On Christmas Day, the husband and I took in three movies: True Grit, The Fighter, and Black Swan. Here’s my analysis of the first one…
The Good
First, like many Hollywood westerns, True Grit boasts grand cinematography. Although barren deserts, leafless forests, and muddy streams don’t sound particularly majestic, they can be — especially when framed by someone who understands the significance of land/landscape to the American western. After all, in this genre the scenery often surfaces as a character itself as well as an extension of the western hero/cowboy; it is both the terrestrial progenitor from which he (and occasionally she) is brought forth and that which he ultimately seeks to tame.
Fortunately, the Coen brothers know this. Lovingly, they frame the land and the (human) characters. Extreme long shots like the first three below position the main players and their bodies as small and insignificant amid the Body of the West, mere specks of dust that must work doubly hard to tame this vast unruly force of nature. Yet in the last two shots, the characters appear at one with the scenery, the costumes, background, lighting complementing one another naturally. Either way, the viewer of True Grit can tell that the characters both fall and rise up from their surroundings, which in turn, make them what they are:
- gritty and washed-up (Jeff Bridges’s Ruben “Rooster” Cogburn)
- hopeful and braggadocios (Matt Damon’s Mr. LeBoeuf)
- fearless and determined (Hallie Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross)
As a result, I agree with Roger Ebert’s review of Roger Deakins’s cinematography: it “reminds us of the glory that was, and can still be, the Western.” (More fantastic screenshots like the ones below may be found at the True Grit Wiki.)
The second element of True Grit I appreciate is the somber nondiegetic music that opens and closes the film and is softly peppered throughout, a leisurely-paced instrumental version of the nineteenth-century hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.”
Though they claim True Grit is too violent for kids, several Christian review sites are recommending the film not only because of the message of this hymn (e.g., both we and Mattie rest on God’s everlasting arms), but also because of the opening title card, which features Proverbs 28:1 (“The wicked run away when no one is chasing them”), and Mattie’s voiceovers, which reference prayers and “the grace of God.” One site even claims that True Grit is one of those rare Hollywood movies that “doesn’t back down from Christianity, keeping in step with the faith foundation many early Americans had in that time” (CBN).
While I can appreciate this reading, it is not completely accurate; the film focuses much more on violence, death, kidnapping, murder, and vengeance than faith, God, or nineteenth-century Christian values. Additionally, these characters do not rely on faith or religion to survive or attain their goals, but on themselves, the landscape, and each other. Still, the incorporation and repetition of this sobering version of “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” is powerful and sets the tone. (More on the hymns and music in True Grit here.)
The Problematic
With that said, at least four elements of True Grit bother me enough to grade it with a slightly above average score (C+):
First, at times, I can see Jeff Bridges and Hallie Steinfeld acting. I’m not 100% sure how to describe this, but what I mean is that the actors do not seem fully invested in certain scenes, most of which take place at the beginning of the film, e.g., when Cogburn is on the courtroom stand, when Mattie approaches Cogburn for the first time (face to face, not outside the out-house), and when Cogburn (drunk and in pajamas) finally agrees to take on Mattie’s request to find her father’s killer, Tom Chaney. In these scenes, Bridges’s and Steinfeld’s eyes do not seem truly focused on what’s or who’s before them, and their bodies appear tight and awkward when they speak and react; they’re not nearly as natural as they are in the middle and end of the film. In any event, all of this is distracting and takes me out of the diegesis.
Second, the characters annoyingly avoid contractions. After I complained about this on Twitter, a couple of friends responded that Charles Portis’s book (from which this film is apparently very faithfully adapted) doesn’t employ contractions either. In fact, a reviewer from The Daily Beast praises True Grit (both film and book) because it is “written in that vernacular, the speech of people who, while they may have been illiterate, were raised on readings of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, an English practically devoid of contractions and Latinate words.” Okay, perhaps these are historically accurate representations of “the rhythms and cadences of late-19th century Southern speech,” and maybe they work on the page. But onscreen, phrases like I do not and I cannot and She will not sound stilted and unnatural, especially flowing out of the mouths of southern characters who are habitually known to slur their words.
Third, Bridges’s “Rooster” Cogburn is too gruff. Yes, Cogburn’s supposed to be grizzly, gruff, and crotchety: “The meanest one is Rooster Cogburn,” a man in the film informs Mattie. “He is a pitiless man, double-tough, and fear does not enter into his thinking. He loves to pull a cork.” All of this is fine and perfectly in sync with the genre, etc. However, at the start of the film, Bridges’s voice is too gruff, too grating. Rather than suggesting huskiness and “double-toughness,” it resembles a middle-aged man personifying his chain-smoking grandfather. When he spews his lines, the actor’s throat rattles and sounds an octave too deep — and not in a good way like Johnny Cash or any of the Baldwin brothers.
[Please note: spoiler about the film's ending below.]
Finally, I found myself frustrated by True Grit‘s conventional ending. Before I explain this, I should point out that much of True Grit is unconventional, at least where female characters are concerned. This is one reason I wanted to see the film. For example, normally in westerns, frontierswomen represent “the forces of civilization, embodying the values of family, community, education, domestication, and cultivation that informs the male hero’s transformation of the wilderness into a garden” (Belton 251). In brief, women and girls are relegated, as many were in “real life,” to a secondary status that revolved around domesticity and familial stability. However, in True Grit, Mattie does not fit this bill. While her motives to find Tom Chaney are grounded in family duty and pride, her essence, business sense, hard-headedness, and fearlessness have nothing to do with domestication or civilization. At fourteen, she is independent and active.
If I were teaching right now, I’d ask, “Because Mattie is independent and active, what will likely happen to her?” And my film students would respond: “She will probably be punished.” That’s right; in typical Hollywood fashion, Mattie is punished for her independent and strong-willed ways. Frustration! Throughout the film, I’ve seen Mattie bargain for what she wants, brave the elements, and kill her father’s murderer. And what does she receive in return? A snake bite that causes her to lose an arm and live the remainder of her life as “an old maid.” (Mattie’s also saved in the end by Cogburn and LeBoeuf, another typical fate for independent women.)
Mattie’s closing voiceover informs the viewer that she never found love or married because she “just didn’t find the time for it.” On its own, that’s acceptable. Women don’t need to marry; women don’t have to “find the time” for romance if they are off doing other things. But that’s not quite the message from the film (or from Hollywood in general). You see, when onscreen women are scarred, marred, maimed, etc. they are usually no longer viable in the world; they do not fit in and/or are unaccepted (see my post “Stars and Scars” for more).
In the case of True Grit, Mattie’s autonomy in her youth leads her to become a (disfigured) spinster — a term/stereotype that carries with it a social stigma of ugliness (e.g., her amputation removed her potential beauty and marriageability), frumpiness, downtroddenness, and depression. Another term that fits here is steely, which is unfortunately, but expectedly, how several critics describe the adult Mattie at the film’s end.
Some Updates
12/27/10: I’ve written a follow-up post “True Grit, Mattie’s Fate, and Testing Onscreen Women.” Please read it before you comment on my thoughts here.
