A remake of a classic film is a double-edged sword to be sure. On one hand you have the purist mentality that sides in favor of the original, as if another version of the same material, especially one of an iconic nature is somehow sacrilegious and will tarnish its image if even attempted. History bears this out as many a remake, re-imagining, rehash, rerun has been handled without the necessary ingredients: script, direction, passion, point. Do these horrid attempts to cash in on the good names of the initial offerings besmirch their good names? Not necessarily. Many times, it makes them stand out so much more. However, clogging the system with crap of the same name can bury the original under a pile of trash and a movie-going public, without any sense of historical perspective, will never knows the pleasures of a great old film because, well, the new one sucks.
In the case of TRUE GRIT, you have a new version of Charles Portis' novel that follows the source material much closer than the Henry Hathaway version from 1969 which featured the Academy Award winning performance by John Wayne. This version is almost the swan song of a bygone era all of its own-the typical Hollywood western and few did it better in the 1960s better than Hathaway. With HOW THE WEST WAS WON (of which he shared duties with John Ford and George Marshall), NEVADA SMITH and THE SONS OF KATIE ELDER with The Duke, Hathaway was a real A-list studio talent with a style that was rapidly going out of fashion as he turned the last corner into the 1970s. Along with Wayne, GRIT starred a too-old Kim Darby as Mattie Ross, though she bring a lot of gumption to the role. Then there's Glen Campbell as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf who is green as a dollar bill in the acting department, though he isn't the embarrassment he could have been. For some reason, the studio-or Wayne himself-stuck the Duke with a lot of pop singers in his westerns to supposedly boost the box office draw, using with less than middling results-Ricky Nelson in RIO BRAVO, Frankie Avalon in THE ALAMO, Fabian in NORTH TO ALASKA, Bobby Vinton in BIG JAKE. The supporting players featured a fine cast of character actors including Robert Duvall as Lucky Ned Pepper, Jeff Corey and a just moments before EASY RIDER Dennis Hopper. Hathaway's take on Portis delivers the goods in a grand style that just screams Hollywood studio system, but still manages to remain true to the source in a roundabout way that doesn't insult the material, even if it does shine it to a high gloss. As for The Duke, he really does pull out the stops one last time, one of the few characters he allowed himself to play without being, well, The Duke. He really could be a damn good actor if he tried and his Rooster would a high benchmark to aim for any future interpretations. I really get a kick out of his exit line: "Well, come see a fat old man sometime!" before riding off into the sunset once more time.
As adapted and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, the 21st century TRUE GRIT adheres to Portis' book and pays ever so slight homage to its first incarnation in very satisfying ways. In fact, when the final shootout occurs with the same dialogue, it is as rousing a film moment as any I've felt in the past five years, since it combines the best of all three worlds to make one for the ages. The tone of the film is somber, but playful, in keeping with the Coen Brothers style. The look of GRIT is splendidly bleak with cinematography by Roger Deakins, the best in the business. My only criticism lies with the editing, the Coens cutting way too sharply occasionally from scene to scene, upsetting the flow in places. This weight of the story falls on the strength of the Mattie Ross character, played this time by the believably feisty Hailee Steinfeld, who rises to the challenge like an old pro. She is one of the best young acting discoveries in ages. Matt Damon elevates the LaBoeuf role into something to be cherished, a fine supporting turn that reminds us again of what fine work he is capable of doing, even if he doesn't sing the title song. (Advantage: Campbell!) And Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper (a descendant perhaps?) is much like the movie itself, a mash-up of both Robert Duvall from the first and Henry Dean Stanton. And of course Jeff Bridges plays Rooster Cogburn with such an infectiously ornery spirit that makes one forget that he's really something to be feared-a raging alcoholic with a badge and a gun. In the end, Bridges finds the heart and soul of Rooster and the real hero within. I see Bridges' Rooster as an elder version of his character in Robert Benton's BAD COMPANY, a sensational and underrated western from the early seventies that has much in common with this TRUE GRIT. Bridges' long career culminates in the last couple of years, but I think if he hadn't won an Oscar last year, he would have for this performance, much like The Duke himself.
