Historian reviews True Grit - More accurate, John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? | TWH62
John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? In our first ever "Watch with History", we compare the 1969 and 2010 versions of the movie "True Grit." While the 2010 version has better cinematography, we prefer the characters and humor in the 1969 version. Both versions follow the story of a young girl seeking revenge for her father's murder in the American Old West. The movie captures the spirit of the frontier and explores themes of determination, loyalty, and redemption.
Intro: 0:00
Watch with History: 1:39
1969 True Grit: 4:07
A deeper character: 11:36
Historic hangings: 13:41
Glenn Campbell: 17:37
John Wayne wanted Rooster Cogburn: 19:54
The best scene: 21:20
Who is the one with true grit? 25:29
Interesting facts about True Grit: 28:07
2010 True Grit: 29:38
Jeff Bridges: 35:42
Matt Damon as LeBeouf: 36:49
Random bear Doctor scene: 41:09
Famous lines: 43:41
A different ending: 44:30
Which one is better?: 47:34
**********Fact Checks and Corrections**********
- Dennis Hopper did NOT get nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor
- The actor playing Ned Pepper is not Ben Foster, it is Barry Pepper.
**********Fact Checks and Corrections**********
Note: Enjoy this video?
⬇️⬇️ One link for all your History needs ⬇️⬇️ walkwithhistory.net/links/
🙌🏻 Fun and free history resources 🎥
🎙 ********Want a more in-depth look? ********** 🎙
Talk With History Podcast
🎙 podfollow.com/1586236141 ***************************************************
🎥GEAR USED FOR VIDEOS kit.co/WalkWithHistory/walk-w...
(some of the above links may be affiliate links. won't cost you more, but it may buy us a coffee so we can keep editing these history videos!)
#history #historyeducation
If you like this kind of content, you can join as a KZhead channel member, drop a Super Thanks, or visit us at patreon.com/walkwithhistory if you want to show some support and get early access to more of this! 😊🙌🏻
*Glen Campbell sucked as an actor.* *There. I said what every pro knows.* The 2010 was much greater than the 1969 due to overall better acting and authentic feeling.
It was sacrilegious to attempt a remake of an John Wayne movie.
@@bobsteadman9728 Nonsense. John Wayne was an actor, not a god.
@@Christian_Prepper Agreed. The 2010 was a better movie. Matt Damon was superb. Hailee Steinberg and Jeff Bridges were excellent. The cinematography was superior. Both the beginning and ending of the movie were far better.
it just had more "grit"....John Wayne has made better films....his version of "The Alamo", for example....pales in comparison to the newer version....definitely deserved an oscar for "The Shootist" though......@@Christian_Prepper
Both versions add and subtract scenes relative to the book. In the book, Mattie, Rooster, and LaBoeuf stay together as depicted in the 1969 film. The 2010 film depiction of the party splitting is actually a departure from the book. The 2010 film ending is the more accurate ending however. Bear Man is an invention of the 2010 film. LaBoeuf lives in the book like in 2010 version. Overall, I like the 2010 version better. The 1969 does a great job at portraying the classic adventure story where the characters go through adversity yet still prevail in the end. The 2010 version, much like the book, presents a more ambiguous message with questionable ethics, morality, and consequences. The book is narrated from Mattie's perspective and it is clear that she is no ordinary girl and such a character will not live an ordinary life. Her toughness, determination, wit, and "headstrong ways" drive both her successes and failures. She is book smart yet naive. She is courageous yet reckless. She gets her revenge but suffers great cost. The 2010 script and performance from Hailee Steinfeld (who is truly the heart and soul of the film) captures this brilliantly. While I enjoyed the upbeat tone of the 1969 version, I found the 2010 version more thought provoking and emotionally moving (especially the ending scene on the horse which pretty much wrecked me in ways the 1969 version could not).
Those are such great points. I will definitely need to read the book sometime…both movies are so good 😊
I'm curious if you're referring to the part when he used his knife to prod the horse to run another mile or two before it died. Cause that was a powerful, thought provoking moment.
Yeah, I would suggest in future film reviews based upon books that you do read the book prior to doing the film review. I thought it strange that you would do a film review on a film that’s based upon a novel without reading the book it’s based up. I understand you were doing a movie comparison of the two movies, but by reading the book first you can give a review of which movie portrayed the feel of the novel better. Plus, I was a bit confused with the title of your pod cast. I immediately think you’d be looking at historical movies based upon actual historical events and people, not fictional novels.
Yeah, I would suggest in future film reviews based upon books that you do read the book prior to doing the film review. I thought it strange that you would do a film review on a film that’s based upon a novel without reading the book it’s based up. I understand you were doing a movie comparison of the two movies, but by reading the book first you can give a review of which movie portrayed the feel of the novel better. Plus, I was a bit confused with the title of your pod cast. I immediately think you’d be looking at historical movies based upon actual historical events and people, not fictional novels.
Yeah, I would suggest in future film reviews based upon books that you do read the book prior to doing the film review. I thought it strange that you would do a film review on a film that’s based upon a novel without reading the book it’s based up. I understand you were doing a movie comparison of the two movies, but by reading the book first you can give a review of which movie portrayed the feel of the novel better. Plus, I was a bit confused with the title of your pod cast. I immediately think you’d be looking at historical movies based upon actual historical events and people, not fictional novels.
The novel by Charles Portis, with its rich and colorful language, is the real star. A must read!
Sounds cool!! 😎
Good book
Couldn’t agree more. And for another great Western novel that led to a John Wayne role, try The Shootist by Glendon Swarthout. Much more somber but compelling. It was John Wayne’s last movie and something of an homage to his career.
I picked it up either at a school library purge or a thrift store in the 1980s. But I still read it BEFORE I saw the 1969 film version.
Campbell was a monster guitarist not just a country singer. The man was admired by every guitarist alive. Recorded with the Beach Boys. A pop singer with huge hit songs. TV show. Not just a country singer folks. Do your homework. Campbell was a legend.
I appreciate that and respect that but I never heard of him before seeing him in True Grit.
