"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 in cash money plus two California gold pieces that he carried in his trouser band". So begins young Mattie Ross' narrative in Charles Portis' classic novel that has been made into two major motion pictures.
The original 1969 film, directed by Henry Hathaway ("How The West Was Won","The Sons of Katie Elder" and many more classic films), has always been one of my favorite movies, and having seen the Oscar nominated "remake", I decided to read the original book to see how well it holds up against these two films and more importantly to explore the novel's rich characters more deeply.
Both films follow Portis' original story very well, but the main difference between the two is which of the main characters has "true grit"? The 1969 film is dominated by John Wayne and his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, the tough one-eyed Marshall hired by Mattie Ross to avenge her father's murder. Let's face it, The Duke dominated every film he was ever in. You can argue that he always played John Wayne, but there is no doubt that he was a Hollywood legend. It should come as no surprise then that the Cogburn in the original film, is the "man with grit" sought by Ross to hunt down her father's killer. This is not the case in the remake. In the 2010 Coen Brothers' film, Cogburn, wonderfully played by Jeff Bridges, is not the focus. Here, young Mattie Ross is the one with grit. She is, after all, only 14 years old, yet fearless and dogged in her determination to see Tom Chaney brought to justice. Hailee Steinfeld, in her first major motion picture role, is just 14 years old herself, yet she captures the essence of Mattie Ross much better than Kim Darby did in the original film. Steinfield's Ross is also much closer to what Portis envisioned in his novel. She is at once scared and brave, confident yet anxious, driven by an Ahab-like obsession to see Chaney pay for his crime.
The book and the two films depict the complex, formal language of the era in which the story takes place. (To her credit, throughout the film, Steinfield has no trouble at all with the complex dialogue.) Contractions were seldom used in the late 1800's. Note the lack of contractions in the following two examples:
From the 2010 screenplay:
Mattie Ross: If I had killed Chaney, I would not be in this fix; but my gun misfired.
Lucky Ned Pepper: [Chuckling] They will do it. It will embarrass you every time. Most girls like to play pretties, but you like guns do you?
Mattie Ross: I do not care a thing about guns, if I did, I would have one that worked.
Portis' writing is even more detailed, and accurate for the time, as seen in this part of the narrative: " I had hated these ponies for the part they played in my father's death but now I realized the notion was fanciful, that it was wrong to charge blame to these pretty beasts who knew neither good nor evil but only innocence. I say that of these ponies. I have known some horses and a good many more pigs who I believe harbored evil intent in their hearts. I will go further and say all cats are wicked, though often useful. Who has not seen Satan in their sly faces? Some preachers will say, well, that is superstitious 'claptrap'. My answer is this: Preacher, go to your Bible and read Luke 8: 26-33." (True Grit, Page 25). For those of you who don't remember your New Testament, that part of Luke 8 deals with Jesus and the demon possessed pigs.
Another interesting character is the Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Pronounced "La Beef"), played in the original film by Glenn Campbell and in the remake by Matt Damon. As with Mattie and Rooster, this character in the remake is portrayed more accurately to the novel than in the original film. In Portis' book, LaBoeuf is shown to be an able, though egotistical, lawman. He is on Chaney's trail to bring him back to Texas to be tried for the murder of a State Senator. In a Los Angeles Times story on Matt Damon in this film, ("Matt Damon enjoys being 'a true nincompoop' in 'True Grit'", L.A. Times, 12/26/10) LaBoeuf is described as "a Texas Ranger who may be more windbag than Winchester." I love that description. Even Damon, when asked in this article about his character stated, "I am a true nincompoop in this movie." To be sure, LaBoeuf is a bit of a windbag, but I have to disagree with Damon's assessment: LaBoeuf is a competent lawman, though he does seem to be "right proud of his cowlick", as Mattie Ross describes him in the book. We are introduced to him slightly differently in the Coen Brothers' film than we are in the original film. In the 1969 film, and in the novel, Mattie meets Laboeuf at dinner in the boarding house, but in the remake, she encounters him on the dimly lit front porch of the boarding house. LaBoeuf is seated in a chair smoking a cigarette. I like this character introduction much better. There is a bit of mystery about who this person is. In just a few simple lines of dialogue, the Coen Brothers introduce LaBoeuf not only as a Texas Ranger, but as someone overly impressed with himself. There is a great little bit of business here with the way Damon pulls his jacket aside to reveal his badge and states, "I'm a Texas Ranger" while looking at Mattie thinking that she will be as impressed with that fact as he obviously is. She isn't impressed.
