feel better. As I tell my students and as this recent column from The Chronicle of Higher Education reminds, a C+ is above average!) In any event, here’s what bothered me:
- I could see two of the actors acting.
- At first, Bridges’s “Rooster” Cogburn is over the top, too gruff; he just plain “overacts,” one reviewer claims.
- The dialogue sounds unnatural without the use of contractions.
- While most of the film defies traditional Hollywood representations of women (yay!), the epilogue does not (e.g., because of young Mattie’s independent nature, she’s “punished” later in life as a steely, one-armed spinster).
Later that evening, I engaged in a friendly debate on Twitter with film critic Matt Zoller Seitz and Craig Simpson about the way True Grit ultimately handles its lead female character and whether she was, in fact, disciplined for her activity in the film.
First, Matt explained that he didn’t feel Mattie wasn’t punished for anything. Rather, he claimed, “She lived to an old age and was independent; moreover, the voiceover makes it clear that she would have gotten married if she found some man she’d fancied (but didn’t).” Second, he reminded me of the scene in which Mattie humorously barks to a man who refuses to stand in her presence, “You can keep your seat, TRASH.” What’s not to love about this character, right? For the most part, Craig offered the same reading as Matt, maintaining that True Grit‘s epilogue is actually “the exact opposite of ‘traditional Hollywood.’ Had Mattie grown up, married LaBoeuf, and come out unscathed,” that would be conventional, he argued.
I completely understand Matt’s and Craig’s points here, and with some of them, I agree. As a middle-aged woman, Mattie retains the same determination or grit that she did in her youth. For instance, although maimed, she walks about town with her head held high, unconcerned what others think about her (see the “trash” line above). Also, according to her voiceover (as Matt points out), she elects to live alone; it is apparently her decision. Finally, revealing her grit and independence, adult Mattie has the authority and wherewithal to move Cogburn’s grave to her family’s plot so she can visit it often.
With that said, I still feel that the film’s ultimate portrayal of Mattie is rather conventional, in sync with Hollywood’s typical fare. As I wrote in the previous post, yes, Mattie’s final voiceover tells the viewer that she never found love or married because she “just didn’t find the time for it.” But what does the frame show us? Steeliness, resoluteness, unhappiness, disfigurement, the semblance of spinsterhood. To quote one of my friends/colleagues, “It bugged me that Mattie ended up a spinster bitch, right down to her hair pulled back. I wanted more depth, a sense that her grownup self had developed more.” Additionally, my colleague confided, “I was also annoyed when the voiceover said she hadn’t married. Why should that even need mention?” Agreed.
By now, many filmgoers are familiar with the Bechdel Test, “a quick way to gauge the active presence of female characters in Hollywood films and [to see] how well rounded and complete those roles are.” (Watch a video here.) To pass the test, the film in question simply needs to respond positively to these three questions:
- Does the film have at least two women in it?
- Do they talk to each other?
- About something besides a man?
I would argue that between 80% – 90% of Hollywood films cannot pass the Bechdel Test (I’m basing this on any weekly Top Ten Box Office list). As the video above points out, these results demonstrate that complex and interesting female characters are grossly underrepresented or nonexistent in the film industry, which is unsurprising since most films are made by and for men.
With this in mind, I’d like to initiate a similar test based on my “Gender and Film” lectures, much of which derive from a chapter in Peter Lehman’s and William Luhr’s book, Thinking about Movies: Watching, Questioning, Enjoying. In honor of the authors, I’ll call this the Lehman/Luhr Test.
- Does the film contain female characters?
- If so, do they function as more than mothers/wives or whores?
- Are the female characters active?
- If so, does their activity revolve a sphere other than romance or domesticity?
- Do the female characters avoid being saved by a man? (Theoretically, “saving” generally eliminates a woman’s independent status, placing her more firmly within/under a man’s control.)
- Do the active female characters avoid scarring, maiming, rape, and/or death? (Such events often serve as punishment for independent and/or sexual women, marring her beauty/worth, i.e., her power.)
- Finally, do the women avoid gratuitous fetishization and/or objectification? (This implies a particularly male way of looking at a woman’s body, thus eliminating her independent status.)