12/28/10: I never intended to spend this much time thinking and writing about True Grit as it wasn’t a film that greatly affected me as I watched it. But since I have lived with, researched, and discussed it with others for the past three days, I admit that I’ve come to appreciate the film more than I did after I exited the theater and subsequently wrote this post. Now, when I consider True Grit in its entirety, I see that what bothered me about it are relatively minor quibbles, some of which are even worked out as the film moves forward (e.g., Bridges eventually stops overacting, and both he and Steinfeld settle into the roles so that they I can’t see them acting anymore). So while I still find the epilogue problematic, I’m changing my grade from a C+ to a somewhere between a B and B+. (Btw, here’s another person who claims that including the epilogue is “not a good idea.”) =)
01/01/11: Somehow my (controversial!) thoughts about the ending of True Grit have become scattered about the Web; therefore, rather than commenting individually to each person/post, I thought I’d locate my responses here. After all, most of the people who disagree with me are debating the same thing — that my reading of the epilogue is too harsh and/or too reliant on film theory or previous onscreen representations of gender.
But here’s what else I’m also noticing: at least 80% of the people who disagree with me about the portrayal of adult Mattie have read the book on which the film is based. And according to those who’ve read Portis’s novel (again, I have not), Mattie grows up to be equally as independent and spunky as she was in the narrative proper; moreover, she apparently not only works at, but also owns and manages the town bank. In other words, her womanhood/personhood is not defined by her marital status, steely demeanor, or severed arm. As one online observer claims, “She was a spunky strong-willed girl who would do whatever it takes to get what she needs. Also, [in her youth] she was a shrewd bargainer and haggler. That would all pay off for her later in life as she becomes a well-to-do bank owner .” Another viewer who’s also read the novel writes, “[Adult] Mattie would sneer at the suggestion that she is ‘physically challenged.’ She is instead ‘a woman with brains and a frank tongue.’ She loves her church and her bank, expresses Scripture and platitudes of Presbyterian piety with black humor, and triumphs as a woman we can all admire.”
But I’m not sure the Coens’s epilogue shows us these attributes in full or at least in enough light that the viewer could read between the lines. Walking staunchly down a dirt road, exhuming a friend’s body, and calling a man who won’t rise in the presence of a woman trash does not necessarily equate to the character these viewers/readers are describing. I’m wondering, then, if my “opponents” are merging their experience/familiarity with the book’s characterization of Mattie and what they’re seeing/hearing onscreen. Similarly, as fellow blogger/Twitterer Craig Kennedy pondered yesterday on Twitter, I wonder if I (having read the book first) might do the same?
Related posts:
80 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- My Year in Film: 14 Favorites at Inessentials - [...] I give True Grit a B, she tells me, since it was easily an A- at least. (Much like ...
- Courage Don’t Use No Contractions » Language Year - [...] in the recent movie True Grit. A cursory search of the internet has produced several other blog and forum ...
Leave a Reply
I'm following
Instagrams
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,
Kelli, do you mean conjunctions (and, but, or) or contractions (don't, can't, won't)?
LOL! Thank you so much. I have lost my mind. Yes, I meant contractions!
Given your insightful and studied review, I thought C+ was a bit harsh. I rated it 8.5 out of 10, a solid, if unspectacular, B. … Matt Damon's out-of-place performance and the unnecessary demise of the pony Little Blackie kept it from being a grade-A film for me.
Poor Little Blackie! I had researched that part before I left the house so I knew when it was coming and I knew when to turn my head. =)
Yeah, honestly, it was between a B- and a C+.
Ken – I agree with both your points but still give this film five stars.
Kelli = I'm in agreement with your praise for the soundtrack and cinematography. Disagree with your take on the film's ending. I like how the heroine told her own story (a femeale rite-of-passage?) of adventure. The narrative at the end demonstrates Mattie continued to live life on her own terms and just as when she was 14, she never suffered fools.
Hi, Sherry — thanks for reading and commenting!
Yes, I agreed about the ending. I thought the point about her losing her arm was the one she gives at the beginning of the film, as a universal truth, that there will be a price for everything you want. It’s a price she pays freely and doesn’t regret in the book, if I remember rightly, although I did read it a long time ago.
I had just assumed they had ridden the horse to exhaustion and it was dying anyway. Shooting it was a mercy killing. Granted, they tortured the beast to get them to that point – but when it came down to it, it was the horse or the girl and Cogburn knew it when he first started off.
Look at it in this light: Cogburn is hurting – been shot, is hungover, nothing to eat and has been riding full-tilt all day. Mattie is dying in his hands – every second matters and yet he still sacrifices a few of them to shoot the horse to put it out of its misery.
To me it speaks to the kinder side of Cogburn. He is not a cruel person, but will make the tough decisions that need to be made.
I agree. You have to make tough choices in life. Back then especially. If a girl is dying of a snake bite and all you can do is ride this horse as far as you can to get to someone to save her life what are you going to do? Animal lover or not. A lot of people don't want to answer that question but we are in a different time. Back then that's all you would've had to get there in time to save this little girls life. So yes the killing of the horse honestly was out of mercy not hatred or anything like that. If a horse breaks his ankle they put them down even now a days. Because the pain is too much and it will never heal right. I don't personally like the practice but back then I completely understand it. 5*****
& honestly it makes this movie so much better because it makes it seem so much realer. 5*****
This is a really great review. The lack of contractions bugged me as well, to the point that at the mid point of the film I found myself asking "Why are these people talking in this way?". I appreciate that it's true to the book, so thank you for pointing it out.
I took Bridges' performance as a skilled actor trying very hard to give an iconic character a new face (i.e. he was desperately trying to avoid doing a John Wayne impersonation).
What I found as fascinating as anything was that it lacked the traditional Coen style. I still haven't decided if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I applaud them for taking a different approach and evolving as filmmakers.
Hi, John — thanks for reading and commenting! I think you may be right re: Bridges's performance and his wanting to avoid a John Wayne impersonation. That makes sense to me. Thankfully, he toned it all down as the film went along…
Nice write up on what you liked about the movie as well as what you found frustrating. Personally, I found the tension between Bridges and Steinfeld in their early scenes deliberate, needed to establish how their relationship changes. As for the ending…well, we already had a friendly Twitter dust-up about that (a tweet-up?), and I'll wait until your follow-up before going further. All I'll say for now is I think there's some symmetry between Mattie and Rooster (missing arm, missing eye) that's intentional. I also think that, in the context of the film, the Coens mean for "Leaning on Everlasting Arms" to be about the night he saves her life.
Hello again, Craig. Thanks for reading and commenting! Re: the hymn and its symbolic purpose, I agree 100%. Interesting point about the missing eye and missing arm. Wonder why those body parts and not others…
Both eyes and strong arms are needed to be a good shooter?
Re: eyes, I initially thought of Rochester in JANE EYRE whose blindness allows/causes him to "see" metaphorically. But like a pirate, Cogburn only loses one eye, which suggests toughness, grit (how apt!), etc. Also, see Charleton Heston's character from TRUE LIES, discussed further here: http://kellimarshall.net/unmuzzledthoughts/popcul…
Will have to think further about Mattie's arm…
I wonder if the symmetry isn't related to the way each character blurs the line between justice/law on the one hand and vengeance/revenge on the other. The statement being that blurring the line leaves the agent of justice him or herself maimed. Turning justice into vengeance leaves us maimed.