If I had a preference-the Coke vs Pepsi Challenge where I would have to choose one over the other, I'd have to give to the Coens. They've made the best oater (as Variety used to call westerns) certainly of this new decade, a dubious honor to be sure since there have been, what, this one, JONAH HEX and a couple on the Hallmark Channel? But this TRUE GRIT proves that westerns are still a viable cinematic genre, especially where it counts for Hollywood-at the box office. Maybe remakes are the only way new westerns can get the green light in this day and age, other than something like COWBOYS VS ALIENS. If so, they might at well continue panning for gold in the John Wayne catalog.
RIO BRAVO, anybody?
Showing posts with label Joel and Ethan Coen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joel and Ethan Coen. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
True to the Grit
A remake of a classic film is a double-edged sword to be sure. On one hand you have the purist mentality that sides in favor of the original, as if another version of the same material, especially one of an iconic nature is somehow sacrilegious and will tarnish its image if even attempted. History bears this out as many a remake, re-imagining, rehash, rerun has been handled without the necessary ingredients: script, direction, passion, point. Do these horrid attempts to cash in on the good names of the initial offerings besmirch their good names? Not necessarily. Many times, it makes them stand out so much more. However, clogging the system with crap of the same name can bury the original under a pile of trash and a movie-going public, without any sense of historical perspective, will never knows the pleasures of a great old film because, well, the new one sucks.
In the case of TRUE GRIT, you have a new version of Charles Portis' novel that follows the source material much closer than the Henry Hathaway version from 1969 which featured the Academy Award winning performance by John Wayne. This version is almost the swan song of a bygone era all of its own-the typical Hollywood western and few did it better in the 1960s better than Hathaway. With HOW THE WEST WAS WON (of which he shared duties with John Ford and George Marshall), NEVADA SMITH and THE SONS OF KATIE ELDER with The Duke, Hathaway was a real A-list studio talent with a style that was rapidly going out of fashion as he turned the last corner into the 1970s. Along with Wayne, GRIT starred a too-old Kim Darby as Mattie Ross, though she bring a lot of gumption to the role. Then there's Glen Campbell as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf who is green as a dollar bill in the acting department, though he isn't the embarrassment he could have been. For some reason, the studio-or Wayne himself-stuck the Duke with a lot of pop singers in his westerns to supposedly boost the box office draw, using with less than middling results-Ricky Nelson in RIO BRAVO, Frankie Avalon in THE ALAMO, Fabian in NORTH TO ALASKA, Bobby Vinton in BIG JAKE. The supporting players featured a fine cast of character actors including Robert Duvall as Lucky Ned Pepper, Jeff Corey and a just moments before EASY RIDER Dennis Hopper. Hathaway's take on Portis delivers the goods in a grand style that just screams Hollywood studio system, but still manages to remain true to the source in a roundabout way that doesn't insult the material, even if it does shine it to a high gloss. As for The Duke, he really does pull out the stops one last time, one of the few characters he allowed himself to play without being, well, The Duke. He really could be a damn good actor if he tried and his Rooster would a high benchmark to aim for any future interpretations. I really get a kick out of his exit line: "Well, come see a fat old man sometime!" before riding off into the sunset once more time.
As adapted and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, the 21st century TRUE GRIT adheres to Portis' book and pays ever so slight homage to its first incarnation in very satisfying ways. In fact, when the final shootout occurs with the same dialogue, it is as rousing a film moment as any I've felt in the past five years, since it combines the best of all three worlds to make one for the ages. The tone of the film is somber, but playful, in keeping with the Coen Brothers style. The look of GRIT is splendidly bleak with cinematography by Roger Deakins, the best in the business. My only criticism lies with the editing, the Coens cutting way too sharply occasionally from scene to scene, upsetting the flow in places. This weight of the story falls on the strength of the Mattie Ross character, played this time by the believably feisty Hailee Steinfeld, who rises to the challenge like an old pro. She is one of the best young acting discoveries in ages. Matt Damon elevates the LaBoeuf role into something to be cherished, a fine supporting turn that reminds us again of what fine work he is capable of doing, even if he doesn't sing the title song. (Advantage: Campbell!) And Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper (a descendant perhaps?) is much like the movie itself, a mash-up of both Robert Duvall from the first and Henry Dean Stanton. And of course Jeff Bridges plays Rooster Cogburn with such an infectiously ornery spirit that makes one forget that he's really something to be feared-a raging alcoholic with a badge and a gun. In the end, Bridges finds the heart and soul of Rooster and the real hero within. I see Bridges' Rooster as an elder version of his character in Robert Benton's BAD COMPANY, a sensational and underrated western from the early seventies that has much in common with this TRUE GRIT. Bridges' long career culminates in the last couple of years, but I think if he hadn't won an Oscar last year, he would have for this performance, much like The Duke himself.
