[ previous note: because in this text go into many details about the plot of this movie, and how that had forced me to go adding the words SPOILER almost every line, I recommend the reader who has not yet seen the film, and want to wait to see him, do not read ].
suspected that this could happen, among other reasons because it has been most distinguished and sometimes with an insistence worthy of a better cause: as a rule and unless very honorable exceptions, most of the comments that have been made these days with us around True Grit (True Grit, 2010), Joel and Ethan Coen, has suggested the latter apparent fidelity to the novel by Charles Portis as an alibi to cover his version with a more relevant species or cultural legitimacy, and to the detriment of Grit (True Grit, 1969) by Henry Hathaway. His argument is as follows: the Grit the Coen brothers, they say (including themselves Coen) is not a remake of Grit Hathaway, but a new version of the novel by Portis. To this we must add, and this is absolutely true and I agree completely that the Coens have never claimed to imitate and / or copy Hathaway's film, but as the film demonstrates convincingly, have rolled his way (in a display of honesty that honors them, as they recognized not have read Odyssey of Homer, to make it from their mediocre O Brother! / O Brother, Where Art Thou?, 2000 .) So there would be perfect if not for many of the comments read or heard since it opened the film in Spain are determined to say that yes, the Coen version is more faithful to the novel by Portis that of Hathaway and, consequently, more-good-to-the-de-Hathaway, under that -debatable syllogism whereby a film, any film, is better the more it seems the original literary (fictional or dramatic) that "inspired" and that a great novel or a great play always have to walk necessarily, a great film, though in practice it depends on many varied factors, the first one and most important, the quality of original literary and reading made it. 
The worst, however, emerges at the time in which the authors of these comments start to give details, revealing most of the time the cause of the weakness of their arguments: first, that no have read the novel, Portis, or if they have, they have forgotten (his first English edition, by Bruguera, Friend Book collection goes back to 1970, and looks on its front page poster version of Hathaway, the stakeholders have a second chance to capture it thanks to the recent reissue of Random House Mondadori, SA, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b2011, No. Debolsillo library. 867), and second, surprisingly, appear to have seen or worse case of film commentators, seem to have forgotten masterpiece by Henry Hathaway. I know some friends of this blog believe that I give too much importance to the opinions of others. I clarify that I respect all opinions, but that the duty to respect is not inconsistent with the right to reply, especially when you are spreading wrong conclusions that demonstrate the lack of knowledge of Portis's novel (which, incidentally, not is so serious, given that there have been many more blatant cases with film adaptations of books, presumably, much more popular: just remember much of what was said when it debuted Bram Stoker (Bram Stoker's Dracula, 1992) and The Age of Innocence (The Age of Innocence, 1993), films that overshadowed the merits of the respective novels of Bram Stoker and Edith Wharton in which inspired the benefit of the reputation cinephile of its producers, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese). It is striking in this case is now wielding the loyalty Portis Coen's book as a tagline and easy to handle on which to claim the work of filmmakers brothers. But what is curious is that most favorable opinions toward the new film from the Coen arrive at some conclusions perfectly applicable to the version of Hathaway. Many of these conclusions can be summarized in the following paragraph: 
is easy to see in a Grit western half way between the tone tested abstract by John Ford in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, 1962) and the attitude of resistance to the film that was being imposed in the decade of Howard Hawks' El Dorado (idem, 1966). On the one hand, there are Grit sufficient elements of abstraction. The first: its heroine is Mattie Ross, a 14 year old girl determined to avenge the death of his father, Frank Ross, capturing the man who killed him, Tom Chaney. Mattie has the help of two law enforcement officials, the old sheriff Rooster Cogburn and the young Texas Ranger La Boeuf , though, the second element of abstraction, for her help in the capture of Chaney is nothing disinterested Cogburn what does for $ 100 will pay you chop Mattie and he can get the reward that La Boeuf promises to share with him, as it seeks to Chaney for the death of a Texas senator. Third element of abstraction: the contrast of characters between these three characters gives rise to many situations resolved in a tone of comedy. But Grit pitiful is not a film but a lucid and vital work which confronts its characters, judging them harshly treating even, ultimately, with affection. Cogburn and Mattie are two sides of same coin: first, the Commissioner old, fat, one-eyed, too old to seduce a girl, also too young, drunk and trigger-happy, with many dead on their backs and dim past as a thief, and second, that severe and enthusiastic girl, hard and vindictive, worthy heir of the pioneers of the West. Both are, in different ways, relics of the past together in an adventure sprinkled with abrupt outbursts of violence: it should be noted about the extraordinary sequence in the cabin of the outlaws along the river or the magnificent showdown Cogburn and final between the gang led by Ned Pepper, shot like a medieval duel with Cogburn become a sort of knight of ancient times. I just transcribe This is not a comment Grit the Coen brothers, but a summary of my review of True Grit Henry Hathaway, the reader may find reproduced in full in both this blog (1) as in the portal Film Archive (2) .