There could be a subtle statement about the death penalty here (I'm thinking of the hangings in the film: each portraying a different sort of person up for execution: unrepentant, repentant, and unable to express a voice in the system).
I couldn't agree more with your description of the action or less with your conclusions, though in your post-scripts it seems we are coming closer to agreement.
Before we get to the big question… Mattie's fate, let's look at this: "the film focuses much more on violence, death, kidnapping, murder, and vengeance than faith, God, or nineteenth-century Christian values."
The film is about violence, death, kidnapping, murder and vengeance, so naturally it focuses on those areas. However, it does so while portraying, with some consistancy, the character's relationship to god, faith and values. Interestingly, while Mattie seems to be a young lady of faith, she is far more likely to quote law than scripture. Also, it is important to realize that while she claims to seek justice, clearly it is vengence which is in her sights. What should it matter whether Chaney hangs in Texas or Arkansas? He is equally as guilty of crimes in one territory as the other, and the Texas one took place first. It matters to Mattie as a point of pride and vengence, not a one of justice. To me, what distinguishes this movie is not that it reinforce Christian values (I myself am not Christian) but that it portrays and addresses them.
"Additionally, these characters do not rely on faith or religion to survive or attain their goals, but on themselves, the landscape, and each other."
Would it be realistic for them to prosper because of a reliance on faith or religion? It's a cruel world they live in, and if they do not take care of themselves and rely instead on some unseen god to do their bidding, they will find themselves soon killed.
Your first three objections are matters of preference so we will just have to agree to disagree there. I felt the stiltedness at the beginning was intentional and conveyed the relationship between the characters which change over time. I like the contractionless speaking. It was authentic and colorful, with its own cadence. And I was able to understand Bridges throughout, so his gruffness was acceptable to me.
However the big disagreement is on Mattie's fate. First to call it traditional, is to ignore Hollywood's obsession with unrealistic happy endings and with the recent insistance that many heroins be tough as nails and traditionally feminine at the same time, that they (and their male counterparts for that matter) can pursue a life of adventure and danger, and end up not only with victory, but also romance and comfort.
This movie portrays a reality that existed in the time portrayed. There are two scenes with some "romance" attached. One where LeBoeff talks about stealing a kiss and one where the men are fighting over the campfire and there is clearly an undertow of sexual tension owing to Mattie's presence. In a traditional movie, these would both be winks to the eventual sorting out of relationships that would have Cogburn adopting Mattie and LeBeoff marrying her. But instead it is portrayed as what they are… grown men, one quite old revealing a sexual interest in a 14 year old girl based solely on the fact that she is there at the time.
Oddly, about the only character who treats her with any degree the respect due both a female and a child is Ned Pepper.
Mattie triumphs in the end. She gets what she came for. The head of Tom Chaney. She even gets to kill him herself. Does it really detract from the feminist message that in the end, a 14-year old girl gets to kill her target, but must rely on a US Marshall and Texas Ranger to survive the ordeal? She was smart enough to know she would need help. She never said she would do it all herself. That would be a fairy tale. Even participating in the hunt seemed outlandish, so playing a key role in the end would seem victory enough.
She comes out of the ordeal alive, losing only an arm, and not her life. To say that she is punished because she didn't grow up to be pretty and married is to attach a fairly traditional interpretation to the events. She appeared to grow into the adulthood that the 14 year old Mattie might have chosen for herself.
Are you afraid that young women will watch this movie and come away uninspired because Mattie didn't end up with Matt Damon at the end. I think instead, some will come away and think there are more ways for a woman to be successful in this world than to be beautiful and married.
Hi, Seth — that's a lot to think about! Thanks for reading/commenting.
I'll start here. You write, "To me, what distinguishes this movie is not that it reinforce Christian values (I myself am not Christian) but that it portrays and addresses them." I completely agree with you here as the film DOES address God, faith, prayer, etc. But I don't necessarily believe the movie does so in a way that some Christian websites are suggesting (or hoping?) it does. For example, just because the Coen brothers included "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" does not necessarily mean that they are promoting Christianity and that, as one reviewer claimed, a key message of the film is that both the viewer and Mattie find peace and security in (a Christian) God's arms. Hope that makes sense.
Re: my argument about the film's epilogue, did you happen to read my follow-up post, which (I hope!) explains more thoroughly what I mean when I say the end is problematic? http://kellimarshall.net/unmuzzledthoughts/popcul…
Again, thanks so much for stopping by and for putting so much thought into your comment(s). Much appreciated!
Thanks for your quick and thoughtful response to my response. To give you some background, I saw the film last night. Two of my friends had previously seen it and told me they hated the ending. I woke up this morning ready to debate its merits and neither friend was available. So I typed True Grit ending into Google and found your blog. Lucky me. I'm enjoying reading it.
Regarding the Christian thing, yes, the film might not be doing what the Christian blogs are crediting it with doing, but that's fine with me as I don't share their priorities. On the other hand, in a world where many Christians see the media as either pro- or anti-christian, perhaps they appreciate a film that is not Christian in theme, but includes a realistic depiction of Christianity without there being any easily assumable conclusions.
Now onto the follow up post. You quote a friend/colleague who says:
“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.
I didn't find her to be a "bitch" at the end. She was a realistic depiction of what that 14 year old girl would become in that place and time.
Think about it. She was already rather hard and cold and charmless, not to the filmgoer perhaps, but certainly to those who might encounter her. Now, take that 14 year old girl. Set her out on an adventure where she ends up killing a man and losing an arm. Now, send her back to her fatherless farm with a flighty mother and two children to raise.
At that point, she becomes an adult. She'd be running the farm and raising the family. Everybody in the area would know that she had hunted down and killed a hardened killer. Four or five years go by and she is now a young woman, perhaps attractive, but without the least bit of fun or charm about her. She spends her days running the family farm and business. Whom is she supposed to marry? She doesn't need a man for protection or for income. What do you think the men of that era had to offer to independent women who didn't need their protection or their money? Romance? Sex? Children? Maybe those things aren't important to Mattie. We haven't seen anything to indicate that they are.
As for the bitchiness, she's a tough woman. Women always complain that the same behavior that would be considered tough in a man is seen as bitchy in a woman, and yet here is your friend, presumably a feminist calling Mattie a bitch because she portrays a steely no-nonsense nature.
And now we have your test, seven questions, five of which produce a very favorable rating for this movie and two of which do not. However, your test is based on the conventions of movies past and present.
In those movies, no matter how tough a woman is, there is usually a time when a man must save her. Why? Because the woman also has to fall in love and how is she going to fall in love with somebody who isn't tougher than she is.
In this film, she is a 14 year old girl, traveling with a US Marshall and a Texas Ranger. How is she not going to be in need of some saving at some point? Also, it is a fairly even partnership. She is accorded no special treatment and in the end, all three do some killing and each of them rescues one of the others. So this film passes the rescue test as far as I can see.
The other place where this film doesn't quite pass your test is in that she ends up scarred physically. Traditionally, physical scarring is a form of punishment for a woman who is independent as usually expressed in sexual promiscuity.