I love him doing the 1812 Overture. Never better. I am confident that most opinions are swayed by age on here. Anyone that has not heard of one of the greatest Guitarists EVER is missing a lot. I meant the William Tell Overture.
He was not a pop singer w huge hit songs. Lol
Truth. Glen Campbell was a legend.
Just not much of an actor.
John Wayne's version is a classic. The Cohen Brothers is a master piece!!!
That’s a great way of putting it 😊
I would suggest that the 1969 inspired the Coen brothers. What a great thing that Portis lived to see both movies, clearly based on his brilliant writing -- the book is a great pleasure.
@animalntelligence3170 the book did. They followed it much, much closer
Coen brothers version is hood but overrated!!!
Good
Glenn Cambell was an enormously popular country music singer when the movie was made. He was also one of the best 12-string guitar players ever.
Now we must listen to his stuff. Thank you for watching and the suggestion!
Agreed! I’ve got his all instrumental guitar album that’s friggin awesome! PLAY LOUD
He was a bona fide member of the Wrecking Crew, a group of studio musicians who played on many of the hits of the 60's.
But True Grit was a movie.....and Campbell was laughingly bad in it.
I read somewhere that John Wayne loved the singing style of Glen Campbell, and wanted him to do the musical score. Campbell agreed, and requested he be IN the movie as part of his fee. Good call. The 'One Day, Little Girl' song is pure Campbell legend!
"one would be as unpleasant as the other" is pure gold
😂 Yes!
matte gets the best lines in this story. Not a supporting character but the lead
yep!...whole movie is built around her@@donollerton4809
this movie is built around her@@donollerton4809
Also "Now here's what I have to say about that 😊saddle" after the negotiation.
A little known fact is that one of the three men hanged in the 1969 version was played by Jay Silverheels the Lone Ranger's sidekick Tonto.
Never heard that one before! Wish they had given him a bigger part, Jay was a good actor and man! Miss him and Clay Moore, need more roll models like them!
has a decent part in Captain From Castile@@Gerald-do9yg
Charles Portis is considered one of the masters of dialogue. The 2010 version stays truer to old timey feel of Portis' work. Also, I've heard that after John Wayne won the Oscar, Portis sent him a drawing he'd made of Rooster that portrayed him a slovenly drunk in long johns, in other words exactly as Jeff Bridges is presented in the back of the store at the beginning.
The 1969 version is nearly verbatim from the book Why the Coen's thought they could improve on a masterpiece is called falling flat
@@brettmuir5679negative; the 2010 version is slightly truer. Wayne version says LeBeouff died. In the book he did not. That’s a major change. I like the Wayne version alot. I have no problem if you didn’t like 2010, but to call it flat on it’s face because it didn’t stick to the book is an inaccuracy.
Don't you remember the scene in the back of Chin Lees' store in the '69 film?
The Coens have the best feel for dialogue of any filmmakers - ever. True Grit is typical of their mastery of this art.
Before he became John Wayne, he was originally signed on a movie because he was good on a horse. This was when he was young and had been working on a ranch so he was skilled horseman. My mother met him in the lobby of our hotel in Miami in 73. He was giving out signed 3x5 pics with the gospel on the back. I still have that photo with his signature to my Mom n Dad.
That is awesome. John Wayne’s signature is still worth a fair amount too.
John Wayne was one of my favorite stars. He was a die hard patriot and conservative.
".....backward; I always go backward when I'm backin up !" Always loved that line.
For me i like them both for different reasons and if a movie brings you joy it did it's job. Both movies did that for me and i have happily watched them both many times.
Yes!
same here but the 2010 version is closer to the book. But the 1969 version oh the last sceen when Wayne and his horse jumps the four rail fence that's the way I want to remember wayne.
@@fred5399you people who persist in claiming the 2010 version is "truer to the book" drive me crazy. The 1969 movie is nearly verbatim from the book and is funny as hell. The Coen's added so much drivel that unfunnied it way out of their league. They were drunk off of their success and full of their genius after No Country (I believe)
I read the novel in the mid-70s after seeing the movie. Reading the novel, I thought the 1969 movie was a very good adaptation. I did not ask for a remake 40 years later, but the remake was also very good, and some people prefer it. One of the great things about the novel and the movies is the use of colloquial western slang. All the language used is absolutely the way people spoke in the late 19th Century. "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!" That's totally the way a marshal would talk in 1880s West. In 1969, John Wayne was 62 years old, and when he says, "Well come see a fat old man sometime," a lot of people thought this movie would be his swan song. His real swan song was "The Shootist" with Lauren Bacall and Ron Howard several years later, and in my opinion, was the perfect send off for such a movie legend. By the way, he and I shared a birthday, and when I was turning 9, I wrote him a letter inviting him to my birthday party. I got a very nice hand-written letter declining, saying that he already had plans with his own kids. I wish I still had that letter.
I’m a distant cousin of Dan Blocker (Hoss from Bonanza) and the grandson of a Southern Baptist minister who LOVED westerns. We’d watch Gunsmoke every day when I was a kid together and watched the 1969 version together. My grandfather passed in 2000. When the 2010 version came out, I felt a nostalgia and a duty to see it. The soundtrack of the 2010 being all themed on old Baptist hymns tied it all up into a neat bow for me. BOTH movies are fantastic. It’s what our world needed in 69 and today… a few more men with TRUE GRIT.
Ok. This is going to blow your mind. Scotts great grandpa was prop master on Bonanza. He did every episode. We have pictures of his great grandfather with the entire crew and cast. Pictures personally signed etc. Small world. Thank you for watching and commenting.
I’m a big fan of Dirk’s work in Brooklyn 99.
Was Dan from New mexico?
That side of the Blocker family was from Texas. His folks ran a grocery store.
@@johntalley6028 ty,I'm from New Mexico thought he was also
The academy awards with John Wayne really shows how Hollywood has changed from a place of stars to so many straining to recreate what was once a magic landscape and now struggles to regain its relevance.
In the 2010 version, Ned was played by Barry Pepper.
Yup! We corrected ourselves in the video description
Thank you! and 2010 10 of 10 1969 7 of 10 at best
Was about to point this out also. Ben was in another western from the same era I can't remember the title.