If a film can respond positively to these seven questions, then we’ve got something to talk about — something unconventional, something unique.
So how does True Grit measure up?
Update 12/28/10: In my next post “Challenging Onscreen Masculinity,” I create The Lehman/Luhr Test for Men.
Related posts:
19 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- My Year in Film: 14 Favorites at Inessentials - [...] True Grit a B, she tells me, since it was easily an A- at least. (Much like what happened ...
Leave a Reply
I'm following
Instagrams
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,
Thanks for expanding on our discussion, Kelli. Your point is valid, and reminds me of what a critic once said about a different movie long ago. Can't remember either the writer or the film, but the latter concerned a character with a debilitating disease and a tragic death in the family, and the gist of the argument was: "Dying of cancer OR dead mother — not both."
That seems to be similar to your objection about True Grit, that Mattie growing up both maimed and alone was one affliction too many (along with the suggestion, as you interpreted it, that one begat the other). I might have felt that way had Mattie felt sorry for herself or been the only character who suffered anything. LaBoeuf is disabled both physically and psychologically. Nearly all the other characters suffer some kind of malady as well. I think the Coens mean for there to be a connection between Mattie and Rooster — one has one arm and the other one eye, yet both stand tall and make no apologies for who they are.
I've never seen the Bechtel Test but it's certainly a useful yardstick to evaluate women's roles in film (with depressing results). The Lehman/Luhr is even more precise. I'd say True Grit passes 5 of the 7 questions easily; with the other two, I think the next step is to examine the context:
1. Mattie, a 14 year old girl, insists on going along on a dangerous mission where she really doesn't belong.
2. Mattie stumbles on Chaney in the river, shoots and wounds him, is captured by Lucky Ned's gang.
3. Mattie stands her ground with Lucky Ned, showing no fear.
4. Chaney tries to kill Mattie. LaBoeuf saves Mattie, who in turn saves LaBoeuf (and herself) by killing Chaney.
5. The shotgun blast propels Mattie down into the pit, where she is bitten by a snake. Rooster and LaBoeuf pull Mattie out of the pit and Rooster takes her to get medical attention. Mattie loses her arm but not her life.
So, yes, Mattie is maimed. And that could certainly be seen as a consequence of her behavior and actions. But is a consequence the same as a punishment? In this instance, I don't see it that way.
You've probably seen this wonderful Female Character Flowchart. I'd be curious to see where you would put Mattie. Starting at the top, I'd follow the straight line toward "Strong Female Character."
When I positioned Mattie alongside the Lehman/Luhr test, I came up with similar results: 5 out of 7! So you're right, overall, that is great for a Hollywood film, especially a Hollywood WESTERN — a genre that normally relegates women to the spheres of domesticity, education, or whoredom (is that even a word?!).
I completely understand your last point about Mattie's maiming, but I think that differentiating between "consequence" and "punishment" is tricky where female characters are concerned. May I say, however, that I am VERY glad Mattie didn't die, avoiding the same fate of most (independent/sexual) women in film noir, as Swank's (feisty independent) character in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, Kruger's (strong-headed and independent) character in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, Thelma and Louise, etc.? So at least there's that. =)
Yes, I have seen that flowchart (and was quite perturbed with where the author/creator placed Debra Barone). =) I'd agree with you: Mattie should be very near "Strong Female Character."
Looking forward to more discussions with you!
Nice post Kelli, though I am disappointed that you gave TRUE GRIT a C+. It was far better than average!
In particular, I loved the character of Mattie! In fact, as we exited the theater I said to my companions "I'm so glad Mattie didn't marry LeBeof!" That seemed to be where the film was headed. Yes, in ther 1800s to die an umarried woman would be s kind of punishment but Mattie seems to be a woman who did what she wanted and achieved what she wanted. If she had wanted a husband and family, she would have had one. Yes she dopes look severe and unhappy in the final scene but she kind of looked like that as a 14 year old as well–she's a serious woman with no time for tomfoolery! I thought this was a fantastic female character. I give it a B+!