But here, she's not a gangster's moll or prostitute getting scarred in the face. She's loses her arm after falling into a snake pit, due to the recoil of a shotgun that she uses to kill the killer of her father. That's a man's scar resulting from a man's heroism. Besides, everybody ends up scarred in this movie. Cogburn has a missing eye from the outset and LeBeoff almost loses his tongue. In fact, in this movie, the scars are reversed in their traditional gender roles (see I read your blog). The men have the facial scars and the girl has the symbolic penile amputation.
That's my point, everything about this movie is non-traditional, so you can't use those traditional tools to mention it. There aren't any conversations between two women in this film, because the whole point of it is that this girl is going where only the hardest of men venture. And of course every conversation Mattie has is about a man, but it's not the man she wants to marry, it's the one she wants to kill.
I don't think the solution to society's ways of seeing women is to portray women doing things traditionally done by men and then to reward them with endings traditionally prized by women. It is to say that all actions are accessible to both women and men and that each individual gets to chose their own happy ending.
Hear, hear! See my similar comments on Lance Mannions's blog (link above). They also involve the Coens visual strategy linking the ending to the ending of Unforgiven and the overall structure of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Sorry George. Would love to read your comment, but can't find the link. I just posted below and referenced Liberty Valance.
I'd love to see a modern re-telling of that, film, one of my all-time favorite westerns.
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/201…
I really enjoyed your perspective Kelli, even if I disagreed with parts of it.
I agree that Bridges pushes the line of overacting, especially early on in the film, but for me it works. He's a colorful character, full of bluff and bluster and Bridges plays it up.
I'm not so troubled by Mattie being "saved" by men because she is after all 14-years-old and up to a point she takes care of herself much better than you'd expect from someone much older.
I believe much of Mattie's spinsterhood stems from her personality in that time and place (the south in the 1870s). Being a strong-willed, independent woman she was more than a little ahead of what society expected of her. It's not a surprise she may have been more than a typical suitor could handle.
As for her arm, I think it's largely symbolic of the effects of her journey. It represents the loss of a part of her, her innocence perhaps, as she adventures off the map into the face of evil. She gets the justice she's looking for, but not without a price. As she says at the beginning of the film, there is nothing free in this world but the grace of God.
For me, it's a bittersweet ending. Mattie lives a long and seemingly successful and happy life, but she never again saw the two people with whom she spent her greatest adventure.
Plus, as with the lack of contractions, the film follows the novel almost exactly. The ending is in the movie as it is in the novel. To change it as they did in the 1969 film I think is a mistake.
I agree that keeping the stylization of the dialog is an odd choice though it works for me. The story has almost a dreamlike quality like events relived as a memory. Mattie is reliving and relaying her story through writing as a woman many years after the fact and the dialog reflects that.
Seth and Craig — again, thanks for stopping by. I've written an(other) addendum to the post (see 01/01/11 above). I'm not sure that it addresses all of your questions/comments, but I think it touches on a few of them.
Hi, Kelli. Happy New Year and thanks for continuing this interesting conversation.
I have never read the book, though I am now curious to do so. The only thing unique to my viewing experience was that I had heard from friends who had seen the film before me, that the ending was controversial. One told me he liked the whole film till the last five minutes and another said that he didn't think it was particularly great and the ending was particularly unsatisfying. Neither told me their was an epilogue, so I went in expecting some kind of real downer ending. I was ready to see Chaney get away, or Mattie die.
And yes, I will admit that my initial response to this epilogue was a certain amount of disappointment. After all their bickering, I was looking forward to seeing some sort of celebration with the three protagonists. I was ready to see a slightly older Mattie letting LeBoeff steal that kiss and to see them pair up. I was ready to see her grow up to be beautiful and prosperous. And if none of these was in the offing, I was ready to see some indication that a sequel was in the works. I'm a sucker for a Hollywood ending.
What we got was the antithesis of the above. And I will admit that had I not been alerted to the controversy about the ending, I might too have walked away disappointed. But instead, I walked away wondering why two of the most fun-giving filmakers every to point a camera gave us such a joyless ending.
The comments I've posted here are the results of that wondering. And I applaud the courage of filmmakers who are making a big commercial film, who choose to give you 90 minutes or so of excitement and then an ending that makes you think rather than cheer. I also applaud a movie that makes me want to read the book, rather than one that leaves waiting for a sequel.
As for the information that is available to readers of the book that isn't available to the rest of us, I think it's clear to anybody that she is a prosperous woman, as well as a fearless one who does what she wishes and cares not a whit for what anybody thinks of her.
Assuming that you are a woman who has lost an arm at the age of 14. What would be more valuable to you: a face so pretty that nobody notices the missing arm, or confidence so ingrained that you don't care if anybody if anybody notices or not? I think we all try to raise our daughters with the second option in mind. We'd like them to grow up pretty (and with two arms) but isn't it more important that they grow up with enough sense of self that they can carry on their lives whether the world thinks they're pretty or not?
We don't know that she is a banker, but we do know that she has saved her family farm and kept it going all these years. That's no small thing for a 14 year old girl whose father has been murdered, leaving her more or less in charge of the family. That she is actually more prosperous than that is interesting to know, but we are told at the very beginning of the film what is important to Mattie, and we see at the end that all of her travails have not altered her sense of purpose or her values at all.
She calls a man trash for not rising. It today's world, we would be suspicious of a man who rises in the presence of a lady. That seems like antiquated behavior in the post-feminist age and we would think a guy like that might also think a woman belongs in the home, raising kids and fixing meals.
So, when he doesn't rise, we don't think anything of it. So, it takes us by surprise when she says that. It's funny, but it also shows us how fearless she continues to be. She just called a notorious outlaw trash. And she didn't do it in her home or in her church. She did it, basically in his home, with no concern with how he might respond to the insult. She's still got true grit.
I was disappointed to see that in this world where men like Younger, James and Cogburn live off the spinning (and embellishing) of yarns, nobody even knows the incredible story of what she and Cogburn did 25 years ago. Younger and James don't know who she is. I cared about that. But she didn't. She doesn't tell them who she was to Cogburn.
That, in addition to the fact that we find out she hasn't seen either of her companions over the last 25 years, tells us that she has not at all been living in the past. It was something that happened. It brought her vengence at the price of an arm, and she has moved on.
The epilogue reminded me of a few other films. The retrieval of the casket reminded me of Lonesome Dove as well as the bookends of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. But something in the flat delivery of the narration reminded me of the elderly Rose at the end of Titanic as she matter of factly tells us what became of her former fiance and others. Of course Rose had the life we perhaps hoped for Mattie. Prosperity and adventure, but also romance, marriage and grandchildren. But she tells us that the thing she learned from Jack was to grasp life and live it. That she found a husband and raised a family is wonderful, but what we celebrate is that she lived a life. In the end of that film, she tossed the gem back into the sea, and many wondered why. It was because she preferred it to be her private mystery and because she knew that the pursuit of such prizes only lead to unhappiness.
I think the ending of True Grit is as satisfying as the ending of Titanic, only in a far more realistic way.
"I applaud the courage of filmmakers who are making a big commercial film, who choose to give you 90 minutes or so of excitement and then an ending that makes you think rather than cheer. I also applaud a movie that makes me want to read the book, rather than one that leaves waiting for a sequel."
Agree with you on this 100%. Call a truce? ;o)
Truce? I didn't realize we were fighting. Thought it was just a spirited exchange of ideas. If you are saying, in a nice way, enough already… shut up, okay, then, truce.