@@puzzleheaddesign3789 I think it was 310 to Yuma (another movie we should review!)
@@WalkwithHistory yes. Russell Crowe. Good movie.
It's hard to pick between the two movies to be honest. Each has elements that stand out above the other. Guess we are just lucky to have two great interpretations of this novel.
Agree!! 😁
Watching both movies a number of times myself, I found I liked them both for different reasons. I think the 2010 was a better movie, while the characters in the 1969 version were more fun to watch, with the exception of Kim Darby, who I think was a poor acting choice. I think she would have ben better in a different part. She didn't seem to actually fit the role well, and didn't belong in the era.
@@dennismood7476part of the reason might be that Darby was a 20 something years old woman who was pregnant or had just given birth to play a 14 years old girl.
@@mikegillettify That wasn't my issue with her in the part. My issue with her was I didn't like her acting. Since she was older than her character was supposed to be, I thought she played it poorly. Maybe it had something to do with her vocal inflections that made her seem more out of place.
@@dennismood7476I agree her acting is stilted and amateurish but John Wayne is so incredible it makes up for other actor's short comings
When "True Grit" was made in 1969 (Like "The Searchers"), it was altered from the novel to be a "John Wayne" movie. The novella "True Grit" by Portis was about Mattie Ross with Rooster Cogburn in it. "The Searchers" was about the young boy searching for his kidnapped sister and Ethan Edwards (the John Wayne movie character) was in it. Both movies were hits but the later "Grit" movie was more accurate from the novel.
No- The Searchers was solely about the character that Job Wayne played - a relentless, vengeance-driven man driven to the point of psychosis for the Indian leader who killed his family and kidnapped his Neice. The hatred consumed Ethan and it’s only in the end that he discovers his humanity and compassion.
Favorite quote: "I KNOW you can wallow in filth and bemoan your station..."
The fact that someone had the balls to remake this kills me. How creative.
It's always hard to compare 2 versions of a movie when so much time has passed between the two. I liked the 2010 version (i always liked Jeff) but I think the 1969 version edges it out as the better movie. Maybe because it was so iconic and I might have gone in with pre-conceived expectations. But I am glad they made it.
I was aghast they were going to remake it. It turned out Great!!
why would you be upset by this? The remake was superior. Better actors, better directors, better realism, better tone, better cinematography, better....everything.
Because remakes almost always ruin a great story. This one improved it. @@Urapnes75
Absolutely: the one with the true grit is Mattie - the drive and the passion is hers: Rooster wouldn't even have bothered to leave town without her refusal to take no for an answer, and her insistence on coming along. It irks me just a little that, in both adaptations of this novel, people give most of the attention to the established star being cast as Rooster when the story is really Mattie's. (I like both versions; having grown up with the 1969 version, I have a stronger attachment to it, but both are very good. The novel is very much worth reading: you meet a lot of historical figures in passing, and in addition to the quirky writing style, there's a nice variety of humor, going from dry to twisted).
But Mattie makes Rooster the main story. She wants only him to help her. Once she brings him in, his persona takes over.
@@larryyeadeke2953 Thanks for this excellent comment and observation! I'm going to argue it.... Mattie may not be as strong a persona as Rooster, but for me, she never ceases to be the driving force behind keeping the quest going. She has focus and concentration, and a determination to see her father avenged. She is the one who finds Chaney in the end, and she is a motivator to Rooster's stronger but easily dissapated (sp) energies to remain where she needs them. It's true that both movies cast a larger than life actor to enliven Rooster, but for me, Mattie remains the center and focus (if Rooster is Jupiter, Mattie is still the central sun that pulls everything into the orbit of the story).
Only in the 1969 version. Kim Darby just didn't have the grit. Hailee Steinfeld did. @@larryyeadeke2953
The Duke vs The Dude...love it!
LOL. I love that. 🤘♥️Thank you for watching
IMHO, John Wayne is one of the most overrated actors of his generation.
lol
@@robertfloyd4287 Jeff Bridges has more acting talent in his little finger than the Duke in all 200 + pounds.
@@robertfloyd4287 That may be true. But, in The Longest Day, he put in one of the best pieces of non-verbal acting on film IMO. In the scene where he orders the bodies of dead paratroopers still hanging from trees and telephone poles cut down , the emotions depicted on his face without words are nothing short of remarkable.
I enjoyed your dissection of the 2 movies. My personal favorite was the 1969 version. Glen Campbell was a really big star in 1969, he had his own variety show and many top hits. Also, arguably the best guitar player in the world and yet couldn’t read music. Picked everything up by ear. He was a part of the “The Wrecking Crew”. They were session musicians who played on all of the big hits in the 60’s. He was so good that he replaced one of The Beach Boys on a tour, I believe that it was Brian Wilson. He had to learn their catalog in a matter of days to start the tour. My mother was a big Glen Campbell fan and I remember her taking me and my sister to the Bellair Theater in Houston to see True Grit in 1969. I was all of 6 years old at the time.
Campbell was definitely a very talented singer and musician. I also think his acting was pretty good, he definitely made me feel for his character.
I prefer the remake far more because it was truer to the source material being so much darker and depressing, which these kinds of stories should be, because revenge does not make anything better.
I liked the Wrecking Crew's video, that's where I found out Campbell, Brian Wilson, ans others were having an unseen role I never knew of. I was offended that someone had the nerve to remake the movie and had no interest in seeing it, but it was a better movie, and the Coen Brothers listened more to the book's author. I liked Wayne better than this in his last movie.
@@captainmarvelwilson508I doubt you read the book. The original is nearly verbatim. All the screen writer did was lift the lines
@@brettmuir5679 Yes. I read the book, and the dialogue and tone is not completely verbatum in John Wayne’s version, whereas in the Coens’ version the tone is pretty much that of the book with the exception of the Bear Man.
Two great movies with great performances. The "fill your hand" scene with Wayne still gives me chills, and Jeff Bridges is sublime as a more gritty version of the same character. What I found really poignant about the ending is while Maddie never married, claiming to haven't had time for such a thing, her wistful remembrance of LeBoeuf's cowlick points to him as being the person who captured her heart. You guys did a wonderful job on the history and overall presentation.
