![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
True Grits
This is not a movie about Southern breakfasts (nor, for the more esoterically inclined among you, about Canadian politics). It is two movies, each based on the same novel by Charles Portis.
I've never read the novel, nor, until yesterday, had I seen the older movie. But I desired to see the newer one, and Redbox had the wit to put DVDs of the old one in their rotation while the new one is in the theatres. That was extremely canny of them. So, within the last 24 hours, I've seen both. What I've chosen to focus on is the differences and what they say about the changes in moviemaking style.
1. The old movie is a lot more leisurely in getting going. The set-up scene, with the original murder, is shown in full. The new movie gives the facts quickly in voiceover. The old movie also spends a lot more time fussing around in Fort Smith than the new one does.
1a. Side effect the first: In the new movie, when Tom Chaney makes his surprise appearance in the creek, the viewer hasn't seen him before, unlike in the old movie where you have (and you've also gotten a more detailed physical description). So, unless you already know the story or recognize that he's played by Josh Brolin, you won't know who he is for a couple seconds until Mattie says his name. That changes the dynamic impact of the surprise considerably.
1b. Side effect the second: In the old movie, there are a couple scenes in Fort Smith with Rooster Cogburn's cat. In the more compressed new movie, there is no cat. (Why see it at all, then? asks B.)
2. I'm not sure how to convey this, but the new movie is grittier. The old movie has that shiny Technicolor sheen to it, and even the filthiest outlaw looks to have makeup on. Gruff as Rooster is, he's not as palpable. It's strange, because John Wayne was one of the most distinctively colorful movie actors of all time, but his Rooster is not a tenth as vivid as Jeff Bridges makes him. The old Mattie comments on Rooster's personal, um, fragrance. The new Mattie doesn't have to: Bridges looks as if his b.o. would frighten a mule.
3. The old movie turns rather softhearted at the end. That's surprising considering how much of the violence remains intact. (And La Boeuf even dies in the old movie, while he apparently survives in the new one.) The new one doesn't. But in the old movie, Rooster and Mattie obviously bond over his rescue of her, and then they have that soppy farewell scene at the cemetery. The new movie's Rooster is just as heroic in the rescue, but he's just doin' his job, ma'am, and then he vanishes. (So does La Boeuf.) The epilogue is decades later, and the reunion is frustrated.
4. The big difference all the critics talked about turns out to be insignificant. The old Mattie claimed to be 14, but was actually 20. The new Mattie is actually 14, but she's so stunningly mature for her age, she might as well be 20. It doesn't make any difference.
4a. For that matter, the language is not that much more formal and ornate in the new movie than in the old, either.
5a. Most of the story takes place in the Indian Territory, later known as Oklahoma. The old movie was filmed in western Colorado. Oklahoma has its rugged zones, but the Rocky Mountains in the background only make the viewer say, "Oh, come on." The new movie was filmed in Texas and New Mexico. Much more believable.
5b. The rest of the story takes place in Arkansas, obviously from the geographic setup and the place names. But the old movie never mentions the name of Arkansas. Not once! Odd. But the new movie does.
It seems to me that numbers 1, 2, and 3 typify how recent movies are different from old ones. New movies, even slow-paced ones, are more impatient, but they also require more alertness and savviness from the viewer. So today's audiences are treated as having a shorter attention span, but quicker wits. The visuals are more realistic, and the writing less sentimental. And I'd like to see some discussion of these trends, if they're real, and why they're occurring.
I've never read the novel, nor, until yesterday, had I seen the older movie. But I desired to see the newer one, and Redbox had the wit to put DVDs of the old one in their rotation while the new one is in the theatres. That was extremely canny of them. So, within the last 24 hours, I've seen both. What I've chosen to focus on is the differences and what they say about the changes in moviemaking style.
1. The old movie is a lot more leisurely in getting going. The set-up scene, with the original murder, is shown in full. The new movie gives the facts quickly in voiceover. The old movie also spends a lot more time fussing around in Fort Smith than the new one does.
1a. Side effect the first: In the new movie, when Tom Chaney makes his surprise appearance in the creek, the viewer hasn't seen him before, unlike in the old movie where you have (and you've also gotten a more detailed physical description). So, unless you already know the story or recognize that he's played by Josh Brolin, you won't know who he is for a couple seconds until Mattie says his name. That changes the dynamic impact of the surprise considerably.