Really enjoy the blog. Will continue to read.
Happy New Year.
Ha! Nope, not saying that at all. Only kidding around; you don't have to "shut up," by any means! At this point, I just don't know that I have much else to add to the conversation I haven't already rehashed here, elsewhere, and in my mind before I fall asleep at night. =)
Thanks for the nice comments about my blog, and Happy New Year to you as well!
Kelli
Again, hear, hear! The ending is vital to the Coens conception of the film and of Mattie, whose virtues, both innate and acquired, are those of one who would not go gently into the world of lax manners and corrupt mores. They also explain her reserve despite having a better story to tell than almost anyone around her (allowing, of course, that she has set it down in either novel or screen narrative form). Adult Mattie is the logical, if unromantic, conclusion of teen Mattie. Un-Hollywood, but bracingly of a piece with the Coen canon.
True Grit.
What an interesting website – something of a 'find'.
The stimulating comments certainly allowed me to put my own reflections on the film into some sort of context. Out on release in UK in early 2011.
Just a small point about men [not] rising to greet a woman. In my circles, men always rise when a woman enters the room. Perhaps this is just Old World [European] courtesy? This said, I thought the trash remark was directed more at the fact that Mattie knew
that she was in the presence of former outlaws – the sort of men she despised.
Regards
Theo S
She calls a man trash for not rising. It today’s world, we would be suspicious of a man who rises in the presence of a lady. That seems like antiquated behavior in the post-feminist age and we would think a guy like that might also think a woman belongs in the home, raising kids and fixing meals.
Thanks for stopping by, Theo, and for commenting. Much appreciated!
I just watched the movie myself and what brought me to your blog was my search for other people's reactions to the lack of contractions.
I would, however, like to comment on your characterization of Mattie. My wife and I have not read the book that it is based on (nor have we see the John Wayne version that predates it) but we both came out of the movie with different opinions of the ending. As she was played as a child I saw a strong young woman who never let anyone stand in her way – and I saw no reason for that interpretation to be lost just because she reached adulthood. She didn't suffer fools gladly and frankly bullied everyone who she felt she had an edge over – my fervent hope throughout the movie was that she didn't ever lose these traits, they were refreshing and powerful.
When we saw her as an adult she walked upright, proudly and was dressed rather nicely. She could obviously support herself enough to get a train ticket train (afford the time off?) and even re-bury a friend, which I can't imagine was a cheap endeavor. As an adult you still saw the unapologetic attitude and matter-of-fact demeanor. Because of this, I walked out of the theater thinking that Mattie didn't get married because she was too busy being Mattie – she had no regrets about it and we shouldn't either.
Hi, Eric. Thanks for reading and commenting! Honestly, I'm more curious why you were "searching for other people's reactions to the lack of contractions." What was your impression about the film's language? Apparently it intrigued you or bothered you enough to search the Web! =)
Hey Kelli,
Interestingly, I had a similar reaction to it that other people have expressed – it was jarring at some points and made me think about the movie while I was watching it. Since I actually enjoy that experience, it wasn't such a problem – but it did get me thinking.
As we left the theater, my wife and I discussed the topic of contractions. I thought it was a wonderful idea as I considered the phrase "I do not …" as being superior to "I don't …" for expressing significant preference. The spacing between the two contracted words, to my ears, gave them more weight and even seemed to punctuate the expression with its archaic usage – it stood out and therefore made it more meaningful. Because of this interpretation, I tended to think that the directors did this on purpose especially because a lot of the phrases were repeated by different characters at different times. This is something I notice happens in Coen films and in my arrogance and heady insight, I was prepared to believe it was entirely a Coen invention.
My wife, however, is firmly grounded in reality and mentioned that this was a normal way that a lot of books from/about that period are written. Neither of us had read the original but she seemed certain that if we examined the text, it would likely have no contractions as well.
She is inherently smarter than I, and with her interpretation and the knowlege that the Coen's tend to stay true to the source material, I felt it should be researched more.
This blog and a few other boards have shown that the answer is obviously more inline with my wife's assertions – though I hold out hope that the directors were also giving it their unique branding.
Lastly, I agree with your review about Cogburn and Mattie not being convincing at the beginning. I had the same issues – they seem like entirely different people in the beginning than the the ones we see on the trail.
I think your points about an actress in film is intersting except for this version – having read the novel as a kid – and not liking it way back then becuase it did not end like the John Wayne version – it's was a real trip to see it now and understand what the real message was – the intro with the proverb – where the wicked flee.. look up the meaning.
True Grit as a novel was very biblical- Ididn't understand that as a kid, and part of why Mattie was bit by the snake was the price for wanting so badly to kill Chaney. The film was very clever in it's shot of her huge smile when she blasts him – and her imeediate fall into a pit with snakes.
Her price is her arm – no Luke Sywalker sci fi fashing a fake so you don't notice in this one, lol.
Ecellent film and imagery will last me forever.
Thanks for the biblical context. I'm no bible scholar, but I just thought the proverb at the top was a reference to the fact that Chaney fled, but could have just as easily walked out of town. However, reading some writings about the proverb tells me that it is about Mattie as much as Chaney, because the next line is about the righteous acting boldly. That she certainly does, but she is actually perhaps too bold. She pursues not just justice, but vengence (which we are told is not ours to obtain) and certainly she is a woman with a great deal of pride. Pride, we are told, goes before a fall, and her proudest moment is followed by her fall into, of all things, a snake pit.
There is so much to this film. Like an onion with layers pealing one after another.
There is so much to this film. Like an onion with layers pealing one after another.
Agreed. Although admittedly, I didn't expect quite as much [layering] immediately after I exited the theater. A testament of a quality film, yes? (My impression of the ending notwithstanding, of course.) =)
Hi, Lurking — thanks for sharing your experience about the book, first adaptation, and then this one. I think you're quite right about the snake scene and the narrative's biblical allusions (e.g., snake/Adam/Eve, punishment, acting independently, etc.). All of this discussion is making me want to read Portis's novel, but alas, these Cinema History syllabi await… =(
Do yourself a favor and catch up with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and review Unforgiven before hitting the syllabi — they'll really put True Grit in context.
Hi, again! Yes, LIBERTY VALANCE is on my list of films to watch, my huge ever-growing list. =)
I actually include UNFORGIVEN in my Intro to Film class on representations of gender and film (e.g., the prostitute's facial scarring, her being called "damaged property," etc.). We also consider it in Cinema History when we discuss the resurgence of the western in the 80s and 90s — and how it differs drastically from its contemporaries.
FWIW, I like UNFORGIVEN; it's a beautiful if dark film. I like that there are no clear good guys. I like the inclusion of Morgan Freeman in a western. Honestly, I have a soft spot for Eastwood's direction. That he can shoot quality films like MYSTIC RIVER, MILLION DOLLAR BABY (yuck), and GRAN TORINO in virtually a month's time just impresses me to no end.
For my money, the Eastwood Westerns, especially the late ones, are his best work. They are both classic and critical, which is why I always pair Unforgiven (or precede it) with at least of couple of prior masterpieces. It works well with Liberty Valance, obviously, as well as The Searches, Red River, and The Man from Laramie, as is a good contrast with The Wild Bunch.