Thank you! 😁🙌🏻
The Coens trust the audience to draw their own conclusions in this and many other aspects of their films. They respect their audience and don't patronize us by crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" and letting us think for ourselves.
The 2010 version ending with Iris Dement sinning "Leaning on Everlasting Arms" was beautiful.
Glenn Campbell was from Arkansas. So was Johnny Cash. Both versions are replete with references to Arkansas.
That is cool! We are moving closer to Arkansas and may have to do an episode on Glen Campbell to make up for our ignorance.
true grit is a movie about 3 characters that each one of them had true grit. a little girl born and raised in those times certainly rose to expectations that the times demanded of her. she was proud to be able to contribute to the family, even if it was 50c a day helping out at the neighbors farm. and she often times looked forward to the day when she could move to a factory and work full time; sending money back home as needed. such things rarely worked out any better than the thousands of young men who set out to find their fortunes in the gold fields of california. i found the whole thing to be very believable. i liked the part where john wayne confessed to doing a little bank robbing, and ended up marshalling in the indian territory. i think the exact lines got blurry sometimes between who was the good guy and who was bad guy in those times.
I love that part too bc in the end they all have True Grit which I believe is a rare virtue in life!!
Sharps rifles are a series of large-bore, single-shot, falling-block, breech-loading rifles, beginning with a design by Christian Sharps in 1848 and ceasing production in 1881. They were renowned for
Cool. Thanks for sharing and for watching.
The Sharp's was favored by Buffalo hunters.😮😅
When Texas Ranger Captain Leander McNelly cleaned up the Nueces Strip,he issued his men Sharp's carbines instead of Winchrster 73"s.😮😅😊
Don't forget Tom Selleck using a big 50 Sharp's in"Quigley Down Under".😮😅
@@JohnPatterson-kz8jr the reason brought up the sharp rifle was for dating that the 1980's be the time period guess was rt when the movie was taking place- since the host said was in the the late 1980's the gun in fact help place the timeline as correct-
John Wayne also repeated the character in a follow-up movie, "Rooster Cogburn", playing opposite Katharine Hepburn. The movie is definitely weaker than "True Grit", but oh, it is fun to see Wayne and Hepburn go at each other! They were very much opposites in real life, too, and Hepburn was a little hesitant. But she and Wayne ended up working together very well. If you want to see Wayne in an even more impressive characterization, watch "The Shootist", his last major movie role, where his female partner is Lauren Bacall. This is a strong, touching movie, again based on a very good novel, which I read a long time ago. (I'm not really a Wayne fan, but when he's good, there's no one like him).
Jenn loves the Shootist 😊
check out The High and the Mighty....also some of his best work@@WalkwithHistory
Am curious to know what you think about The Searchers, made in 1957 with Jeffrey Hunter and Natalie Wood. One of my all time favorite movies. The final scene is just gut-wrenching. The main character walks out the open door, into the sunset. He gets no thanks and expects none. He just did what he thought was right.
@@johngriffith6692 We're planning on making a whole video about the Searchers. 😉
@@WalkwithHistory awesome! Best movie ever.
I read the book soon after the 1969 movie. The ending of the 69 movie was more to a homage to John Wayne than to the book. The 2010 movie was closer to the book, though still added the John Wayne one-liners and that mountain man that wasn't in the book. Yes, Cole Younger appeared in the book at the end.
Mattie calls him trash.
....and that brings up The Long Riders...amorher unique, and excellent western
nope...that was reserved for Frank James...who was also in that scene@@devbob
One of my favorite lines from the 1969 True Grit that wasn't used in the 2010 remake is when Maddie says to Rooster after he offers her a drink "I will not put a thief to my lips to steal my brain". What a great bit of 19th century dialogue. Kim Darby's Maddie did indeed have true grit.
17th century dialogue. It's from Othello, by William Shakespeare. Cassio says: I remember a mass of things, but nothing distinctly; a quarrel, but nothing wherefore. O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains! that we should, with joy, pleasance revel and applause, transform ourselves into beasts!
@@litterpicker1431 "For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor. Grogginess will clothe them in rags." -Proverbs 23
@@JB-ti7bl Mattie Ross would have known the King James version - "For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." But she chose to paraphrase Shakespeare.
Best supporting actor that year, should have been Strother Martin. His portrayal of the horse salesman, and his banter with Kim Darby, are HILLARIOUS and PERFECT ! His work and comedic timing, in this film tragically, underrated, and underappreciated. Each character, in this film, contributed to an almost perfect film, but, for me, Strother was the outstanding supporter ! Just wonderful !
😁
John Wayne thought highly of him too. He put him in the last movie he did, The Shootist.
It was noted that the first film was a classic and the second was a masterpiece. Exactly so. The first had a Frank Capra-sized layer of sentiment in the script missing in the second. Its best scene comes when Rooster gallantly pulls the injured girl up in his arms after whipping her horse to death and staggering off to find help. Wayne won his Oscar right there. But in the remake, Bridges shooting of a gun and collapsing on the girl while groaning “l am grown old” in the thickening snowfall left sentiment behind and echoed the dark bloody truths of the story unforgettably.
I like Wayne, but that was a pitty Oscar "saluting an Oscar-worthy career." Wayne could have won an Oscar the old fashioned way in The Searchers, or Red River. My 2¢
@@deanpennington2961I wonder how and when Harrison Ford is gunna get his "Pitty Oscar"?
Not to mention a terrible Hollywood soundtrack in the 1969 film. The scoring in the Coen brothers' masterpiece is, as is per their usual, incredibly well chosen and executed.
@@chuckschilling4964Iris DeMent’s authentic voice was a thoughtful, if unconventional twist to the closing footage of one-armed Mattie’s retreating form.
That Winchester model 92 in 44-40 was one of John Wayne's favorite guns. I heard it was his favorite rifle and he owned one of them. He also owned a Colt Peacemaker pistol in 44-40. So he was very familiar with those guns. That's why he charged Ned Peppers gang shooting a his 92 and Colt. But in the 2010 film and the book he uses two pistols.