1b. Side effect the second: In the old movie, there are a couple scenes in Fort Smith with Rooster Cogburn's cat. In the more compressed new movie, there is no cat. (Why see it at all, then? asks B.)
2. I'm not sure how to convey this, but the new movie is grittier. The old movie has that shiny Technicolor sheen to it, and even the filthiest outlaw looks to have makeup on. Gruff as Rooster is, he's not as palpable. It's strange, because John Wayne was one of the most distinctively colorful movie actors of all time, but his Rooster is not a tenth as vivid as Jeff Bridges makes him. The old Mattie comments on Rooster's personal, um, fragrance. The new Mattie doesn't have to: Bridges looks as if his b.o. would frighten a mule.
3. The old movie turns rather softhearted at the end. That's surprising considering how much of the violence remains intact. (And La Boeuf even dies in the old movie, while he apparently survives in the new one.) The new one doesn't. But in the old movie, Rooster and Mattie obviously bond over his rescue of her, and then they have that soppy farewell scene at the cemetery. The new movie's Rooster is just as heroic in the rescue, but he's just doin' his job, ma'am, and then he vanishes. (So does La Boeuf.) The epilogue is decades later, and the reunion is frustrated.
4. The big difference all the critics talked about turns out to be insignificant. The old Mattie claimed to be 14, but was actually 20. The new Mattie is actually 14, but she's so stunningly mature for her age, she might as well be 20. It doesn't make any difference.
4a. For that matter, the language is not that much more formal and ornate in the new movie than in the old, either.
5a. Most of the story takes place in the Indian Territory, later known as Oklahoma. The old movie was filmed in western Colorado. Oklahoma has its rugged zones, but the Rocky Mountains in the background only make the viewer say, "Oh, come on." The new movie was filmed in Texas and New Mexico. Much more believable.
5b. The rest of the story takes place in Arkansas, obviously from the geographic setup and the place names. But the old movie never mentions the name of Arkansas. Not once! Odd. But the new movie does.
It seems to me that numbers 1, 2, and 3 typify how recent movies are different from old ones. New movies, even slow-paced ones, are more impatient, but they also require more alertness and savviness from the viewer. So today's audiences are treated as having a shorter attention span, but quicker wits. The visuals are more realistic, and the writing less sentimental. And I'd like to see some discussion of these trends, if they're real, and why they're occurring.
no subject
Haven't seen the old one yet, but am about to see the new one for the second time.
I've seen a number of people point out that this is more another movie of the book, rather than a remake of the old movie.
no subject
Yes, definitely. Some scenes are near copies (the famous showdown with Ned Pepper). Others are totally different. This, I think, is coincidence. The Coens ignored the old movie both as a model and as an anti-model. They worked from the book from scratch.
no subject
no subject
no subject
My own take on why modern movies can expect audiences to be alert to small details is that audiences have learned how to read movie language in more sophisticated ways over time. I think that's behind some of the fast editing too, where fewer frames of film are dedicated to getting information across. (Often derisively called MTV editing.) You see something similar in the evolution of exposition in science fiction from early days to, say, Heinlein, who was capable of tossing out little shards of information that conveyed big ideas to sophisticated readers.
Regarding the visuals being more realistic in this movie than in the old version, I'd say that this was a trend well under way even when the old True Grit came out in 1969. It was a throwback even then, compared to what directors like Peckinpah were doing at the time. The Coen Bros. version is more in the visual tradition of something like Walter Hill's The Long Riders (1980).
no subject
The visuals may have been something of a throwback, but not very far. It looks like other 60s movies, not like 40s ones.
no subject
no subject
Where Butch looks old-fashioned now is in its pacing. Much of it is sluggish - again, it certainly didn't seem that way at the time - and this is where movie (and TV) making has vastly improved.
I'd like to say more about your comment on MTV editing, because I think there's two things going on here: a faster ability of the audience to pick things up, which is good, and impatience and squirminess on their part, which is not so good. The ability to watch things over again on VCR/DVD/Tivo/whatever has definitely assisted the former.
What I find most obviously crude in old movies and TV now (though the old True Grit was not particularly bad in this) is the use of establishing shots. The art of the establishing shot has advanced so far in the last 30-40 years, it's astonishing. I can't watch '60s detective TV shows any more: they seem to be nothing but an endless succession of the detective getting into his car, getting out of his car, walking from his car, walking to his car ...
no subject
no subject