I never really paired Unforgiven and Liberty Valance together before, other than them both being among my favorite Westerns. Clearly though, what they both share is an examination of the old West as it really was versus the old West that has been offered up to us as legend. Another film that addresses this, satirically and not as successfully as these two is the oddball Charles Bronson comedy "From Noon Till Three." That's right. I said Charles Bronson comedy.
The Deadwood series addresses this two, especially the finale, "Tell Him Something Pretty." In a sense, it's about what most westerns and most movies tend to do, take an ugly truth and turn it into something pretty for our entertainment.
This version of True Grit addresses these same themes without including a reporter or dime novelist to highlight the contrast between the true story and the story as told. In fact, by including the exchange between Mattie and the two men who helped turn the old west into the stuff of legends, we learn that this is a story that remained private, known only to the men and woman who participated in it.
In a separate blog referenced here, belonging to Lance Mannion, the blogger bemoans the lack of stunt casting in some of the roles, such as Frank James and Cole Younger. Yes, certainly The Coen Brothers could have gotten any number of interesting celebrities to play those cameos. But I think it was a choice, and a good one, not to cast Robert Duvall as Cole Younger.
By the way, Kelli, I envy you the experience of seeing Liberty Valance for the first time. I first saw it when I was 12 and have enjoyed it several times since. It contains one of my all time favorite lines of dialogue, though I won't quote it till we are in the Liberty Valance discussion after you watch it.
Thank you for articulating what disturbed me most about the film—the ending. To me, and I haven't read the book, the ending seemed to portray Mattie as a bitter, disfigured old maid. She was punished, as you say, for being a strong independent spirit. Why not show her as the fulfilled, well to do bank president as she is supposedly portrayed in the book? As presented in this film, her adult life seemed somewhat grim—more what she was not than who she came to be. Although I liked her character and commanding presence in the film (I haven't seen the John Wayne film, so I don't know how that ended), but I think your analysis of the ending is right on. I want to see strong, independent women in film not be killed at the end (Thelma and Louise)or end up with constricted lives. That doesn't seem to happen to young male characters in film who are on the cusp of adulthood and successfully complete a mission. The filmmakers had a choice and they chose not to portray her in the end as a well-to-do businesswoman, which is curious if they were supposedly being faithful to the book.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Ellie! I appreciate your response. It's funny: I tweeted this statement earlier today before I read your response. The percentage still stands (for now at least): http://twitter.com/KelliMarshall/status/219311651…
One last thought from another discussion.
If you ever saw The Searchers, look at the final scene – it's kind of unavoidable since it's considered a classic symbol of the closing of a door to the old west -with Ethan looking in and but walking away with his back to the camera as the door shuts.
That kind of reminds me of then of this – with the sillouhette of the one armed old woman dressed from here era, walking away, story ended.
Hi, Lurking — yes, you're right; that shot keeps resurfacing in films, doesn't it? There were actually a few of Ford's "darkened framed door" shots in True Grit. If you're interested, I've also written about Tarantino's use of the same in the opening of Inglourious Basterds: http://kellimarshall.net/unmuzzledthoughts/popcul…
Sorry for the last add on- but when I read the book as a kid, I didn't pick up on Mattie as a successful business woman in the end. I was haunted by the idea of her having one arm, and Roosters and the deputies fates being lost. I recall it was obvious she was content with her existence, but I wouldn't call it happiness, since in the end, it was Rooster who meant the most to her.
I guess I'm saying, from a 12-14 yrold mind at the time – I wanted the Laura Ingalls Wilder version – this book wasn't that – in hindsight, it was a different vein – more like lonesome dove and probably more realistic of the times.
Whew.. that is all, lol!
Not surprising that as a kid reading the book, the notion of her losing the arm would have overshadowed everything else for you. When I was that age, if I would see an amputee or a disfigured person, it would stay with me for days. There was a one-armed man who worked at my parent's bank branch and I remember being both terrified and fascinated by it.
Oddly though, as adults, we seem to be similarly obsessed with a character's marital status and/or spinsterhood as a sign of their happiness or success in life.
So many commenters, here and elsewhere, are pointing to the fact that Mattie never marries as a sign that God or the filmmakers felt a need to punish her for her independence.
It's true that in the end, Mattie doesn't seem happy in the way we define happiness today. But who in the film is? Rooster is a hard drinking man who does as he pleases. LaBoeff is a prideful dandy. But do we see either of them having much fun or smiling much? They were different times and not as fun loving as our world is today.
I also think it's a mistake to tie her happiness to the loss of Rooster in her life. He was the lead character in an adventure that was probably the most notable event in her life and in the end, he saved her. But, while she retrieved his body, buried it in a plot on her property which she visited it from time to time, we also know that prior to that, she went about her business for 25 years without hearing from him or attempting to contact him. And the same goes for the younger and handsomer LaBoeff.
In the end, she gives his body a fit burial as an act of gratitude to a man who did her a service 25 years earlier and to honor a man who would have otherwise lied dead and forgotten.
If her visiting of his grave indicated any emptiness or loneliness, we are in no position to say that the loneliness defined her.
Mattie had her life, and happy or sad, fulfilling or not, this movie does not concern itself with it, save for the journey she undertakes in search of vengence and its aftermath.
The post-adventure Mattie is not defined by her lack of an arm or a husband. It is we, the viewers, who are calling that out as more important than it is.
worthless review. yes, let's update the language used so you are more comfortable. while we are at it, let's do the same to shakespeare, melville, et al.
stop reviewing movies for adults.
You are a dumb bitch that has no life and sits on the Internet all day and writes degrading reviews for fantastic movies. A c+ because no contractions were used and the acting was h
a little harsh for 2 minutes at the beginning? Really? You write reviews that nobody cares about and are terrible to follow. Who knows if youl even respond or publish my comment you dumb bitch. Do you think your some hotshot movie reviewer because you can put down one of the top movies of the year? I would like to see you do better. And who cares about religion in a movie? It was a fucking western about redemption and standing up for what is right, not church for Christ sakes! GOD women are even worse today then they were back then. Grow up.
I don't know that this comment deserves a reply, but I'll give it one any way.
I disagree with the low rating as much as you do. If you read my comments above, you will see that I spell out my disagreements and you will also see that Ms. Marshall responds thoughtfully to my comments and we have a spririted exchange.
So, I'll respond in a way that you'll understand… why all the abusive language, numbnuts? Just because you didn't get laid in 2010, does that mean the rest of us have to be victimized by your mean spirited hostility? If you have a point to make, make your point and leave the personal comments out, or go someplace else to spew your bile.
Douche bag.
I love you. Cocaine is one hell of a drug, huh? And the part about not having sex in 2010? That was just uncalled for. But I guess I can't prove anything to you over the internet. How old are you, anyway saying things like spew your bike hahaha. I guarantee you could never guess my age.
You're right. I can't guess your age. But unless you're 12 or senile, I don't see where it's a factor. Anything between those two provides no excuse for your bad manners.