Cannot imagine anyone wanting her to marry LeBoeuf–this notion totally misses the point of that relationship (a recognition of mutual grit among equals). Course, that tender scene between the two (replacing the scene in the other film where Mattie told off John Wayne's Cogburn for his drinking) may contribute to this silly notion. That said, I agree that the ending is deeply disappointing. I don't care that she's maimed, single, and alone. I care that she has no joy. No anima. No personality. The tone is downright wrong. i find the two characters completely distinct (young Mattie v. old Mattie), bearing no relation to the other There was a way to shift from the young to the old as represented in the film, but it would have required a more serious dampening of young Mattie's spirit AS VIEWED by the audience. Instead, we end up with a completely incomprehensible performance by the woman portraying the older Mattie Kinda ruined the film for me.
Hey, Karen — honestly, I never recognized the possibility of a romantic relationship between LaBoeuf and Mattie until people started commenting on my blog and discussing as much with me on Twitter. Sure, LaBoeuf threatened to kiss Mattie (while she lay in bed and he creepily watched her sleep) and he spanked her unnecessarily, but I never read that as "he had a thing for her." So when friends/colleagues/commenters began to say "At least Mattie didn't marry LaBoeuf," etc., I was taken aback. Rather, as you point out, I thought the relationship between the two was more about competition or "mutual grit."
Re: your thoughts on the end, I don't know that it completely "ruined the film" for me, but it did bother me enough to craft two blog posts about it, I suppose. =) Some have argued that the epilogue's tone seems right, in conjunction with the rest of the film. But, like you, I find Mattie's characters too distinct and, moreover, that the shift from young (feisty, determined) to old (severe, unhappy, steely) was too stark; it just didn't flow, in my opinion. If you're interested, here's someone else who didn't much care for the end but for different reasons than mine: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/201…
Thanks for reading and commenting!
I just saw the movie last night, and loved it—until the end, when the grown-up version of Mattie entirely shifted my feelings about the movie. The unpalatable adult Mattie mutes the terrific performances of the other actors. What were the Cohens thinking? Karen's comment sums my thoughts up: "I don’t care that she’s maimed, single, and alone. I care that she has no joy. No anima. No personality. The tone is downright wrong. i find the two characters completely distinct (young Mattie v. old Mattie), bearing no relation to the other There was a way to shift from the young to the old as represented in the film, but it would have required a more serious dampening of young Mattie’s spirit AS VIEWED by the audience. Instead, we end up with a completely incomprehensible performance by the woman portraying the older Mattie Kinda ruined the film for me."
Thanks for stopping by, Laura! Appreciate your comment.
The only problem I have with the arguments based on the final test is that I don't agree that the young Matti character's role in the movie should be viewed as a "woman." Though she is female, she is not punished with injury, or saved by Cogburn as a woman, but as a vulnerable child.
I also agree with Laura that the adult Matti was a total dissapointment. Not only in her attitude and outcome, but for the simple fact that she looked NOTHING like her child self.
I liked the 2010 version (as well the earlier one) however, somethings mentioned in the comments have triggered my comment, (1) Mattie doesn't shoot a shotgun, rather the ranger's Sharp's rifle which would have some recoil, I know a minor point) (2) a bit of history might help us understand Matties statement to the "James" fellow in the epilogue, of him being "trash", I conclude the two men were Cole Younger and Frank James, of Jesse James fame. The James brothers ran with the Quantril "raiders", remember the dialogue in the film, the banter between Damon and Bridges? I conclude that Mattie was referring to Frank Jame's relationship to the "raiders" and thus, being trash, instead of his not standing in her presence. (3) And this one bugs me, does Mattie state in the epilogue that a "quarter of a century" had passed since her "adventure with Cogburn? Add 25 years to 14 and you get a 39 year old woman and yet Mattie appears more like in her 60's in the epilogue. In the novel itself, I think it mentions that Mattie is talking in 1928, about something that happened when she was 14. The dates, the depictions of age in Mattie, doesn't fit, or have I missed something. Cogburn character easily in his 50's when Mattie is 14, and I don't see him living another 50 years and dying just a bit before her attempted visit with him. And her mentioning that the Ranger woulda been in his 70's. I dunno. I'll have to rent it on DVD and play that part over agin to get the dialogue down.