Yep, Got to give Jeff big props for riding and shooting two Colt Dragoon's!!
Just wanted to point out, he carried a Winchester'73 in the book and movie; period correct! I'm with you though Chris, seeing the Duke without that stubby, ring-lever '92 and Colt SA with yellowed grips is unthinkable! Blsgs, gg
tried flipping that Winchester around to cock it...almost knocked myself cold!@@Gerald-do9yg
John Wayne also makes a move with his Winchester that Arnold cribbed for Terminator 2 as he's shooting while he's on his motorcycle...
I always figured it was a 30/30 that he carried.
The similarities and differences begin and end with how much of Fortis’s dialogue was included and how tightly the actors were directed. The Coen Brothers are famous for how insistent they are that every line is read exactly as rehearsed.
Having seen and ejoyed both films, I found the 2010 remake to havea more authentic look to it than did the original release, but told the same story about equally well. Damon did a wonderful job portraying Loebeef. The locations and the talk of the people of the frontier just sounded more real.
In the book, when Cogburn dies, he was a sharpshooter at a western show and mentioned in the ads for the show. Mattie's brother bring it up paraphased "I see your boyfriend will be in town". She goes to see Cogborn but he had died, she laims the border and buries him in the family graveyard.
Cogburn
I'm a 5th generation Oklahoman, and my grandmother's people had been in the Cookson Hills since the 1820s!! Watching the original version left me wondering where those snow caped mountains were near McAllister?? I think Johns version is a classic, and a good movie!! The Cohen Brothers version of True Grit is a masterpiece, capturing the real territory and books characters much closer!!
Yeah, 2010 version looks like The Choctaw Nation. We live in Mcalester.
The use of hymns as a large part of the soundtrack to the second movie is a wonderful choice. To hear the words of the hymns in my head and see the action was an extra gift of the movie.
the soundtrack was VERY good
made me want to order that hymn for my player piano....great soundtrack!
Unlike many/most filmmakers, the Coens have always regarded the scoring of their films as just as essential an element worthy of their attention as the acting, cinematography, etc. It's not just something thrown in during editing and post-production as an afterthought.
Just finished watching true grit for the sixth time 10 minutes ago the Cohen brothers version is a masterpiece
It is so good, but I just love the Duke so much!!!
lol its ass
cohen remake sucks
@@austinsmith3493 That mug of yours sucks to
Grow up @@austinsmith3493
Among the many great lines from the 2010 version, my favortie is "Well, that didn't pan out." Master of understatement!
Truth. Thank you for watching.
2010 "Wait,.......are we bargaining again?"
@@spikespa5208 my favorite line in the movie.
I was 12 years old when the 1969 version came out and I was a huge fan of Glen Campbell. So very nostalgic attachment to it. But the Cohen brothers version was a great movie.
I don't know which one is more historically accurate, but I have no doubt about which one is a better film. The cinematography and camera-work benefits from 50 years of technological advancement, and the performances are far, far more grounded, conveying much better the sense that these are real people who've spent weeks roughing it outdoors, instead of having stepped out of a trailer into the makeup chair 20 minutes ago.
One of my difficulties with the 69 version is just that: look at the perfectly laundered clothes. There were gritty westerns at the time, The Wild Bunch, that it seems dated even at that time it came out.
Neither was historically accurate, it was all a work of fiction receiving two treatments. The Coen Brothers were more faithful to the book which was fictional. Charles Portis, the book's author consulted on both versions, the Coen's listened to the author's input better in the 2010 version..
@@deanpennington2961 Nobody is suggesting a work of fiction *is* history, but rather which version is more faithful to the bona-fide Old West which the story is meant to portray.
I love the humour in the 1969 movie. The part were John Wayne says while laughing watching Mattie crossing the river '' She reminds me of me'' is so classic.
I love that part too.
The reason Rooster Cogburn signed on with Frank James in the wild west show in the 2010 version was because they likely knew each other from the civil war, both having served as Bushwhackers under William Quantrill and "Bloody" Bill Anderson. LaBeouf mentions this when they discuss the war and who they served with, disparaging Quantrill as basically an outlaw and murderer.
That makes sense. I think it is great tie into American Western History.
My brother and I are old timers. To pass our remaining days, we enjoy films and each have lists of THE TEN BEST WESTERNS EVER MADE, and also for war, drama, romances. etc. We list BOTH versions of True Grit on our top ten western list - the only film to be listed twice in any of our categories.
That is super coo and I can totally see that. I would probably list it twice too. What is your #1?
I choose THE BIG COUNTRY - an underrated masterpiece! My brother chooses LITTLE BIG MAN). @@WalkwithHistory
Charles Portis was a trombone player as a boy. My band director, Thomas Young in South Lyon, was a music teacher for him. He said that when he would go out to 7th position the slide would almost come off the instrument. Mr. Young was a native of Pine Bluff Arkansas before he moved to Michigan for a Master's Degree in music at MSU. I think the 1969 version is the best. The dialogue in the 2010 was rather strange. The people, Cheney in particular, did not use contractions. The music in the 2010 version was very good. The scene near the end when they are riding along the ridge at sunset was excellent. I was 6 when my parents took me to see the original version. It was the only John Wayne movie that I saw in a theater.
Nice story! I will tell you the diaologue in the 2010 is almost word for word from the Charles Portis Novel. Cheney didn’t use contractions there either. It’s fine to like the 69 version more of course; but if you were ever curious about the reason for much of the diologue, there it is.
Thanks for the response. I remember seeing a copy of the book in an English class in junior high. I never bothered to read it.@@mikegillettifyP.S. I looked toward the end and saw that the Texas Ranger did not die. He fished Cheney's corpse out of the snake pit.
@@pauldesjardins8166 highly recommend the book! What instrument did you play when studying under Mr Young?
@@mikegillettify Trombone. 1st chair in a band that received straight Is in district & state festival for years. We won 1st place in a festival in Wildwood, NJ in 1978. A band from Connecticutt took 2nd.
@@pauldesjardins8166 thank you for sharing!
