True Grit

[Todd]

The film Tombstone, which drags on a little too long, is a really interesting one in terms of material items. Whoever was in control of that aspect of the film really studied it and the dress and material items are period and region correct, which oddly was one of the reasons that the film took some negative criticism. It doesn't look like other Westerns, and that's the reason why. A really unusual saddles shows up in this film, being ridden by the Wyatt Earp character, and I don't know what it is. It isn't a horned saddle. If somebody knows what it is, I'd be curious as to that.

I saw that one recently as a guilty cinematic treat while recovering from a nasty virus of some sort, and noticed that myself for the first time. It seems to be a 'Kentucky Spring Seat' style, which would be an interesting and likely accurate alternative to heavy stock saddles for that time period and character. My 'bit-eye' isn't quite as good as it once was, Kurt Russell's mount seemed to have an unusual bit - perhaps a Kimberwicke or some variation.
The detail of much of the movie wasn't too bad, tho anyone with some experience with the town will recognize that the building orientations were a little Dali-esque. I recalled the conversations some time ago from a firearms board, and was looking for the details - they were very diligent in terms of arms used in the film to get as close as they could, even to resurrecting an extremely rare "triple-trigger" 10ga Stevens doublebarrel for the Wyatt character.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/10_Gauge ... ed_Shotgun

The Bird Cage Theater in the film was rather extravagant in it's rendition of the size of the 'chicken coops', tho the other features seemed to be fairly accurate. [by the way, one of the coolest buildings in the world for any Old West buff, a must-visit! I'd give about anything to spend a night in the place...]

[Pat Holscher]

The film Tombstone, which drags on a little too long, is a really interesting one in terms of material items. Whoever was in control of that aspect of the film really studied it and the dress and material items are period and region correct, which oddly was one of the reasons that the film took some negative criticism. It doesn't look like other Westerns, and that's the reason why. A really unusual saddles shows up in this film, being ridden by the Wyatt Earp character, and I don't know what it is. It isn't a horned saddle. If somebody knows what it is, I'd be curious as to that.

I saw that one recently as a guilty cinematic treat while recovering from a nasty virus of some sort, and noticed that myself for the first time. It seems to be a 'Kentucky Spring Seat' style, which would be an interesting and likely accurate alternative to heavy stock saddles for that time period and character. My 'bit-eye' isn't quite as good as it once was, Kurt Russell's mount seemed to have an unusual bit - perhaps a Kimberwicke or some variation.
The detail of much of the movie wasn't too bad, tho anyone with some experience with the town will recognize that the building orientations were a little Dali-esque. I recalled the conversations some time ago from a firearms board, and was looking for the details - they were very diligent in terms of arms used in the film to get as close as they could, even to resurrecting an extremely rare "triple-trigger" 10ga Stevens doublebarrel for the Wyatt character.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/10_Gauge ... ed_Shotgun

The Bird Cage Theater in the film was rather extravagant in it's rendition of the size of the 'chicken coops', tho the other features seemed to be fairly accurate. [by the way, one of the coolest buildings in the world for any Old West buff, a must-visit! I'd give about anything to spend a night in the place...]

Wow, I'd missed the shotgun detail. That is going the last mile.

As an odd item, they showed the use of red sashes by the "Cowboy", the group opposed to Earp. The use of sashes was quite common in the West at the time. I have no idea what caused that sartorial flare, but it was widespread. Red sashes became associated with criminal gangs, and for a while there was a Red Sash Gang in Wyoming that was rumored to be responsible for all sorts of bad acts, although it did not last long.

[Joseph Sullivan]

Red sash gang -- precursor of Red Hat Ladies?

[Pat Holscher]

Red sash gang -- precursor of Red Hat Ladies?

Probably not.

[browerpatch]

You ever seen them Red Hat gals riled up?

[george seal]

I saw True Grit with my wife and we loved it. She's not a Western fan but easily recogniced this movie strives for verosimilitude. I think it's a representative of a trend that started with Eastwood's "Unforgiven". Clasical Westerns are "larger than life" idealized epics (with some exceptions as the very gritty The Searchears). The reaction was the "dirty" Western represented by Sam Peckimpah. He disliked the romanticed Westerns, but his movies may have had more visual verosimilitude but are by no means realistic. Films like The Wild Bunch are what the West should have been like as oposed to truly realistic. Unforgiven and this version of True Grit are probably much closer to real life.