If I had a preference-the Coke vs Pepsi Challenge where I would have to choose one over the other, I'd have to give to the Coens. They've made the best oater (as Variety used to call westerns) certainly of this new decade, a dubious honor to be sure since there have been, what, this one, JONAH HEX and a couple on the Hallmark Channel? But this TRUE GRIT proves that westerns are still a viable cinematic genre, especially where it counts for Hollywood-at the box office. Maybe remakes are the only way new westerns can get the green light in this day and age, other than something like COWBOYS VS ALIENS. If so, they might at well continue panning for gold in the John Wayne catalog.
RIO BRAVO, anybody?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
What a "Burn"
So sue me.I enjoyed the new Joel and Ethan Coen film BURN AFTER READING more than NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
I don't think it's a better film. Not by a long shot. In fact, in the Coen brothers film canon, it sits probably between O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? and THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE. But the truth of the matter is I laughed my fool head off at this goofy, wonderfully convoluted comedy, their funniest since the now legendary THE BIG LEBOWSKI. While it took a little while to ramp up, this tale of supposed espionage in a self-important world gave me the horselaugh more than a few times. The story fell together like the Dance of the Seven Veils and underneath is a beautifully convoluted mess. The caricatured characters, from Frances McDormand's lovelorn sad sack to John Malkovich's pompous mid-management intelligence officer hit every right note, though the film is outright stolen by Brad Pitt as one of the Coen Bros.' best American idiots (see also: O BROTHER and RAISING ARIZONA), a dim bulb satisfied with his own low wattage.
I had a lot of problems with NO COUNTRY, particularly with the final third of the film. I, like many others, felt cheated by the outcome of one of the main characters. It made me very so ambivalent after the first viewing that I reserved my opinion until the second time through. I have to stand by my initial assessment: I felt that the Coens have given me a wild ride, then dropped me off in the middle of nowhere, causing me to find my own way back.
In BURN, there is an entire series of events that is talked about and not shown. I didn't feel gypped by this at all. The telling of that tale by fine actors like David Rasche and J.K. Simmons, one of the best character actors around, was sublime. And I found out WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED.
P.S. I caught BURN AFTER READING at the newly remodeled Roseway Theater, a classic old cinema in Northeast Portland and found hope in the world of single-screen venues. Here's another addition to the list of why I love it up here.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
My Year in Movies-Part One
I am not a film critic nor do I play one on TV, radio, print or even online. I'm just a guy who loves the movies in any way, shape or form. Because I am a total geek about the cinema, I am also pretty obsessive compulsive regarding this love of mine. Therefore, in 2004, I set out to make a list of every new movie I watched this year. By new, I mean new to me as in the expression that is used for old jokes. "If you haven't heard it, it's new to you." Besides, as each year clocks off the remaining days of my life, I'm trying not to adhere to any set time for certain things. Film is after all an art form and art is supposedly timeless. I really have no use for the ephemeral world even though our entire society is based on the temporary and disposable. I'll live in the now, but give me the past and the future too please. Otherwise just wad me up like a discarded tissue and dump me in the nearest receptacle marked "Here today, gone tomorrow". I also didn't see every film released in 2004, while catching things from 2003 like THE RETURN OF THE KING. So, does that mean if I came up with a Top Ten list, I couldn't include THE LORD OF THE RINGS grand finale because it was released the previous month? Bullshit, I say and bullshit, I mean. I have no desire to see movies as soon as they come out like I used to. I can wait. If their any good at all, they'll last until I get to them. If not, they may not have been worth my time anyway. Film doesn't expire and should not be dated for immediate sale. Now I am fortunate to live in an area that has an abundance of second run theaters should I be unable to catch them in the first few weeks if I have a real need to see them on the screen and not at home.This also cuts out a lot of potential audience disturbances which, knock wood, I have not encountered in many a moon. I avoided pictures that were flooded with hype, namely FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I'll see them in due time, but I really wanted to separate myself from either group during their runs and chose to deal with them on their own terms when I feel like it. I have a feeling Michael Moore's opus may be dated by now, but I'll still give it a chance. If its shelf life has been cut short, well, that's the way the documentary crumbles. I watched BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE in April and that movie held up after a year and a half. As for Jesus, I repeat, I'll get around to it and make my own decision. It's not as if my immortal soul is hanging in the balance.