The Fort Smith scenes were filmed in Granger,Texas which is between Taylor and Temple.😮😅
Robert Duvall as Ned Pepper in 1969. Twenty years later he will have one of his most iconic roles as Augustus McCrae in Lonesome Dove.
I saw both movies when they first came out, and I read the book either just before or just after seeing the 1969 movie. I think the 2010 movie is a better movie, partly because it communicates visceral emotions better. As a historical context note, both movies exemplify their times. 1969 was before the post-Vietnam era in America, while 2010 was post 911, post Iraq, a time of greater meanness. Also, based on the inflation adjusted box office figure you gave for the 1969 movie, the two made approximately the same amount of money.
Very true! They did earn about the same and we did love both versions. I do agree that the 2010 version gave probably a bit more realistic look at the time and (like you said) the emotion characters like that would have actually had. We probably just leaned towards John Wayne because...well we love John Wayne. Thank you for the comment and for watching!!
@@WalkwithHistory Personally, on John Wayne, I don't think he ever surpassed his performance in Stagecoach. Also, at some point early in John Wayne's career, John Ford had him meet with Wyatt Earp, who ended his days as an advisor to Hollywood movie makers, so that John Wayne could get a sense of how the Old West really was. I don't know if it's coincidence or not, but audio recordings of Wyatt Earp's speech have that slow, somewhat menacing quality that became John Wayne's trademark.
Living close to Wagoner's switch and occasionally tempted to go to Choctaw... There are no silver mines in the Winding Stair Mountains
I saw the original True Grit at the Benn theater in Southwest Philadelphia. I later discovered that W C Fields was raised in the second floor apartment next door to the theater.
Having grown up in Arkansas in Russellville, about 5 miles north of Dardenelle and Yell county. I can tell you that the look of the terrain (hint, Mt. Nebo DOES NOT have snow on it) in the 2010 version is perfect. The 2010 version is, hands down far, far better.
Yes, Glen Campbell was a singer and not really an actor. He mentioned throughout the years that he was so bad in True Grit that he made John Wayne look so good in the movie that Wayne won his only oscar.
LOL that is funny. I did not think he was that bad. I actually warmed up to him in the end. I know he sang the opening song for True Grit too. Thank you for watching.
@@WalkwithHistory Yes, I actually thought that he was decent in the role of the ranger. The tradition of putting a well-known singer in the supporting role began with Rick Nelson in Rio Bravo and Fabian in North to Alaska. John Wayne always did well, but never as well as True Grit.
Greatly appreciated your review, as for me also, John Wayne all the way! Also, having been born and raised in Fort Smith, Arkansas, I know all too well the history of Judge Roy Parker, “the hanging judge“, and some of the accurate historical points in the beginning of the movie. One that was better portrayed in John Wayne’s version that I don’t think was portrayed in Jeff Bridges, was Wayne’s character, taking the prisoners from the Oklahoma territory, across the Arkansas River that divides the two states, then to the jail below the courthouse. That was the accurate location for the jail then. However, one glaring inaccuracy was when Wayne’s character comes back out of the jail and there’s snowcapped mountains off in the background where would’ve been the Oklahoma territory LMAO…. I know of no snowcapped mountains anywhere in the “territory of Oklahoma“. Of course, would have to concede cinematography to the Coen brothers’ version simply due to modern equipment, techniques and processing not available in the Wayne version.
I love this!!! Thank you for that insight.
Ft. Smith is in Arkanasas and the Ouchitas Mtns are on one side of the river and the Ozarks are on the other side so it was accurate.
@@raymondlee3414 Sorry, no. What 'mountains' we have around here are mostly just tall hills. Cavanaugh Hill which is about the only 'mountain' visible from Fort Smith is the world's tallest hill measuring just six feet under a proper mountain. It is not snow capped. The next closest is Poteau mountain, which is just over the minimum requirement, also does not have snow on it year round and barely does when it does, albeit rarely, snow around here. You want mountains you have to go further north or south to find them then what you can see in Fort Smith.
Agreed. There are NO snowcapped mountains anywhere in that area. Even the 2010 version was slightly off because of the landscape. Some were authentic, others not, but you'd have to have grown up there to know.
Hathaway's version filmed in Oregon...because it started w/an "O",too.😐
I have never seen the Dukes FULL version, but the Jeff Bridges adaptation was really endearing. It seems like that is a more appropriate use of language, settings and the wardrobe, voice, cinematography were fantastic. No disrespect to the original, but I prefer the later adaptation. Matt Damon as LaBeuf is a memorable figure as is Mattie Ross, we all knew that "know it all" girl at 14 and she epitomizes that. The B players were great too. The defense attorney was fantastic, the role of the auctioneer was so well played also. Barry Pepper really shined.
Watching the original when I was a young child was probably the first time I saw a U.S. Marshal portrayed on film. John Wayne’s performance really put it into my head at the time that Marshals were special, a different breed. I was 34 when I graduated the USMS Academy and spent two decades wearing that badge. No regrets.
Thank you for what you do!!!
"Lucky" Ned Pepper was played by Barry Pepper, not Ben Foster. I thoroughly enjoy both films, and I agree the John Wayne one is a bit more fun.
OMG. You are so right!! I loved him in Saving Private Ryan. I should have known better. Thank you for watching. ♥️🤘
Vivo para servir.
I was waiting and reading comments hoping someone would catch this. Like others commenting I like both movies equally well and for different reasons.
@@henrychinaski5223Same here, to your entire post 👍🏽
Ned was original;ly played by the legendary Robert Duval.
Loved the original but I do prefer the remake. I remember when it came out a reviewer commented it was a much darker movie and that it was very faithful to the book. That got me motivated to read the book and I enjoyed that as well. As for my favorite line I have 2 #1-Rooster Cogburn: LaBoeuf, you get cross ways of me and you'll think a thousand of BRICK have fell on you! I think that or a variation was said in the movie Hell or High water. #2-LaBoeuf: You're lucky to be where water's so handy. I've seen the time I've drank out of a filthy hoofprint - and was glad to get it. Rooster Cogburn: If ever I meet one of you Texas waddies who ain't drunk water from a hoofprint, I think I'll... I'll shake their hand or buy 'em a Daniel Webster cigar.
