THE FILM
FILM DIRECTOR: Henry Hathaway
SCREENWRITER: Marguerite Roberts
FILM STARS: John Wayne, Glen Campbell, Kim Darby, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Jeff Corey, Jeremy Slate, Strother Martin, Hank Worden.
COUNTRY: USA
THIS BOOK
AUTHOR: Charles Portis
TYPE: Novel
PUBLISHER: Penguin
THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1969
COUNTRY: Great Britain
COVER: Paperback
THE ORIGINAL BOOK
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above
YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1968
ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title
NOTES
GENRE: Western
WORDS: A wonderful book and a wonderful film. The book is written with the words and the speech patterns of the time. The film doesn’t use all of the book and some critics use that as a criticism, especially when comparing it to the Coen Brothers adaptation of the book from 2010. Despite that version being more faithful to the book (though Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn seems to be aping John Wayne whereas Rooster in the book looks more like Warren Oates who played the character in the 1978 made for TV film “True Grit: A Further Adventure”) I still prefer the 1969 film. And, despite people saying the 2010 film isn’t a remake but and adaption (or re-imaging) of the book, there are enough camera angles and positions (which obviously aren’t in the book) which would lead me to believe the Hathaway film was watched a lot by the Coens. Either way the novel is a great read and brings Rooster to life. Appearance aside, John Wayne was faithful to the character in the book. He wasn’t playing himself as is often criticised … or maybe he was if Charles Portis based some of Rooster Cogburn on the John Wayne movie image (I don’t think he did, I’m just sayin’). This is a reading must. And, I must add, as much as I love Glen Campbell as the LaBoeuf character, it would have been phenomenal if they had got Elvis Presley for the role, as producer Hal Wallis originally wanted.
LINKS
TRAILER
I gotta read the book one day. Where the Coens’ film wins out is the Mattie Ross portrayal. And not having Glen Campbell bluff his way thru, let alone John Bloody Wayne.
Ha ha ha … you have to move away from the leftism of your youth and embrace John Wayne. There will be a lot of John “bloody” Wayne in this blog. Glen actually starred in another film (his next one) which was based on another Charles Portis novel, “Norwood”. Look, yes Glen bluffs (acting) his way through (and a good attempt for a first film). I think he passes …. it’s John Wayne’s show, so he would have been swamped anyway. Matt Damon playing the same role in the remake is infinitely better but can he sing the title song like Glen … I think not!
sorry, yes, read the book.
For real singer/actor talent you need to check out Marvin Gaye in Chrome and Hot Leather and in The Ballad of Andy Crocker. (Haha. Just joking. He is a bad actor.)
It would be cool if I had the movie tie-ins for them but …
Nice piece on True Grit.
Charles Portis was the type of writer very few readers had ever heard of – apparently, when one of his fans met another of his fans, they’d fall on each other like long lost kin.
While I prefer the John Wayne film, the Coen brothers better captured the writerly tone of the book. They did it by focusing on Mattie Ross’s narration, which is the unquestionable heart of the novel.
Here’s the first paragraph in Mattie’s voice:
‘People do not give it credence that a fourteen-year-old girl could leave home and go off in the wintertime to avenge her father’s blood but it did not seem so strange then, although I will say it did not happen every day. I was just fourteen years of age when a coward going by the name of Tom Chaney shot my father down in Fort smith, Arkansas, and robbed him of his life and his horse and 150 dollars in cash money plus two California gold pieces that he carried in his trouser band.’
Called by Ron Rosenbaum America’s ‘least-known Great Novelist’, Portis – in the fashion of JD Salinger, Thomas Pychon, Cormac McCarthy etc. – was reclusive.
People said he was a comic writer. To my mind, a fairly unsatisfactory description. Rather like saying Flannery O’connor was a comic writer.
Yes, I agree with you. the Coen brothers’ film is closer to the book ..and does get the “writerly tone’ though the JW film iist adverse to it especially in the supporting roles – Mattie, Strother Martin and even Glen Campbell who mouth words in the style of the book.
Though, of course, a book doesn’t have to slavishly follow a book and part of the fun of this blog (if there is any?) is contrasting book and film
For a JW film, Mattie has a number (quite a few) scenes without John Wayne in them – which at least suggests they have her as a focal point as well, though not as much as the Coen Bros film (it certainly wasn’t “through her eyes”).
The producer/s no doubt want a return on their investment – in 1969 people wanted John Wayne. He has to be central to get bums on seats.
No offense to Jeff Bridges but the Coen Brothers have their own market … they get bums o n seats so they can be a little more faithful to the book and take the attention away from Rooster.
Of course the book is called “True Grit” and Rooster has that “true grit” so the story is about him, albeit through a teens eyes.
I’d have to retrieve the book for the passage, but, as I said, neither JW nor JB look like the Rooster described but JW has the “true grit” in spades over Jeff (and I love Jeff).
And finally, the Coen film has the books ending and is quite touching (in a passing of time way) in what happened to Rooster but the final sequence in the film with JW jumping his horse over a fence and saying “well come and see a fat old man sometime” is visual poetry and all John Wayne, no Portis (if I recollect correctly).
Portis can be funny ( I have his next novel “Norwood” but I haven’t read it, though I have seen the film …am keen to read it) but yes point taken especially as in comparison to Flannery O’Connor.
Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer the JW film?
For me it’s the scenery and the supporting cast (legends and fringe legends) and the mythology that JW drags into the role. Rightly or wrongly, if Rooster was around now I don’t think he would be a Democrat, though I’m not convinced he would be a Republican either.
Why do I prefer JW’s version to the Coen Brothers’? The answer’s probably, even inevitably, ‘John Wayne’.
Despite the Coen Brothers’ ‘writerly’ film, they didn’t capture the old fashioned ‘heroism’ in both the JW film and Charles P’s book.
Maybe it’s down to Jeff Bridges… if Tommy Lee Jones had played the part it might’ve been a different story…
Good point re Tommy Lee Jones, Paul – not to take anything away from Jeff Bridges.
Yes, I agree re the Coens. Also director Hathaway had been directing westerns and action films for almost 40 years he know where to put a camera (even though the wonderful shoot out at the end I feel is clipped, it should be a smidge longer).
I prefer Bridges (over the course of his career) to Tommy Lee but not in this role. Jeff is a modern actor (is that why he mumbled through the film? As if Brando was playing Rooster) with all the doubts in movie persona they bring. So, yes, I agree Tommy Lee would have worked – he has a more straight up old fashioned persona. Sam Elliott would have worked though his persona is perhaps a little to quiet for the role. Maybe Kurt Russell, Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Gerard Butler (if he was less Scottish), though the last two don’t bring a history of westerns to the role, which I think is important. They are closer in age to the Rooster in the book who was around 40 from recollection (whereas JW was 62 and Bridges 61).
I think it would have been easier to pick a replacement for JW in 1969 than now, though ultimately, he does own the role and it’s hard not to identify him with it (though like I said Warren Oates in the TV film does a good job).