I put off commenting for weeks and weeks while I sorted out just what I thought of the ending of 'True Grit' (2010). Because, despite agreeing with so much of your analysis and being devoted to feminist criticism, I found that I much preferred the ending of the new film to the 1969 version. While Mattie does lose her arm (which makes more sense than the ending of the original film), she seems less subjugated to masculine authority than the earlier film Mattie. In 1969, Mattie (and the audience) are left in awe of Rooster/Wayne/patriarchy's mastery. While Rooster is a bit of a cad and a drunk, those things do not matter in the end. The image we are left with is a fat, old, one-eyed man jumping his horse over a four-rail fence – patriarchy's triumph captured in iconic freeze frame. True Grit 2010 doesn't allow this, which I am drawn to. There is a respect for Rooster and a fondness or gratefulness, but the story remains Mattie's and is not shifted as it is in the original film. I feel like that has to count for something.
Also, while I can see how Mattie's disfigurement can be read as punishment (part of what I had to sort out), I can't help but read her manner at the end of the film as a progression of younger Mattie's disposition. While it has been a few weeks since viewing the film, there are few moments in the earlier part of the film where we see a joyful/happy Mattie. I do not see the older Mattie of the new film as downtrodden or depressed – nor do I see a problem with calling her steely (perhaps there is a connotation there I miss) – but simply as a woman whose "steeliness" in youth has been carried on and developed throughout her life (or overdeveloped, perhaps). Her disfigurement probably played a role in that, but the degree is entirely unclear for me. The Coens certainly play up her coldness at the end of the film bit more than necessary – the trash remark in the novel is made to Frank James, in comment on his despicable behavior in his youth – but I don't think that is a reason to discount the epilogue completely.
On a related note, I'll soon be posting my culminating paper for my MA on my blog – "Come see a fat, old man sometime!" Aging and Masculinity in True Grit (1969) and Unforgiven. I'll also be presenting a modified version of it at PCA/ACA in San Antonio.
Hey again — thanks for that thoughtful comment. When I suggested on Twitter that you "rebut my blog post," I meant to write one of your own (since you'd supposedly been "neglecting your blog"). But, hey, this'll work too. =)
As I posted somewhere — either under this post or the first one I wrote on True Grit — I wonder if my interpretation of the Coens's epilogue would differ had I read the book or seen the original film, knowing that, in the book at least, Mattie is apparently more complex as well as perhaps even more feminist and less "steely" than what we're allowed in those last few minutes.
I'll be in San Antonio too. Unless my presentation runs at the same time, I'll definitely come to yours!
You make some very good points, Saralyn. But I still feel the ending to the 2010 True Grit film is a disappointment. Mattie's disfigurement doesn't repel me, and I like that she isn't subjugated to masculine authority. However, thinking about the film on its own and not compared to the John Wayne star vehicle, I still dislike the essence of the character at the end. To me, she is chilling. Feminist and independent doesn't have to be played that way. I wish they'd selected another actress who could portray all of Mattie's strength and independence in maturity, as well as the wear and tear of living as a spinster in that time, without having the character come across as so very unappealing, empty, no trace of her young self remaining.
I finally just saw this movie and loved it. But I was disturbed by the epilogue, so I've been googling and found your posts. Interesting about the idea of her being "punished." But what struck me (and I realize my issue might be with the author of the book, not the movie which was faithful to it) was what I perceived to be a limited view of femininity. The message I got from the film is that a girl can be smart, brave, and educated, OR she can love and be loved by a man and her children. In real life, the best of femininity is full-orbed and women can do all of the above. I love the Biblical picture, the Proverbs 31 woman, who is more what I think a Mattie Ross would grow into, rather than a dried up woman who chose not to love or be loved.
What bothered me about the "Keep your seat, trash!" line, was the fact that she barked it to an elderly man, and elders are not required to stand for a lady. Besides, her insult revealed she was no lady to stand up for, after all.
I'm sorry the story didn't have the happy ending this reviewer had hoped for. The fact is, it represented the hardships of life in those times. Going on a manhunt with hardened criminals and expecting to come out unscathed is what the critic would prefer to believe, but this would be hollywood fake and certainly not Coen brothers worthy.
If anything, it is meant to be a sort of reprise of "The Count of Monte Cristo" in showing that obsession with revenge is always a dangerous and ultimately unrewarding experience. The marshal's did this only for their career and the money rather than a personal revenge fantasy.