Obviously, no discussion of True Grit would be complete without taking a look at Rooster Cogburn. We touched on him briefly, but a much more in-depth look is warranted. The novel provides us with an interesting back story that is absent in the original film. Cogburn harbors a dark past. He is a flawed hero. Cogburn is a former Confederate Army Officer who rode with William Cantrill. Cantrill is a real person. History books often describe Cantrill as a war criminal responsible for the Lawrence Kansas Massacre. A deadly raid during the Civil War where Cantrill and his men ransacked the town, killing many civilians, including women and children. The town, now home to the University of Kansas, was apparently chosen for destruction due to the fact it was a center for abolitionists. Cogburn later drifted around the Midwest, possibly with a gang of robbers, before becoming a Marshall. In fact, at the time of the story, he has been a Marshall for only a few years. He is an effective lawman, but he's also a drunk with few social graces.
In the original film, Wayne is, as I said, John Wayne. His Cogburn is a drunk, but we don't hear about his dark past. It just wouldn't do to cast The Duke as anything less than heroic. He speaks of former jobs and a past marriage that didn't work out, but there is little mention of anything else.
Interestingly, there is a scene in the 1969 film that Wayne's detractors have always cited as an example of his ultra conservative political views. Cogburn, in a state of drunkenness, shoots a rat. Here is the dialogue:
Rooster Cogburn: Mr. Rat, I have a writ here says you're to stop eating Chin Lee's cornmeal forthwith. Now it's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of the same. See, doesn't pay any attention to me.
[shoots the rat]
Chen Lee: [Runs into the room] Outside is place for shooting!
Rooster Cogburn: I'm servin' some papers!
Critics charge that this is an example of Wayne's ultra-conservative views, including the theory that criminals cannot be rehabilitated. While Wayne may have held that view, this scene is straight out of Portis' novel.
Jeff Bridges' portrayal of Cogburn in the 2010 film is much closer to the book. He's unkempt, a drunk and possibly murders suspects instead of trying to to arrest them. He is an imperfect hero. Bridges plays him pretty much according to the book, but he also adds a bit of "The Dude" character he famously played in "The Big Lebowski." Bridges' facial expression and the way he says, "We?" in response to Mattie telling him she is joining him on the search for Chaney is The Dude in all his glory.
Many people say that they don't care for the way the Coen Brothers often abruptly end their films. (See Tommy Lee Jones' lamenting soliloquy in "No Country For Old Men."). In True Grit (2010), the ending seems abrupt to some, but it follows that of the novel. Mattie Ross is 40 years old, never married and still as tough as she was many years earlier. In Portis' novel, speaking on the subject of marriage, Mattie states, "I never had the time to get married but it is nobody's business if I am married or not married...... I never had the time to fool with it. A woman with brains and a frank tongue and one sleeve pinned up and an invalid mother to care for is at some disadvantage, although I will say I could have had two or three old untidy men around here who had their eyes fastened on my bank. No, thank you!" (Page 306)
Mattie's closing narrative tells of how she made a journey to visit Rooster Cogburn a few years earlier, but he had died before she could meet up with him. Mattie had Cogburn's body disinterred and brought to her farm to be buried in her family's plot. She also writes that she never heard anything more of LaBoeuf.
"If he is yet alive and should happen to read these pages, I will be pleased to hear from him. I judge he is in his seventies now, and nearer eighty than seventy. I expect some of the starch has gone out of that 'cowlick' "(Page 306).
She closes with, "Time just gets away from us. This ends my true account of how I avenged Frank Ross's blood over in the Choctaw Nation when snow was on the ground." (Page 307).
Before time gets away from me as well, I hope you've enjoyed this comparison of Charles Portis' classic novel and the two films that were adapted from it. It was well worth the time to read Portis' novel and I hope that you do so as well. I also encourage you to make your own comparison of the book and rent the 1969 film before seeing the current motion picture.