The conclusion is obvious: people say that the law value of the Coen's, if not better, at least different from the True Grit Henry Hathaway, it do (repeat, apparently) on the basis of supposed fidelity to a novel, I suspect, or do not know or have read, and rebound on the theoretical "infidelity" to the book of the 1969 version. Both the one and the other is quite debatable. It is true that the film of the Coen respect of the novel the story from the subjective viewpoint of Mattie Ross, adapting the first-person account of the book, and stresses that subjectivity through the use of voice-off character; is again, as in the novel, and something that certainly was not done in Hathaway's movie, it also respects the fact that the story of Mattie occurs many years after the fact: it is the adult Mattie (Elizabeth Marvel) that recalls the great adventure of being a Mattie lived 14 years (Hailee Steinfeld). But it turns out that the version of Hathaway also respected, almost 90%, the narrative from the point of view of Mattie (Kim Darby), with the exception of the first sequence, in which we witnessed the departure of Frank Ross (John Pickard ) of his family, and his subsequent murder by Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey), therefore, and beyond this little "betrayal" Portis, and more on the way to the bottom, the film also respected Hathaway point of view of Mattie and without resorting to voice off , Which was much more subtle. Following the "betrayal", otherwise not substantial, the physical appearance of Rooster Cogburn commissioner is not exactly the same as that provided by Portis, who by the mouth of Mattie not described as an old man, but rather as a man prematurely old: "I was very surprised when an old one-eyed man who looked a lot like Grover Cleveland advanced to the chair and took the oath. I said "old." He was about forty "or John Wayne or Jeff Bridges meet that description. It is no less true that the Coen collected also with remarkable fidelity, the episode of hanging of the three outlaws, which occurs coincident with the arrival of Mattie the people, which leads to a biting episode of black humor: the three men sentenced to death, two of them are white men, and the third a red skin , the first white man to pronounce, before his death, a fearful discourse of repentance, while the latter prefer to devote his last words to 
show their contempt for the world that has sentenced to death, in regard to two white men, the Coens are true to Portis, introducing a close variant of his own in what refers to the red man, when this is ready to pronounce his last speech, the executioner covers his head with the hood, leaving the word in my mouth ... Hathaway certainly did not show this episode, the Coens themselves, and also do very well, "but I substituted with an extraordinary record of a group of children playing near the gallows where they will hang the damned: a sharp and no detail, but terrible about a society that grows from early childhood, the antisocial elements contempt and indifference to the death of human beings who do not follow the established social rules. It is also true that the Coen collected almost verbatim from the book of Portis the final sequence, with an adult, Mattie, who lost his arm as a result of the venom of the snake that bit her, traveling to a "circus of the Far West" where two ancient glories of the Old West, the exforajidos Cole Younger (Don Pirlo) and Frank James, we report that Rooster Cogburn, who was part of his circus, died days ago, and how does moving Mattie train Cogburn's coffin to bury the family farm. But it had its equivalent in the Hathaway version in the brilliant final sequence in the family cemetery of Ross, where the old one-eyed sheriff already has booked a place next to Mattie and his family for their eternal rest, thereby passing , and also a very subtle way, one of the ideas behind the story devised by Portis, that Cogburn is the "second father of the female protagonist, the man who has led from adolescence to adulthood by way of the experience of an adventure full of brutality and violence. 