I didn’t like the ending either, maybe this one’s better: The so many years pass, they do not see one another, and Mattie finds herself in her fathers business doing well. As she is going to work that day, the carriage wheel is broke so she decides to walk, as she does enjoying the hello’s and thinking she should do this more often, She see’s an old beggar, hair over right eye, no patch. Feeling sorry she hands him a bill and as her left arm is stretched out, her snake cut is exposed. Without really looking up the beggar say’s “snake bite?” Mattie replies “yes hunting trip long ago.” He say’s “should put rope around your camp that’ll keep the snakes out”. She chuckles and goes on her way. When she gets to the office she mentions to her brother about the rope snake thing. He say’s “that’s ridicules”. She then realizes that Bridges is the only one who believes this and hurries back to the corner but he is nowhere to be found but, across the street the camera shoots Bridges buying a bottle of whisky and he turns to look out the window to see her looking about, then as he smirks, he asks the shop keeper if he can leave by the back door.
The rest is however you want it.
I loved this movie. Even though I am a John Wayne fanatic and watch his movies religiously- I thought it was wonderful. However, the ending made me cringe. Mattie was a southern woman and from Arkansas. The chances that she was a southern sympathizer are greater than not. I was sick and sad that she spoke to Frank James the way she did- and with all the wonderful other parts of the movie- I could not get that crummy comment out of my mind. When people asked me about the movie – that was the first comment I made.
A commenter on Lance Mannion's blog post on this film notes that Yell County, Ark., where Mattie several times mentions in an almost boastful way, seceded from Arkansas when Arkansas seceded from the Union (as did several counties in Tennessee, who remained Republican during the days of the Solid Democratic South). So her ire at Frank James is not at all out of character. And, to be fair, he didn't rise in the presence of a lady.
The other aspect of Mattie's Yell County identity is her hiring Cogburn DESPITE his being one of Quantrill's Raiders. Even LaBouef, who as a Texas Ranger would have served in the Confederate Army, was horrified by the viciousness of the Raiders' reputation — it is a measure of Mattie's lust for revenge that she not only ignores, but embraces her county's one-time sworn enemy.
That Cogburn transforms himself into a preserver of life rather than a killer is the great transformation of the film, one brought about by Mattie's good example even as she tries to adhere to Cogburn's bad example as a pure revenger.
The Mannion blog is also good on the differences in tone necessitated by having John Wayne (who, after all, was JOHN WAYNE) and Jeff Bridges play the role.
My comments above should suggest how much i liked both films.
You're going to FORCE me to watch the John Wayne version, aren't you?! =) (I'll add it to the other 5,000,000 movies on my ever-growing list!)
Thanks for reading and posting, Betsy!
Very interesting Kelli.
As you know I haven't seen the film yet and thus avoided the last part. I agree with much of what you say about the acting, the landscape and the music (from the snippets/tracks I've caught).
Your two word descriptions of the characters are spot on and, in the case of the two men, I doubt they get beyond those superficial base characteristics (there was no real sense of depth in the scenes I saw). Mattie/Hailee Steinfeld on the other hand did seem alive in more than one sense.
Thanks again for the link and I look forward to seeing the film in full and coming back to your posts again.
Fortunately, the weird, visible, bad (?) acting dissipates relatively quickly. Looking forward to talking more after you seen the film in its entirety!
I feel compelled to comment on the lack of contractions and the comment: "…southern characters who are known to habitually slur their words."
I live in Chicago. I am not southern. However, I was born in South Dakota. Due to the genre of the film, I believe I am only taking a small step forward by extending the above slur beyond the south to rural people from frontier states.
There are likely many opinions on what such people are known to habitually do. I can say that the English used in True Grit (the lack of contractions) is an accurate depiction of language at the time and well into the 20th Century: in rural areas at least. Anybody who wished to appear the least bit educated would have refrained from the use of contractions in all formal conversation, and in much informal conversation as well. Mattie was educated, and engaging in the literal business of avenging her father. She was wishing to present herself formally. Personally, I found her English refreshing, and a reminder of my own grade school education in the late 70's and early 80's, in which we were taught contractions were fine for the playground, but inappropriate for formal situations and certainly in writing.
I'm not here to debate contractions. (Pun intended.) However, the title of this post, in relation to the genre of the movie, makes as much sense to me as someone saying that foreign films would be much better if they gave us more freakin' English.
Hi, Duane. Thanks for stopping by and "feeling compelled to comment." =)
I understand that the contractions are "of the time" as well as direct from the novel, and are thus appropriate for the film adaptation. Still, as I've pointed out, they don't flow onscreen. The characters sound stilted and at times wooden, because of this decision. At least, that's how I experienced the film… Thanks again for commenting.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe that the perception of such things as language "flow" betrays the cultural bias of the viewer. I think the intent of this choice regarding language was to send the message that this is a movie about a different culture, or subculture. This is a movie that is not net set in the cultural mainstream, and it doesn't want to bow to it.
That being said, I too was struck at times at how "wooden" the acting seemed at times, by all involved. At other times, the acting was over the top. (Only marginally breathless after crossing the river, Mattie's first words are "You are in breach of contract." That is unusual and extreme for any character.
I have only begun reading the novel. Letting the novel and film play off one another, I'm wondering if the wooden and over the top acting wasn't a deliberate choice? I think the question could be asked if True Grit is truly a Western, or if it would be better perhaps to consider it an allegory or morality play? If that is the case, there could be a deliberate attempt on many fronts to remind the audience that they are viewers.
I actually really liked the way they talked. It grounded me in the time period. I hate when I watch period pieces and everyone either sounds completely modern or they have British accents. The lack of contractions didn't bother me at all (though I wish Bridges accent was slightly easier to understand).
I did agree with you on not liking how Mattie was portrayed at the end. I didn't see her as a successful career woman; she seemed rather a bitter old maid. I didn't like the trash comment either; it somehow seemed out of character. Her spitting the word "trash" at someone that she was not previously arguing with or really engaging directly with just comes off as her having this reservoir of anger in her. It's comes off to me like the commenters on blogs or articles that completely over react and curse out opposing viewpoints; it was just too much. It's just my interpretation, but I don't think they clearly conveyed in the movie what they apparently did in the book.
Am I the only one that saw a mystical allusion to erotism at the horse scene where cogburn carries mattie? Anyway, what is the feeling that is moving cogburn in this scine, since the seems to have in the movie less of a personal strength than in wayne' version?
I stopped reading this long-winded review when the author decided to take a swipe at the South.
"… southern characters who are known to habitually slur their words".
Why not say this movie was produced by Hollywood executive who are known to habitually do drugs and have sex with their own gender? I'm sure it's true for some, but why insult an entire region of our country because of the way your own Louisiana family members talk?
I think you missed the intention for the ending. After Matte fired and killed the person who she was seeking revenge, she fell down the dark hole and was bitten by a snake. I think that was symbolic of her now going to live a life of hell for doing so. She later loses an arm and become a bitter woman much like Cogburn losing an eye and becoming a bitter, mean-hearted man from all his killings.
I agree with this review 100%. The main character the brave and courageous young girl is punished by a cold, 'limbless' existence. Why have these guys continued to not be able to end films!?
For me the way a thing ends is the total summation of the material they are presenting.
At least two potentially amazing films in a row, ruined by quick fix empty wrap-ups.
Your appraisal of the Cohen's destruction of Mattie's character is very astute. The Cohen brothers are one trick ponies. They simply remove any sense of resolution from their movie endings. The unfulfilled feeling that their audiences leave with, is their badge of honour and guarantee of cult status. Cult movies made to order lol. It's a shame they are allowed to re-make classics.
