I have for a long time maintained the view that great songs and movies should be "listed" like famous or important buildings are. If you plan to remake or cover them in any way, you should have to submit your plans and ideas to a committee of the establishment for review. If they don't make the cut, project off. This process would have stopped cultural attrocities like the remake of The Italian Job, or William Shatner's cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". <Calm down and focus>.
But when I heard The Cohen Brothers were re-making True Grit with Jeff Bridges playing Rooster Cogburn - the role made so famous by John Wayne - I was at once nervous and excited. While I felt sure they would do a fabulous job (almost without exception everything they touch turns to gold - with the possible exception of "Oh Brother, where are thou?") I was worried, it is a pretty bold project to take on. Afterall, the 1969 True Grit is one of the all time masterpieces of the Western genre. Furthermore, had it not been such a success in the first place, the story of a 14 year old girl and two strange men many times her age wondering about in the wilderness is a kind of kooky plotline perhaps unsuitable for today's atmosphere of child-vulnerabilty.
So I almost counted the days until this project arrived at my door; but simaltaneously worried that the greatest movie-making partnership in recent history had over-stretched itself.
Well, it hasn't, they haven't. In short - and at pains not to ruin it for anyone - they have, I believe, stayed very close to Charles Portis' book. Mr Bridges is at least as good as John Wayne - which is some achievement, as Wayne made that role very much his. Matt Damon gives far more deoth to the Texas Ranger character than Glen Campbell ever did and Hailee Steinfeld brings a reality and credulity to the Mattie Ross role that her predecessor just never got close to.
It's beautifully made as you would expect from those that brought you "Fargo" - with extra oversight by Steven Speilberg as Executive Producer. The soundtrack reminds me of the Ken Burns documentaries on The Civil War and The West, which brings a very evocative mood to the piece. The atmosphere they create in the opening phase - far more carefully conveyed than the original as well - sets you far deeper into the times of the post-Civil War American West than its 1960s counterpart.
There are very few plot departures from the first iteration. Notably, the Texas Ranger, LeBoueff, is absent at two of the key moments in the story where he is ever Wayne-side in the original. But overal, this film feels like a loving tribute. It hasn't really improved on, it has reprised with new production techniques; new actors have re-evaluated and re-interpreted the characters some; and the storyline has been revisited - but it's surprising how similar the two films remain. Amusingly Lucky Ned Pepper is played by namesake Barry Pepper who also brings new style to the role but also echoes the outstanding work of Robert Duvall in '69.
So, this is a great example of how a re-make can add value, not threaten to replace and even regenerate the original. Well done Mr and Mr Cohen - tremendous grit!
UPDATE (14/2): A good friend of mine tried to leave this as a comment but the technology failed him. But I felt it was worth including as it goes to a point I meant to make myself, and would have done - far less effectively though - had I not forgotten!
"But what stood out most for me was the language. This might be expected from a coen bros film, but, apparently, was mostly taken from the book. From Screen Junkies:
"The dialogue, the formality of it and the floweriness of it is just from the book,” Ethan Coen said at a press conference for the film. Supporting cast member Barry Pepper (as Lucky Ned Pepper), weighed in on the unique language. “It was more like doing American Shakespeare,” Pepper said. “There’s almost like an iambic pentameter. There’s a musicality and a rhythm to the dialogue. It’s about trying to hit certain notes, maybe an irreverent falloff at the end of a line. It’s such a gift to be able to give some sort of lateral idea to an actor like, ‘Oh, I didn’t hear the musicality of the line like that.’ Just the scene blossoms, completely changes and becomes darkly humorous or odd or quirky or wonderful, bizarre.
The language in the book is based on Portis’s research of the period, so it’s probably more accurate than the westerns we usually see at the movies. Pepper had another theory: “It’s so authentic in my mind because most people were probably pretty illiterate back then”. “They were maybe schooled on the King James bible and that really infused the way they spoke. I think a lot of westerns missed that.” Ethan Coen agreed. “I’m sure Barry’s right,” he said. “You feel even more strongly reading the novel, the frame of reference for her character (as the narrator) is the King James bible."