![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tonight, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
esrblog and I went to see the Coen Brothers' remake of the Western classic, True Grit.
Unlikeesrblog, I have not seen the 1969 version starring John Wayne, so I cannot comment on any plot divergences between the two.
I can say this much; based on what I know, the historical accuracy of the costumes, buildings, and other items of technology was much greater than in most "historical epics" I've seen. This was a very realistic, gritty West--arguably very appropriate for the story of a man, and a girl, with "true grit."
The acting and casting were also superb. In particular, the synergy between Jeff Bridges (Cogburn), Hailee Steinfeld (Mattie) and Matt Damon (LaBoeuf) made the idea of a 14-year-old girl haring off into the wilderness with hard-bitten men both believable and moving. Even the minor roles--such as the sheriff and the undertaker Mattie encounters in her search for a marshal to hire--were convincing and memorable.
Seeing the movie has inspired me to look out both for the 1969 version and Partis's original novel--just to see where the differences are, and what I think about the Coen Brothers' decisions in making their version.
There's some blood here (it's a Western, after all, and everybody has a gun), but if that doesn't bother you and you like Westerns, or even if you just appreciate good, solid acting, go and see it.
EDIT: I just watched the trailer for the 1969 movie on IMDB. I was surprised to see a number of lines that were also used in the Coen Brothers' version. Somehow, most of those lines had a very different effect from the effect they had in the earlier movie.
esrblog and I went to see the Coen Brothers' remake of the Western classic, True Grit.Unlike
esrblog, I have not seen the 1969 version starring John Wayne, so I cannot comment on any plot divergences between the two.I can say this much; based on what I know, the historical accuracy of the costumes, buildings, and other items of technology was much greater than in most "historical epics" I've seen. This was a very realistic, gritty West--arguably very appropriate for the story of a man, and a girl, with "true grit."
The acting and casting were also superb. In particular, the synergy between Jeff Bridges (Cogburn), Hailee Steinfeld (Mattie) and Matt Damon (LaBoeuf) made the idea of a 14-year-old girl haring off into the wilderness with hard-bitten men both believable and moving. Even the minor roles--such as the sheriff and the undertaker Mattie encounters in her search for a marshal to hire--were convincing and memorable.
Seeing the movie has inspired me to look out both for the 1969 version and Partis's original novel--just to see where the differences are, and what I think about the Coen Brothers' decisions in making their version.
There's some blood here (it's a Western, after all, and everybody has a gun), but if that doesn't bother you and you like Westerns, or even if you just appreciate good, solid acting, go and see it.
EDIT: I just watched the trailer for the 1969 movie on IMDB. I was surprised to see a number of lines that were also used in the Coen Brothers' version. Somehow, most of those lines had a very different effect from the effect they had in the earlier movie.
satisfied
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
But yes, I agree with your zipper comment. I recently bought a calendar illustrated with reconstructed Lithuanian costumes dating from the 1st through 16th centuries C.E., and was a bit annoyed to realize that the head scarf worn by one young man was machine-serged along the edge! (Of course, costume history is my hobby, so I look for stuff like that anyway.)