True Grit

I watched the original True Grit recently in prep for The Coen’s remake, and while I usually have nothing good to say about the concept of remakes, I think the Coens may be on to something here.

The original is a classic, to be sure, and I don’t want to give the impression that the original didn’t succeed, but I think the Coens have plenty to add to the film, and, yes, even improve upon it.

1)      The acting – It seems to me that many, if not most, older films hold to a different standard for acting greatness. It’s not that theirs were bad actors or actresses, but the artifice that characterized older films is unfamiliar and often oft-putting to viewers from our generation. Some performances seem affected or stilted by our standards. I think that Bridges, Damon and Brolin will adapt the material in a way that will resonate with more authenticity to present day viewers.

2)      Direction – Fresh off my first viewing of Fargo, I can say with all confidence that the Coens will certainly one-up director Henry Hathaway when it comes to setting a mood and blocking the action. In True Grit’s first act we witness a murder that serves as the instigating action propelling the rest of the plot. In the original, this murder is chronicled with such matter-of-fact objectivity that the emotional gravity is totally lost on the audience. You don’t really feel anything when it happens. But most every time someone dies in a Coen film, you feel it, and it hits hard. They know how to transform something objective and sterile into an experience that is subjective and visceral. I think they will do that here.

3)      Overall Look – The film is called True Grit, and while the resilience and determination of these two characters shines through in the original film (when Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn rides head to head against against Duvall’s Ned Pepper, you just can’t help but admire him), even from the previews I think the Coens have done a better job of making this film gritty, which it should be given the title, right? The art design, lighting and Deakins’ cinematography look like they’ll make this material pop in a way that the original director and crew did not (or could not).

So I’m believing in the Coens here, and I think I will be vindicated. I do not think they win the best pic Oscar this year because the Academy has to spread the love, but I will go on record to say that this one will reside near the top, and I think it will deserve its place.

It releases tomorrow so if you get a chance to catch the film and agree or disagree let me know. I hope to write my own review once i get a chance to sneak off to the theater.

Flannery O’Connor and Fargo

A good friend of mine says the Coens hate humanity, and while I do think they often push their dark themes to the edge of watch-ability, I didn’t get this feeling from Fargo. As dark as this movie is, the film does not vindicate the villains. And while some say that Marge is the butt of the Coens’ joke, I disagree. I think they admire Marge. They poke fun at her, sure, but I think the film vindicates hers as the best path among the available options presented in the film. Naïve? Yes. Indifferent? No. Incompetent? Absolutely not.

But I do not agree with another friend who thinks that Marge is the film’s real hero, and that the Coens go so far as to put her and her husband forward as the antidote to the evil we have witnessed.  I give as evidence the curious sequence involving Marge’s old high school friend who makes a pass at her. This sequence seemed odd and out of place to me at first, but watching Marge’s handling of the situation speaks to a broader theme of the film: naïve optimism serves as an incubator for human evil. Marge refuses to acknowledge the obvious conclusion that this man is trying to have an affair with her. Though she has already witnessed a grisly murder scene, which would have caused the other Coen Sheriff (Bell from No Country) to sigh with resignation, she still cannot fathom that something as scandalous as adultery could be perpetrated by someone she knows personally. While she proves herself confident and skilled in dealing with the effects of evil, she is entirely ill-equipped to deal with the cause. “I just don’t understand it,” she says to Grimsrud after witnessing the fated wood-chipper incident.

It is this inability to acknowledge that such evil is closer than she thinks that makes it possible for such evil to flourish. So, for me, the film is very close in theme to Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” but in this story the protagonist does not realize her error. She trudges on believing in the inherent goodness of people, blithely hoping for a better tomorrow that will never come until “good” people like her are willing to “burn the cancer at the root” as the Greek tragedist had it. To summarize:

1. Human evil exists.
2. It’s closer to home than we think.
3. Ignoring its presence and proximity enables its growth.

If you made it this far, thanks. Next time I will give a few reasons why I think the Coens’ version of True Grit will improve upon the original.