Just checked and Ben Foster, in Hell or High water said, as Tanner Howard: Boy, You'd think there were ten of me.
love it!
The last public hanging in Illinois was in 1927, Benton (Franklin County).
The big difference between the two films is that the earlier was uplifting whereas the remake was dark and brooding as demonstrated by the endings.
My favorite part of the new version was during the dialog before ‘The Charge’ when Rooster tells Ned Pepper “I aim to kill you in about..”. Ned Pepper’s uncomfortable body language speaks volumes about his level of respect for Rooster. This was completely missing in the original. And, in fact, it is Rooster who has the physical reaction in the original. Ned Pepper seems to be in the mindset of going to Disneyland.
That is so true. I love those kinds of subtle acting. They would have definitely known each others reputations and that physical reaction would be more authentic!! Good observation! Thank you.
Ned Pepper was played by the legendary Robert Duval. Just thought to mention it. :}
Wayne had just had a lung removed due to cancer before the filming of this movie. The altitude in Colorado obviously affected him, yet he did the horse charge with all that working against him. He was a true craftsman of his art.
Glenn Campbell actually played with the infamous Wrecking Crew. One of the most accomplished guitarists of his time. Thoroughly enjoyed both movies. Different actors at different times. Cinematography was great in 1969 given its limited technical capabilities of the era. Loved the climactic gunfight at the end with the Aspens in the shot. I was 8 yo in '69. My dad, brother (both of whom have passed) myself & in fact even my mom & sisters, grew up on westerns & love them to this day. The memories of seeing the '69 version on the big screen with John Wayne (and probably 42 more times on TV, VHS, & DVD with my dad in the ensuing years) gives that one the edge in my book. Thanks for making this podcast. (with the exception of a few notable errors.)
😁
If you look at the list of movies and their gross earnings from 1969 5:12 the list reads like a who's who of great movies from the 60's that tested the censors. That was an amazing year for movies and most of those movies still hold up today.
Loved both versions equally in their respective times. I definitely appreciate this analogy. ❤
Thank you for watching.
The character with the most grit was Matti, a 14 year old girl. She got everything she wanted except a snakebite.
@robertmullen7586 , Matti also wanted her horse "Little Blackie" to live.
This is the only remake I can think of that does not only do justice to the OG but knocks it outta the park. I LOVE this movie! The speech, which seemed weird at first, has become what I think of as accurate! The speech(Brolin and Barry Pepper are my favorite), the look, the sound, the sights are perfect! Cast perfectly. The people behind the scenes did their homework so thoroughly. Things like Damon playing the same character Glenn Campbell played which both sounded like a weird cast but worked perfectly.
Nobody could beat the performance of Strother Martin in the 1969 film.
Thank you for watching!!! We love the 1969 film too.
Honestly Strother Martin made every role he played his own to the point that it's just about impossible to imagine anyone else playing it. "What we've got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach." One of the great character actors of all time.
@@gregghelmberger Butch Cassiden and The Sundance Kid: we have no money going down the mountain. LOL
@@michaelrichardson6051 Exactly! The man was gold.
Dakin Matthew's did an equal performance in the 2010 version. However, Martin's performance as Chong's father in "Up In Smoke" is criminally ignored.
I must admit i have not seen either version of True Grit, but I promise I will check them out. John Wayne is very known to myself. In a films class we viewed both "Stage Coach" and "The Searchers". However my absolute favorite Wayne movie would be the one where he hires school boys to help him drive his heard of cattle to market. I think it was just called "Cowboy".
The Cowboys. I love that one too. One of my favorites!!! True Grit is a classic though.
@@WalkwithHistory why are grown even old MEN called cowBOYS????
Bruce Dern's career suffered for playing the dastardly villain that killed John Wayne's character in The Cowboys. Quite unfair considering he was (and is) an amazing actor.
@@jeepliving1 I'm sure a lot of people would find this hard to believe even though people still do this thing of associating the real person to the role they played. Ted Danson's career was almost ruined for playing a father committing incest with his teenaged daughter.
@@tr5947 It's bad enough when the casual viewer equates a character with an actor. But when casting directors and producers do this, it does a gross disservice to the art.
One thing I liked about both of the movies was that they maintained an old style in the writing and performance of the dialog trying to be consistent to novels and dialog written in 1860s.
In the 2010 version they spoke in a more modern manner. The 69 version had them speaking in the way that would have been used during their time.
@@xScooterAZx I think both movies were trying to give a nod to way dialog was written in that earlier era; not necassarily how people actually spoke to one another at that time~ a stylistic choice. They couldn't do it entirely because modern audiences would be asleep in ten minutes, but they did give it a nod and enough to flavor the sauce, so to speak.
One of my favorite lines from Jeff Bridges is when he finally drops Mattie and says, "I am grown old." Somehow, that landed hard on me...... I absolutely love both versions, and don't think I could choose one over the other......
Good call on that one. Great line!
I still give the edge to the John Wayne version, although I liked the Jeff Bridges version very much. All the scenes with Strother Martin contain some of the best dialogue ever written.
I believe that both versions (2069 and 2010) of "True Grit" are wonderful examples of cinematography and acting. I also give you the 1962 Cape Fear and its Martin Scorsese 2000 something remake. Both movies were remade with the later having the advantage of a more sophisticated audience.
Interesting that you mention Cape Fear. I have seen both but prefer the 1962 version. In glorious Black & White, for me, Mitchum's Max Cady is pure, quiet, and overwhelming menace. 😱
Max Cady is a true baddass....one of Mitchum's better and most unforgettable roles....DeNero is a little guy that talks tough....not in the same league
I like both movies, but the 1969 one is tops to me. John Wayne spinning the repeater rifle is so insane. After T2 and every action movie going insane these days it is overlooked. But it was so crazy and awesome.
John Wayne s conversation with the rat was my fav
Y'all seem to miss Rooster's desire throughout the movie. He believed in Maddie as much as she believed in him. The showdown was what they both wanted, as Rooster proved to her he was worthy of her admiration
I love that!!! He definitely was.