The comments on this thread are spot on. This is not a remake of the very good John Wayne film, but a new adaptation of the novel. I would certainly like to read the book. Incidentally, the "Frontier Novel" (the publishing world's name for the Western) is a thriving industry. Frontier Novels tend not to be great bestsellers but have a stable and loyal following so there is a continous and steady number of books being published. It's considered and interesting and profitable market for the professional writer. That can only be good for the fans.

The dialog in the film is very good and important. It makes the film stand out and shows respect for the source material and the audience's intelligence. In the current political climate that makes Hollywood generally hostile to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, it is notable that the characters are portrayed mater of factly as Christians. This is culturally correct. Adittionally, religion is not sugar coated. This is astheatically pleasing. It has been noted on this thread that the Coen brothers are Jewish, this highlights their artistic integrity. Hollywood has tremendous difficulty in atraccting the (large) Christian US market. They should dump their PR men and hire the Coens. I suspect the Coens don't care about demographics and focus groups and just make films intended for real people.

Characterizations in this film stand out. Josh Brolin for example is quite good at being the ugly Chaney. Damon, Bridges and Barry Pepper are all very good, but the best performance is Hailee Steinfield as Mattie Ross. This year's lame as usual Oscar ceremony will not be remembrerd for the F word, it will be remembered for not giving the prize to Steinfield.

Needless to say I liked the accurate description of period guns. I could actually tell my wife what a dragoon is !
All in all darn good entertainment, and artistic quality too. Makes me regain my faith in Hollywood.

[Pat Holscher]

This year's lame as usual Oscar ceremony will not be remembrerd for the F word, it will be remembered for not giving the prize to Steinfield.

At least as to best actress, I think you may very well be correct.

Indeed, in terms of highly ranked films this year, there's something very interesting that was occurring. We had two films that did very well in terms of nominations that could not be ignored, True Grit anad The King's Speech, but which are not the type of film that we even expect to be made any more. One was a Western with heavy moralistic and Christian undertones, another was an historical drama. In some ways, I'm surprised that True Grit even received a nomination of any kind, as it isn't the sort of film that fits the Hollywood culture. In contrast, there was Black Swan, which I would have expected to receive a nomination because it does fit that mold, but which would have been regarded as trite trash in an earlier era.

[bisley45]

I wonder if TG may have gotten all the attention it has because it's a Coen Bros film. They consistently do quality work, even if it can be more than a little quirky. Their movies don't really fit into any one genre; they just make whatever movie they want, based upon whether the story is good enough. They remind me of the guys back in high school who used lurk in the A/V department, using the school's equipment to edit their Super 8 home movies.

[bisley45]

The river crossing scene is pretty impressive as the river is obviously so deep. Off hand, I can't recall a movie scene from another movie where a horse is so obviously in deep water.

Miss Steinfeld did her own riding in that scene.

What I like most about the movie is that it wasn't supposed to be a re-make of a John Wayne film. No writer, actor or director can go up against the Duke and get away without taking some serious lumps. Instead, the Coens have wisely offered a new take on the Portis story.

[Pat Holscher]

I was doing some airport time last week and read this novel while on a long delay in the airport.

I enjoyed it very much, although a bit unusually for me, I enjoyed the most recent movie version more (usually I like the book more than the movie). In terms of my own enjoyment, a wholly unreliable measure of anything, I think I liked the most recent movie version the best, the novel second, and the John Wayne version of the film third, although I liked them all.

It was interesting to see how the novel was written in a tone which does match some first hand recollections of 19th Century events written by those who participated in them. The narrator clearly feels personal ownership over the story, and also is somewhat disgruntled with recollections she has seen published by her contemporaries. She also expects the reader of her tale to be familiar with some other local writers (which, of course, are fictitious and therefore the reader actually doesn't need to be familiar with them). Her views and prejudices come across very clearly, which is often very much the case if you read first hand articles written in the 1900 to 1930 period.

Writing a novel in this way must be quite difficult. The author is actually male, not female, and he's writing from the view of a middle aged woman looking back on her experience as an early teen. That'd be difficult in the extreme, but he really manages to pull it off. There's quite a few references to Cogburn's Civil War career in the novel, and his later adventures (even the Johnson County War is mentioned).

I would recommend the novel. It's quite short actually, and an enjoyable read. One thing that it sort of does for me is that it suggests that writing a historical novel, even today, isn't a lost cause, even though this novel is, of course a few decades old. This story has been a big hit, when I don't know that I would have expected it to be, if I'd read the novel shortly after it was first written.