I believe this was apparent when she smiled while taking the shot into his chest, sending her into the pit with the snakes. The satisfaction of killing him had its punishment. This seemed clear enough to me.
If you want a nice, heartwarming ending where everyone survives without a scratch, you should look to the Disney movies rather than the Coen brothers' films. As it ends up, most of their films have a dark twist or warped sense to them. They are supposed to be gritty and realistic, while sometimes making a deeper point. They are not "Blade" or "The Matrix", leaving you with a dead or imprisoned antagonist and a happy protagonist with a witty one-liner to go out on.
However, if you are obsessed with a female protagonist that always comes out on top, there is that flop, Elektra, the other movie about a "Sky pirate", and Aeon Flux. These may be more your style anyhow, as they all have happy endings like you prefer (I haven't seen any of these, yet I am 99% sure of being right on this).
I think this was a great movie. Obviously with all the award nominations, the movie industry agrees with me. Jeff Bridges was excellent, as he has been in all his recent movies.
I liked that there wasn't an ultimate bada$$ character like in most films. Even though LeBeouf was seen as a fool, he ends up being fairly competent after all. The doctor with the bear skin was also a great scene, as it seemed preposterous at one point, but shortly after, seems totally acceptable and even seeming likely. This movie seemed as close to a realistic situation without being too dry and boring.
To add one last point to my above comment, consider her loss of a limb equal treatment for women, as Rooster was missing an eye. It seems chasing outlaws isn't the safest profession after all.
I've read through some (not all) of these posts. And I'd like to weigh in on the adult Mattie character.
The first thing in her dialogue is 'a quarter century is a long time' to me this implies lifetimes have passed since the event in this movie. A lifetime of Mattie growing into a woman unable to support her family in the same way bc of the loss of her arm, without a father and 25 more years of possible tragedy that isn't made known to us. What she does tell ius s that she did not marry, 'bc she didn't have time to be bothered with it' As I see mattie's character, she is very driven by huge expectations of right and wrong. My most poignant example of this is her wanting to stop riding to save little blackie when she herself would have died. I don't think Mattie is single bc she is maimed, or an 'old spinster' I really do think she takes life seriously and finds that marriage was too much of a bother, too many uncontrollable factors. She made a conscious decision not to do it. And if anything was proid of herself for it. I think seeing her in any other light (spinster without an arm) is a detriment to her character. She succeeded in life as only SHE would. And that dude shoulda stood up.
I find it funny that the feminists here think that a woman who is portrayed as a disfigured miserable and lonely sad old woman is a bad thing yet I look at it as the woman has true grit she lost her father figure at a young age and spent time in the company of an older harsh bastard who saved her life as a child. To me she is not a "spinster" but a woman who knows exactly what she wants, she chose to live alone because no men in her life were like damon or bridges characters, who impacted her life in a very large way. Appalled really that women think that just because a character has made her own choices and because she ISN'T married that she is portrayed as unhappy alone and sad, thats pathetic. The film was very good, the coen brothers did a remarkable job with the actors and I think that any other portrayal of mattie at the end would have ruined the film for me.
regards Mr Frosty
Mattie grew up a no-nonsense, resolute individual, someone society would deem as crotchety or sexually undesirable to the opposite gender and socially undesirable to those of her same gender. She defies the conventions of 19th century conservative society. To me, she represents the kind of person who is indifferent to those pressures and tendencies to stay within and maintain a repressive paradigm. If you want to call her a “bitch”, fine, I suppose, but that’s often the unfortunate burden for women to bear even today if they demonstrate the kind of resolve and fortitude to succeed. I see her as a strong figure, the kind of person who does and says what she wants, even though she may be “judged” for her assertive clarity and verbosity. It is clear that she is sentimental, and has a place for those who have proven their worth and loyalty to her and to her concept of “the good”. Portis indeed reflects upon the limited portrayal of femininity, because society then and still does tend to have a limited concept of what is “acceptable” feminine behavior. With that epilogue, I walked away with great admiration for Mattie’s character. It’s unfortunate that she didn’t live in an age where there had been a little more progress and appreciation for the kind of woman she’d become.