Hi, Samuel–and Brett above. Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I'm not sure that True Grit's ending is "unfinished" or "unresolved" as it were — at least not in the same way No Country for Old Men is. For what it's worth, I think True Grit contains a relatively clear-cut conclusion; it's just not one that I particularly enjoyed. Thanks again!
Far from being unresolved, the ending is extremely resolved, albeit not to many people's liking. We know not only the immediate aftermath of the protagonists, but also the long term ones. Yes, No Country for Old Men had an unresolved ending which obviously was part of their artistic statement, but what other Coen Brothers film ends similarly without resolution. I know I've wondered for years if Lebowsky and Walter were victorious in the finals, but I don't think that qualifies. As for their cult status, True Grit grossed $160+million in the US, hardly a cult film and adjusted for inflation certainly has mainstream popular and the original version which grossed $14Million 40 years ago. Even No Country did $75million, again, hardly a cut favorite.
And one trick ponies? Really? What other filmmakers have worked in so many different genres so successfully.
A good film doesn't need to have everything wrapped up at the ending, in fact, I think it is better to leave the audience to ponder the ending so that the film becomes dissected and interpreted (differently).
I love the Coen Brother movies. They create memorable characters and movies. Most of their movies deal with likable, ordinary people who do something bad, and then as a result, bad things happen to bad people. Mattie seeking personal revenge (True Grit), car sales manager seeking ransom money for wife (Fargo), and person who finds and keeps drug money (No Country..) all did something wrong, but in their minds is justifiable given their situation. However, we don't see them as bad as compared to the true criminals in these movies, but they still did something wrong and eventually gets punished for their wrongdoings.
I think your thoughts on women and how they are treated in society (especially at the time of the film) may have clouded your judgement of the story.
Firstly, the snake bite was not punishment for being a strong woman, that is absurd. She was 14, not a 25. She had no business out there in the wild, and to be fair, she would have most likely died. Of course she was saved by the two grown men, again she was a small child. Try and keep that in mind, when you re-read what you wrote. You attack the film, for not allowing a strong female character to go unpunished, but to be fair, she was not a woman, she was a girl.
As for the ending, she did not become a spinstress because she was disfigured, she became a spinstress because her father was murdered, she sought retribution, watched rooster kill a dozen men, than she herself murdered a man, than lost her arm. That would kinda have an effect on a 14 year old girl. Also she was incredibly intelligent, outspoken, strong willed, and bull headed, not qualities that would land her a suiter that day and age.
Either way, I agree with much of what you wrote but I can't help feeling that you brought a little too much of your own hangups into the review.
I just watched true grit in an arthouse cinema last night. Overall I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. However I found several things distracting and distractions are death to a movie.
Bridges starts off with almost the voice of death…extremely deep, southern, old, and hoarse but quite intelligible. Through the course of the film, his voice varies from the start throughvarying stages of classic Bridges, unintelligible, high pitch yelps, and so-on. If you are old and gruff, you are old and gruff…you don't start talking like a young man all of a sudden. I had no idea how old he was or was supposed to be, but at least I thought we knew what his voice sounded like from the start, but that changed as much as Maddi's lipgloss.
Damon was playing a peculiar character. Indignant, dumb, heroic, etc. Again character inconsistencies are BAD. It's OK to have a varied character, but if you are dumb, stay dumb, don't get insightful on occasion, unless it is like rainman, when you don't realize you are being insightful.
Brolin was another bizarre character…acting exceptionally stupid, and apparently impervious to gunshots (since he barely flinched upon being shot and no one seemed to take any interest in tending to the (obviously major) wound. Some mention of it merely breaking a rib was mentioned, but how does someone who was just shot become his own diagnosing physician? He was a very ineffectual person as well and having him as the target of their huge manhunt seemed unlikely. Was he just petulant with a gun in his hand i.e. don't piss me off or I'll get mad and shoot you like a child?
The ending was almost unwatchable. Starting off with the ridiculous horse chase all night, and then somehow deciding that it was so important to shoot the horse when the horse could have just as easily rested for a while, gotten a drink and wandered off (at least give it a broken leg!)…that whole sequence of riding and shooting and then running (Was he training for a triathlon recently?) was completely disconnected from both reality and the rest of the film. Seriously, a 60 year old man jogging for miles with a huge 14 year old in your arms? WTF?
Maddi was the only consistent character in the movie, and she was pretty tremendous. Props to her.
The language was bizarre and not really believable…the lack of contractions as mentioned by others just seemed like some writer's affectation or desire to be 'different'. Again, a bad choice and another distraction from the story.
Overall I enjoyed it, but the many oddities and idiosyncrasies reduced me to an observer instead of a participant, but I'd still give it a B+/A-.
David
I looked up the lack of contractions in True Grit to see if it was a stylization element frequently applied to movies set in older times, or was from the novel, or was a Coen Bros. thing. To my surprise, a lot of people seem upset about this element. No, it's not an accurate portrayal of the times, and hardly anyone speaks that way. Still, why are people so annoyed by it? Although I noticed it, and went hunting for informatino about why, I actually quite enjoyed the effect. It added texture to the dialog. Due to the fact that contractions are not to be used in formal writing–but are used everywhere else–it codes as formal and serious. You would think this would stunt the dialog, but I found it actually added a deadpan effect to the humorous lines and a Word-of-God seriousness to the serious parts. It was enjoyable.
Also, if you aren't Southern, you shouldn't advocate for the continue portrayal of all Southerners as being people who can do not but slur. Yes, the Southern dialect employs some unique linguistic elements, but I doubt they use any more contractions than other spoken English dialects, and twang is not "slur".
This review honestly seems written by an out of touch old lady.
Nah, not out of touch by any means. It's just written by someone who analyzes films for a living. =)
I'd encourage you to check out my follow-up post to this one, if you haven't already as it explains things a bit further, including why I ultimately rate the film a B/B+ (rather than my initial grade of C+): True Grit, Mattie's Fate, and Testing Onscreen Women. Thanks for reading.
The ending was entirely pointless and ruined the whole movie, why on Earth they decided to tack it on there i do not know. It was incongruent and made the heroine look like a bitter dried up hatchet faced bitch instead of the feisty intelligent woman we came to expect.
I’m waaaayy late to this party. i just watched the movie for the first time yesterday. I’d have to say Mattie is as intimidating as a woman as she was as a child. All i can really think of is: Well behaved women rarely make history.
She’s a spitfire. Most women like her, aren’t married, because she’s not needy and doesn’t need to be taken care of. She’s wealthy and educated and that’s what is different about our generations as compared to the ones before. The West hewed out the smartest, heartiest most productive generations in our country’s history. Pioneer women were stronger and brighter than most women even today. It’s no big deal that she didn’t have a family. She’s not very maternal, she’s just not cut from that cloth. The language didn’t bother me. it was spot on, that’s how people talked back then. It’s real English. What’s unnatural is the muttering, slang riddled ghetto speak that passes for English these days. I prefer people that can express themselves and what they mean. Americans drive other English speakers nuts. Apparently we do the verbal equivalent of shuffling, or dragging our feet…