“True Grit”: Book and Films Comparison

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Charles Portis’s True Grit is a transcendent and versatile story that earned its first critical acclaims as a novel before going on to become the source of two of the greatest western films of all time, with 42 years between them. The overriding theme in all the three portrayals is retribution for Mattie Ross, a 14-year-old girl whose father was killed by the cowardly Tom Chaney. She follows him to Texas, where she hired Rooster Cogburn, described as the meanest ranger, but who Mattie believes is the true grit who will help her get payback. The book was published in 1968, and a year later the first film was released starring John Wayne, in 2010, the Coen brothers then did a film remake of the book starring Jeff Bridges.

A notable distinction this particular rendition of the book to film/s is that, for the most part, the films stick closely to the book. This is probably because the books are very rich with material making it unnecessary for the scriptwriters to warder too far afield. Structurally, both the 1969 and 2010 films tried to be as faithful to the book as possible, but there is a limit to how far a film can rely on narration. Consequently, many of the lines and emotions described from the vivid, emotive first person are lost. Nevertheless, in the novel, this first-person narrative curtails Mattie’s growth as a character in that the 14-year and the 80-year-old narrator sounds a lot alike. Both are arrogant and even pushy, which makes her a static character who does not appear to have been improved by her experiences. In the 2010 film, she comes off as a more endearing character, and there are romantic undercurrents between Mattie and LaBoenf, which are, however, not dwelt on and barely implied in the book.

On the other hand, several contrasts can be drawn between the book and film, most notable being the absence of a retrospective narration from the older Mattie reflecting on her adventures. In addition, given the first-person viewpoint, she remains the main character, and the book is largely more about her than anyone else is. However, in the 1969 and 2010 films, the spotlight appears evenly split between her role and the rest of her co-stars.

This is especially so for the lead roles done by John Wayne and Jeff Bridges, whose dominance results in Mattie’s relegation to a supporting role. The change in character roles may be explained by the fact that, when making a western, the emphasis is on the action, violence, and “grit.” Consequently, Mattie finds herself the victim of the Hollywood’s stereotypical depiction of women as damsels in distress taking the secondary place behind male leads. Granted the book was written right into this stereotype depicting a young vulnerable girl being helped and protected by tough cowboy types, the male dominance is hardly surprising.

The 1969 and 2010 films, while adhering to the general plot implications in the book however downplay the biblical tone. In the 2010 film, this is particularly evident and can be attributed to the changes that have occurred to the now mostly secular country. While the bible may have appealed as a source of moral didactics in the 70’s this appeal has significantly reduced and the Coen brothers may have realized they had little to gain by including the undertones. There are also several overt changes to the plot especially the ending, for instance, a rattlesnake bites Mattie after she has killed her nemesis and falls into a snakebite (True Grit (1969).

However, she appears to have come out no worse for it and in the last scenes, her hand is in a sling. However, both the novel and the 2010 version show her having suffered serious injury from the snake attack and has to have her arm amputated (True Grit (2010). Evidently, the Coen’s brothers, willingness to show their audience as much from the book as possible, irrespective, of the negative emotions or anticlimax it might evoke that makes the film more authentic despite the fact that it was done nearly a century after the book.

One of the reasons the True Grit was such a phenomenal story is because it balances the divergent notions of death, revenge and hatred with interesting and humorous characters. In both films, the directors integrate most of the original jokes, which provides much-needed comic relief for a mostly dark film. In one scene, this is evident is when Rooster retells of an experience he had trying to “borrow” money from a New Mexican bank and Mattie retorts it sounds a lot like stealing, his response is, “That’s the position them New Mexicans took,” he brays. “I had to flee for my life!”(Portis 195).

In the 2010 picture, there are several funny scenes most of which capitalize on Jeff Bridge’s drunken and carefree lifestyle. While this does cloud the line between his being a good or bad guy, it allows for a lot of humorous scenes giving the audience a chance both to laugh at or with him. When Rooster and LaBoenf are using corn cakes for target practice, he keeps getting frustrated when he drunkenly misses (True Grit (1969) and his spluttering and hollering make for better laughs than John Wayne’s somewhat superficial laughs. LaBoenf, the part played by Matt Damon in the 2010 movie is without doubt one of the most changed characters from the book.

The novel gives him little attention and he is portrayed as an idiot whom Mattie does not much care for. In the first film, the country singer, Glen Campbell, takes his part and while he does it justice, Matt Damon’s surprising appearance for the role overshadows his retrospective performance. However, he a bit too modern for the 19^th century role and although his acerbic wit and sarcasm may endear him to the audience, it puts to movie’s authenticity to question.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from watching the two films, it is evident that the directors, in their own ways tried as much as possible to animate the words of the original text while at the same time injecting their film making ingenuity. The first film despite appearing to stick to the text is nevertheless not as effective a portal of the book as the second picture. However, given that the films are shot nearly half a century apart, it is not entirely fair to attempt a one on one comparison. Although the Coen brothers’ film is in my opinion the better picture, it is easy to appreciate why John Wayne earned his first and only Oscar in True Grit 1969.

Works Cited

Portis, Charles. True grit: a novel. Penguin, 2007.Print.

True Grit. Dir. Henry Hathaway. Paramount Pictures, 1969. Film

True Grit. Dir. Joel and Ethan Coen. Paramount Pictures, 2010. Film

Click Here To Order Now!

“True Grit”: Book and Films Comparison

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)