The scripts follow essentially the same story. When Mattie Ross' father is betrayed and killed by his partner Tom Chaney, the young girl hires gritty U.S. Marshall Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn to track down Chaney and avenge her father's death. The two make an unsteady alliance with Texas ranger LaBoeuf and end up facing off not only against Chaney but a criminal called Lucky Ned and his gang.
The remake sticks closely to the original for the most part but makes some changes that usually pay off. Beginning the movie in the aftermath of the father's death rather than before makes for a stronger opening, especially since the murder wasn't particularly compelling in the original film. The only thing the Coen brothers do to their disadvantage is try to force unusual bits of humor and satire into the script that often clash with the mood of the film.
The remake obviously looks better in terms of sets, costumes, and cinematography, but that's a given with the advantage of forty years and a bigger budget. That's not to say that the original looks bad, but it certainly feels dated compared to modern westerns, or even Leone's westerns. The remake takes some obvious visual cues from the original, which is a certain kind of praise in itself, but the Coen Brothers know how to expand and improve on the original visually. Both films are fairly sparse on music, but what little music they do feature is enjoyable and fits the atmosphere of the movies well.
The action is well done in both movies. Again the remake has the obvious advantage of time and budget but the original holds its own. If nothing else, John Wayne knows how to put on a compelling gunfight.
But the heart of both movies is the performances, and in that respect neither disappoints. Both Matt Damon and Glen Campbell are likable as LaBoeuf, with neither giving an obviously better performance than the other.
Mattie Ross, on the other hand, is a much easier comparison. Kim Darby certainly does justice to her role, playing a strong and likable heroine. She's convincingly tough, sharp-witted, and innocent without ever being naive, providing a good heart to a gritty tale. All of this, however, only serves as context when I say that Hailee Steinfeld absolutely blows her away. Steinfeld takes everything that works about Darby's performance and makes her character bolder, more clever, and at the same time more realistic. She sells her anguish and desire for revenge much more convincingly than Darby does. As far as memorable heroines are concerned, Steinfeld's Mattie Ross is almost in the same league as Ellen Ripley in Alien.
And now for the leading man. John Wayne and Jeff Bridges both do excellent jobs as the merciless U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn. Both play hardened, dissatisfied drunks with a hint of heart buried beneath a harsh exterior. The key difference is that that Bridges shows more grit, while Wayne shows more heart. And While Jeff Bridges adds more nuance to his character and the script gives him slightly more to work with, John Wayne is simply more likable in easily one of the best performances of his career.
The biggest drawback to Bridges' performance is his character's accent, which makes him sound nearly unintelligible. He mumbles through most of his lines, forcing the viewer to piece together whichever words they understand and hope they get the gist of his dialogue. This trend only gets worse when LaBoeuf loses part of his tongue in a gunfight, making much of the dialogue between the two characters a chore to understand. If Bridges has any other weakness, it's that he exaggerates his character's faults while Wayne implies and internalizes them.
Score for both movies:
I appreciate your insights on both movies. I also appreciate your ability to discuss films without disclosing spoilers. A rare talent on the internet! I'm too familiar with the story for it to contain surprises, but I find the writers who lean toward that habit most annoying.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see the recent version, so my heart is still with Kim Darby's Mattie although I assume Miss Steinfeld would not have been given the role unless she showed the ability to create a memorable character.
I was quite pleased with the 2010 version, it looked geographically correct. When I heard that this film was shot in New Mexico I was hoping that we wouldn't get a reprise of the 1969 film with its Colorado & California landscapes. Though visually rich the 1969 film did not look like The Indian Territory (Oklahoma) it was supposed to take place in, it was way too mountainous. In the 2010 film I saw only one quick shot of distant mountains in the background and the way it was shot it was hard to determine their height they could pass for the Ouachita, the Ozarks, or The Winding Stair Mountains .
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there are basically two major visual habitats of the Great Plains States one habitat, rolling parries, is the feature most people are familiar with from watching Westerns the other not so much known yet just as common are the cottonwood river bottoms (cottonwood & willow floodplains).
Cottonwood bottoms are also a major feature West of the Continental Divide with the heavy scent of Black Cottonwood aromatically signaling the coming of spring, though West of the Divide they are intermixed with the coniferous forests.
A minor more scattered Great Plains habitat feature are the small isolated mountainous masses and flat-topped buttes.
In the 2010 film they showcase the cottonwood bottom land and the actors travel quite extensively through it, making them one of the two the defining landscapes of the film the other one is the mountainous terrain that stands in for the Winding Stair Mountains (which are shortleaf and loblolly pine, southern red oak, white oak, and flowering dogwood covered small low elevation mountains).
Ft. Smith:
2010 impressive establishing shot, wide main street (an important feature for being able to U-turn around a wagon and team), expansive looking for a town of its size, a believable Ft. Smith. 1969 film town set was adequate but the constant shots of high mountains as a backdrop behind all the buildings is a constant reminder its not Arkansas.
Again, the Coen brothers deliver very well on the cinematography, as they did in No Country for Old Men and even O Brother Where Art Thou, which is, without a doubt, one of the movie's strengths. I haven't seen the original myself, so I'll not comment on comparison, but for someone like me to pay attention to cinematography like that, you know someone did something right.
ReplyDelete