So the grand total of movies I saw in the year 2004 added up to 118. Now, to be fair, I eliminated certain things that I fast forwarded through (CHARLIE'S ANGELS FULL THROTTLE and DAREDEVIL), fell asleep during (THE ENDURANCE) or watched again, a practice I tried to avoid as much as possible since that wasn't the purpose of this grand experiment. I'm finding that frequently repeated viewings are beginning to diminish the strength of many of my favorites, so I'm going to put a moratorium on some of these films just to give myself some distance from them. This way, I won't burn out on them.
This was also a year that I could catch up with many a movie that has eluded me in the past, some that have slipped through the cracks of time that have popped up in the video store or even TV. Some of these are part of a director's filmogrpahy I've missed, such as Hitchcock's TO CATCH A THIEF. Others are some things I feel I need to see to broaden my horizons a bit. There is a worn piece of paper in my wallet that I had scribbled is a list of several films I have thought were required viewing. It was called "52 for 2002"-fifty two films, one a week to further my schooling. I've gotten half-way through it in two years. I should be wearing a dunce cap. Most everything that I had seen from that list I haven't regretted watching. Admittedly, some have been disappointments, but there's a better chance of seeing something worthwhile than the latest offering from Ashton Kutcher.
Also I have not been out to the theaters as much as I used to, since 99% of what I've seen has been on my 19" Goldstar TV. For matter of economics, convenience and time restraints, this is the choice I've made for myself. Would I prefer to go the movies more often? You betcha. Would I want my own personal screening room? Naturally. Would I even want a better TV? Sure. Do I? No. Let's move on.
For better or worse, My Year in Movies-2004.
BETTER THAN I EXPECTED
IDENTITY and THE RUNAWAY JURY w/John Cusack. The latter being a John Grisham tale which I usually hate other than THE RAINMAKER. This one...well, didn't suck. The former is a decent little thriller from James Mangold, much better than the mess that was COPLAND.
UNDERWORLD...Vampires, werewolves and THE MATRIX in a fair to middling computer game disguised as a film. Another fine performance from Bill Nighy in a middling film.
SIMONE...An overlooked Al Pacino showcase.
WINDTALKERS...John Woo, whither did ye wander? Other than many a corny moment, I was more impressed than not.
MOONLIGHT MILE...Brad Silberling's purging of the death of his fiancee makes for a very nice effort. Too bad he wants to be Chris Columbus or even Spielberg because this really showed what he could do as a writer and director.
BARBERSHOP...This is not a backhanded insult, but this reminded me of CAR WASH, which I love by the way. I have to hand it to Ice Cube.
DISAPPOINTMENTS
28 DAYS LATER...I wanted great. all I got was a retread of DAY OF THE DEAD.
SPELLBOUND (the spelling bell doc, not yhe Hitchcock joint)...I didn't care for the kids very much so I found myself not nearly as enchanted as many were.
BUBBA HO-TEP...Great premise, mediocre execution. Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis saved this from being a total botch job.
SWIMMING POOL...Not as interesting as it believes it should be, even with the nudity. Still. Nudity.
LOST IN TRANSLATION...Much to recommend and Sofia Coppola is emerging as a major talent, this was way over-hyped. I admit that it did stay with me longer than I expected it to. I may have to watch it again.
MAN WITHOUT A PAST...A Finnish comedy. Yeah. I'm laughing all the way to the fjord.
Speaking of fins...OPEN WATER...Really unfortunate this didn't have enough to sustain a whole feature. This one-note premise with nothing else to support it let me down, not creeping me out as I expected it to. I have to hand it to the the filmmakers and particularly the actors for working with real honest to goodness sharks, but there should have been more to this. Well, other than lead actress Blanchard Ryan's nakedness...Those lucky, lucky sharks...
HEAVEN...Tom Tykwer, one of my favorite directors of recent years (the brilliant RUN, LOLA, RUN) couldn't pull this one off. He's still three for four, which is a better average than most.
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW...Through all the care that was put into the visuals of the remarkable looking movie, not a script could be found in sight. Not so much a film as it a demo reel.
The biggest letdowns of the year had to be INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and THE LADYKILLERS. The Coen Brothers are on cruise control and the film world is worse off for it. Come on,guys! Get it together! Who do you think you are... The Wachowskis?
TO BE CONTINUED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)