The Popculturist hates to compare John Wayne and Jeff Bridges in the two True Grits, but it’s just so tempting.
You should know before I start that when comparing the Coen brothers’ new adaptation of True Grit to the 1969 John Wayne version, there is so much more to talk about than just John Wayne vs. Jeff Bridges. There are other performances to compare, of course — Kim Darby and Hailee Stanfield, Glen Campbell and Matt Damon, and Robert Duvall and Barry Pepper, to name a few. But then there are also questions of tone and cinematographic style to discuss, and themes, structure, and faithfulness to Charles Portis’ novel. It doesn’t come down to just Wayne and Bridges. Try as I might, though, I can’t stop thinking about anything else.
It makes sense, though, doesn’t it? After all, True Grit brought Wayne his first and only Best Actor win* and may very well bring Bridges his second. And, of course, Rooster Cogburn’s charge against Lucky Ned Peppers’ gang in the climactic scene is one of the most iconic moments in cinema history. But beyond all that, the two men’s performances are like microcosms of their respective films.
Consider John Wayne in 1969. In the thirty years since his breakthrough role in John Ford’s Stagecoach (not his first film, but the first anyone really thinks about), Wayne had become a living legend, star of over one hundred films, the kind of man whose name is used as shorthand for rugged masculinity even today. No one going to see him could fail to bring with them the concept of “John Wayne.”
Now, consider Jeff Bridges in 2010. In the nearly 40 years since his breakthrough role in Peter Bogdanovich’s The Last Picture Show (not his first film, but the first anyone really thinks about), Bridges has established himself as one of the most talented actors of his generation, but despite his massive cult following, he still remains more a critical darling than a huge mainstream star.
And doesn’t that just describe the two films? After all, Westerns in 1969 were still a huge and vital part of the film world, the single most popular genre. But very quickly after that point their production slowed to a trickle, and though they may be going through something of a renaissance today, this movie in particular is practically an arthouse film.
Contrast the two men’s performances: Wayne’s Cogburn was drunk and coarse, but underneath it there a sense of decency shone through. Perhaps it was just that Wayne, himself, had become something of a father figure to movie-goers of his time. Perhaps it was just that his character was gentle enough to take care of a cat. But put that up against Bridges’ Cogburn, who beneath the booze and swagger has a real sense of menace, of wildness to him. It’s a darker performance and, likewise, his is a darker film.
I may be doing a disservice to the Coen brothers, and to the rest of the cast of their new adaptation; I fear I am. So at this point I’d like to open it up to the readers — what struck you about the new True Grit?
* As an aside, if you care at all about Westerns or John Wayne and you have never seen Wayne’s acceptance speech for his Oscar win, you should take a couple of minutes and watch it. Seeing the very archetype of American masculinity visibly moved to tears remains the most affecting moment in the history of the Academy Awards for me.
Nothing can touch the original. .
Every review talks about the makers of the film as if the brothers were Rooster Cogburn and Ranger LeBoef. They aren’t. If its about the brothers making another movie then stick with that. I want opinions on Rooster vs Rooster, Mattie vs Mattie, Ned vs Ned. Campel vs Jason Bourne (yes I know his real name.) Watched ’em both. I have to give John Wayne a handicap for two reasons. 1. Bridges had the advantage of seeing the bar set by Wayne. Wayne went first and it was 40 years before anyone tried to swing at his home run record. Second – technology is not the same today as it was in the pre-landing on the moon days. The introduction of Bridges’ Rooster is by gruff surround sound voice alone, no visual image. Wayne’s introduction of Rooster’s character is to motivate a slow moving prisoner by delivering a deliverate kick in the butt. Bridges testifying in the courtroom bestified Wayne’s testimony. Bridges’ Rooster pulling a pistol on the Texas Ranger, which allows the girl to come along on her glorified coon hunt, advantage Bridges. But the classic line of the movie, with Rooster Cogburn facing down Lucky Ned Pepper’s gang of four, goes to Wayne. All the previous comparable scenes were worth 1 point each, and the score was 7 to 5, Bridges. But that famous scene is 10 points. Advantage Duke!!
No time left, took me forever to scratch out the above. Glen Campell bettered Jason Bourne Yes I Know His Real Name. Mattie’s appearance was more realistic in the new version, and her character was better filled in, but in the original it was clear that Mattie was a burr under the saddles of both Cogburn and LeBoef. Ned Pepper – even split. Would Tampa Bay have one the Super Bowl with Tony Dungee had he not left for Indianapolis – tough answer as there are so many decisions that are made during a single game, let alone a whole training camp thru playoffs. I’ll have to watch both versions again to make the call between Ned Pepper’s. And I encourage all to disagree with me, watch both versions, and write in your opinions.
I grew up with the original and watch it every time it’s on TV. I adore that movie. I went to the new one expecting to like it, having seen the preview. I didn’t expect to love it, but I did. Bridges’s Cogburn shows some of the same humanity when he tells the stories from his past. No, it’s not as gentle as Wayne’s cat tenderness, but it serves the same purpose: to connect him to this slip of a girl he’s riding with. It draws her into his history, entwining them together. His past, her future. And to make sure we know this larger than life figure is well and truly a man, flesh and blood, we are shown that he just can’t shut up! He has a captive audience and regales her every chance he gets.
This is how a proper remake is handled. It took an iconic film and washed it in the current culture. It stayed true to the story, and showed us a peek more about the characters we know so well. I had no idea Maddie had a weak-willed, illiterate mother, which explains why it is SHE who seeks vengeance for her father’s death.