I’ve made this point myself. Most people don’t think about it, but there really wasn’t any point for him having that final showdown at the end. It wasn’t necessary. His only other possible motivation might have been to collect bounties… But even so, it had been established that rooster was not one for taking unnecessary risk in gun fights (the court sees shows us rooster is a bushwhacker at heart) His only motivation was to be worthy of her admiration. (And, maybe to redeem himself from the shame he felt for “washing his hands of her” while drunk in the 2010 version.)
Barry Pepper plays Lucky Ned in 2010 . Awesome actor and how often does one play a charactor with the same surname. Not to say Ben Foster was also a great outlaw 130 years later in Hell or High Water " Lord of the plain" were he got shot by Jeff Bridges Texas Ranger. Love both True Grits and 2010 introduced me to the heavenly voice of Iris Dement "Leaning Leaning"
Yup! We misspoke and corrected it in the video description. Thank you! 😁
the scenes with kim darby and struther martin are in the top ten best scenes in movie history
Enjoyed your take, but lean towards the 2010 version. Although, I hadn't seen the John Wayne version in years until recently, I had forgotten how good it was. By the way, Barry Pepper played Ned Pepper, not Ben Foster.
Yup! We misspoke and corrected ourselves in the video description. Thank you for watching! 😁
I think both film versions were really good. Just slightly different takes by different performing artists, directors, and producers.
I recently watched both films back to back and I'm finding difficulty in witch one I like more...😂
It’s a tough choice! 😂
True. It's hard to criticize John Wayne. Damon is a better actor than Campbell.
True Grit is really about how three strangers with different backgrounds from three different generations, can be bound together through events, because they all posses "True Grit".
My 9th Grade English teacher had us reading the book for the second half of the fall semester, and we got to go on a class trip to see a screening of the remake the following January
How cool!
John Wayne's reaction to Ned Pepper's insult is a great example of what he brings to that character; loved it. Great video guys!!
So true. Thank you so much for watching and your comment.
I liked the way Wayne gingerly placed the reins in his teeth sitting hobby horse still,as opposed to Bridges pulling his pistols, kicking the horse into a run,then putting the reins in his mouth on the move. But yeah. Wayne
John is a true legend . I almost have to give jeff the edge though. Add that girl. Forget it..new version my fav by far
The difference between the two movies is that in 1969 moviegoers had not developed such an appetite for violence, or become insensitized to violence. By the time the second movie was done Americans had spent many many years cultivating a appetite for violent films. I love John Wayne and Jeff Bridges as actors.
On the list of movies at number 12 is " I am curious yellow". My older brother told me it was the first dirty movie shown in our town.
The Wild West Show flyer Mattie is carrying in TG2010 is dated “July 28, 1903”.
Cool!
That means her story took place in 1878, because she said 25 yrs went by when she went to visit Cogburn at the wild west show.
That would be appropriate.
The heart of both movies has to be the performances of the two lead characters. John Wayne is hands down the better Rooster but I think Mattie in the 2010 version is just slightly better. But Wayne performance is so much better that I go with the 69 version. Would love to be able to mix and match both to have John Wayne, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Robert Duval, Josh Brolin and Strother Martin in the various roles. Love the scenic backdrops of the 69 version more although I suppose the 2010 version is more accurate and prefer its ending.
Agreed! A mix and matched version would be interesting
24:00 La Boeuf is a great shot. However, for great distances you have to lead a moving target and vertically compensate for the distance and angle (bullets do fall over distances) in order to hit the mark. La Boeuf even says "they're moving too fast". That La Boeuf even makes that final shot shows what a great rifleman he truly is.
That is definitely true. He proved his Grit!!! Love his character in the end! Thank you for watching!
There really is a family of lawyers in Arkansas named Daggett. I think they have practiced there since the late 1800s.
No way!
You guys got one thing wrong..... La Beef is a great shot with the carbine rifle but it was yet to be prooven..... The whole ending is that Rooster prooves he can shoot guns well in battle. La Beef is more of a sniper......in the end both men respect each other equally and will never doubt the others skills
Ah, I can see that. Great dynamic between those two. Thanks for watching!
Proves.
The 2010 remake is the only remake of a classic movie that I felt was equal to or better than the original version, because I watched the remake with the expectation of being very critical of it. I read the book True Grit in high school in the early 1970s. I reread the book after the remake and I felt like it was more true to the book., especially the dialogue. True Grit (1969) was, in my opinion one of John Wayne's best movies. Charles Portis was an amazing author by narating the story through the eyes of a young girl.
I think the Coens said that they were not remaking the movie, just doing a different interpretation of the book. A small distinction perhaps.
I watched both editions of the movie a number of times ... the 69 version in the early 70s, and the 2010 edition when it came out. I also read the book. You can get a pdf version online. Also online are a number of interesting articles on Portis ... how he developed the story ... very interesting bio. Two last things ... a study performed between both versions shows that the 1969 version contains slightly more dialogue directly from the book than the 2010 movie ... and the character wearing the bearskin does not appear in the novel.
1969 was a great year for westerns. Besides "True Grit",you also had William;Ernest Borgnine;Ben Johnson and Warren Oates in"The Wild Bunch" and Paul Newman and Robert Redford in"Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid".😮😅😊
Babs back then musta hated handing the GoldGuy to the DUKE.
Good content. I love both movies and being a history buff I am particularly critical of most westerns I grew up with (being 68). I don't find many things that annoy me about either movie when it comes to historical reality. Unforgiven is one of few that I think more accurately portrays the "old west" and still makes a movie worth enjoying (real reality is usually pretty depressing). Now watching your video. (and I don't care how close the movies are to their books since I haven't read them). edit: after watching the video I have to say I enjoyed it very much even with the many spelling mistakes in the text shown across the video. hehe.
We have to fix that. Thank you for watching.
Those films John Wayne went up against to win the Academy Award are all fantastic movies in and of themselves ...extremely tough competition.
The scene with the mountain doctor addd nothing to the movie, so it was cut from the 1969 movie; not sure why it was added to the 2010 movie !