may seem, yet what I'm saying that Grit Version Coen, seems like a bad movie. Not at all, on the contrary, I think a good film and sometimes excellent, and as remake, and I share, in this case, the point of view of Mr Quim Casas, absolutely superior to Ladykillers (Ladykillers, 2004). All I'm saying, which is something, is that neither is better than the version of Hathaway, nor is it correct to say more faithful to the novel than the first version Portis because, in addition to the already explained, they also "eat" the occasional minor character in the book (for example, the Indian Police Boots), bringing the "percentage of fidelity "the two ends up being like that, nor do I think it is fair to attribute as their own merits and shone in Hathaway's version (and before it, the great novel by Portis). Add that to the fact that the Coens have made about the book additives that have seemed suitable, which to them are not criticized because, it says, are about larger-creators, while I fear, yet there are many people Hathaway thinks that was only one-artisan-the-old-Hollywood (sic). On the other hand, do not contend that their innovations to the original Portis are bad, in fact, a couple of them give rise to two good moments: the sequence in which Cogburn and Mattie are the way to a man hanged in a high branch, and the commissioner raises the child to the tree to cut the rope and throw the body into the ground to look closely and identify (a point also illustrates the hard life learning which will be submitted Mattie throughout the narrative), and the strange encounter with a trapper and peddler wearing a bearskin (Ed Corbin), which seems out of The Jeremiah Johnson (Jeremiah Johnson, 1972, Sydney Pollack), and introduces a picturesque note about the unorthodox way to make a living in the America of the time. Another of these innovations, however, reflect that sense of humor is not always appropriate for the Coens often place in their fictions in the face of certain effects of dramatic distancing and / or distorting narrative: that the Beouf (Matt Damon) almost Boot the language of a bite during the night skirmish against the band of Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper), and as a result is to spend the rest of the film lisp, sounds more like a joke than anything else Easy (can we interpret also as a kind of mockery "loving" to Matt Damon and his usual typecasting in characters "smart"?), on the other hand, what about the painful secondary character of Pepper buddy who spends his time imitating animals and seems a kind of parody version of "beastly" Sam Peckinpah showing miners in Ride the High Sierra (Ride the High Country, 1962)?: fortunately, leaves little. Despite references to Peckinpah Pollack and outlined above, or the fact that the first time we see the Beouf sitting in a chair on two legs and with your legs propped on the railing of the porch - evoking perhaps, to Henry Fonda in My Darling Clementine (My Darling Clementine, 1946)? - it should be thankful that the Coen brothers have not turned their version of True Grit a mere festival of winks, or an evocation "modern" on the edge of caricature of a classic genre, the western , in line with the perpetrators of the black film to
purpose Miller's Crossing (Miller's Crossing, 1990). For all its faults, as we have seen is the True Grit the Coens just be one of his best work in recent years without reaching the height of which still seem to me the two best films, Barton Fink (idem, 1991) and A Serious (A Serious Man, 2009), is in "his" True Grit a desire to tell a good history, and also to tell it well, bringing the film over all digressions about his fidelity to the novel or Portis Hathaway version that has been received. Tried under their own merits, Grit the Coen is one of the most decent Western approaches to of this past decade and a work in which, despite the faux pas that I mentioned ( and apparently 'inevitable' their authors), the elegance of the performance ends up being the predominant quality. With the invaluable help of new director of photography Roger Deakins, the Coens make certain episodes of Mattie's journey in a kind of journey that alternates deliberately light and darkness, truth and falsehood, good and bad. Anoto about the brilliant presentation of Cogburn in the courtroom, which testifies about the latest arrest took place and where, as usual in it, almost all the suspects ended up dead in their hands: light that filters through the windows, and lights to Cogburn on the bench where he states, gives the character patina paradoxical Cogburn is, while the "enlightened" Mattie seeking to hunt down the murderer of his father, while a dark and gloomy man, who carries a history of violence. I aim also, night scenes, as one in which, in the light of a fire, La Beouf launches bitter hints of the same murderous past Cogburn on which the latter did not want to talk (and which are certain echoes, admittedly of Unforgiven / Unforgiven 1992, Clint Eastwood) or which illustrates the desperate race horse Cogburn, and finally on foot, to save the life of the poisoned Mattie. We also thank the Coen resolved in a dry, concise and devastating the great moments of violence, the fight in the cabin where they shelter a couple of men of the band Pepper; the subsequent shooting night, and mentioned, among Cogburn, La Beouf, Pepper and his companions, the great mourning "medieval" the end, with the old sheriff facing Pepper and three men, all on horseback and charging against each other ", even though these sequences, although excellent, do not exceed those shot by Hathaway. (1) http://elcineseguntfv.blogspot.com/2009/11/viejo-gordo-y-tuerto-valor-de-ley.html .
0 comments:
Post a Comment