Standing the Test of Time 1969 and 2010, forty-one years in difference since the first “True Grit” was released to the public, both movies followed the same story line. The 1969 “True Grit” was by far an extraordinary production compare to the 2010 version, the director’s ability to picture the father-daughter relationship in the introductory scene, and the fact that he chose a well know actor such as John Wayne, which gives the character the classic cowboy American hero feeling, as well as Kim Darby’s interpretation of Mattie Ross as a sensitive person, and the expected happy ending.
First of all, the opening scene was completely different from one another. For example, the opening scene from the 1969 version begins by showing the close …show more content…
Marshall Ruben “Rooster” Cogburn, was not quite the same interpretation as the real American iconic cowboy hero. In original 1969 “True Grit” John Wayne’s interpretation of Marshall Ruben makes the character more enjoyable, he shows Cogburn not just a rebel, but a sensitive man who cares about others. He is compassionate and gentle enough to the point that he takes care of his cat as if it were a family member. He demonstrates his fatherly like affection towards Mattie, and he is polite when he speaks. On the contrary, Jeff Bridges interpretation of Cogburn makes him a menace, he does not develop a close relationship with Mattie Ross, he is rude, always drunk, and is a careless person. He represents the character in a vulgar manner. Film Critic Peter Bradshaw reports, “Wayne played Rooster with more warmth, and delivered almost every line as if he was calling across the room to someone, Bridges takes a conscious decision to play the role in the opposite direction. He speaks in low, guttural growl, his jaws sometimes almost wired shut and mouth hardly moving, like a ventriloquist. He's still a drinker, but less lovable and more detached”, (The Guardian).Wayne’s performance in the original film was far more superior then Jeff Bridges in the 2010 version and such big differences from the main character leave an extreme disappointment. In the newer version you expect to see the same affection that John Wayne shows in the original …show more content…
The original 1969 film has a great and happier ending, Mattie gets well, shoe does not lose her arm, and she and Cogburn meet again, and it seems like they developed a long lasting relationship that will stand against the time. On the contrary, the 2010 film had more of a dark and unhappy ending. Cogburn leaves and Mattie never sees him again, and when she goes back to look for him, she finds out that he has died, she visit the grave and walks away. Justin Marietti notes, “The end of the movie was good, but definitely wasn’t the ending I was expecting. It wraps everything up in a very simple, artistic fashion, stripping it all down to the core message of the film and not attempting to add fluff where it doesn’t belong” (North Wind). The fact that there was not riding horse at the ending like a classic western movie should be, furthermore, Mattie had scowled on her face; she looks emotionless and full of
First of all, the opening scene was completely different from one another. For example, the opening scene from the 1969 version begins by showing the close …show more content…
Marshall Ruben “Rooster” Cogburn, was not quite the same interpretation as the real American iconic cowboy hero. In original 1969 “True Grit” John Wayne’s interpretation of Marshall Ruben makes the character more enjoyable, he shows Cogburn not just a rebel, but a sensitive man who cares about others. He is compassionate and gentle enough to the point that he takes care of his cat as if it were a family member. He demonstrates his fatherly like affection towards Mattie, and he is polite when he speaks. On the contrary, Jeff Bridges interpretation of Cogburn makes him a menace, he does not develop a close relationship with Mattie Ross, he is rude, always drunk, and is a careless person. He represents the character in a vulgar manner. Film Critic Peter Bradshaw reports, “Wayne played Rooster with more warmth, and delivered almost every line as if he was calling across the room to someone, Bridges takes a conscious decision to play the role in the opposite direction. He speaks in low, guttural growl, his jaws sometimes almost wired shut and mouth hardly moving, like a ventriloquist. He's still a drinker, but less lovable and more detached”, (The Guardian).Wayne’s performance in the original film was far more superior then Jeff Bridges in the 2010 version and such big differences from the main character leave an extreme disappointment. In the newer version you expect to see the same affection that John Wayne shows in the original …show more content…
The original 1969 film has a great and happier ending, Mattie gets well, shoe does not lose her arm, and she and Cogburn meet again, and it seems like they developed a long lasting relationship that will stand against the time. On the contrary, the 2010 film had more of a dark and unhappy ending. Cogburn leaves and Mattie never sees him again, and when she goes back to look for him, she finds out that he has died, she visit the grave and walks away. Justin Marietti notes, “The end of the movie was good, but definitely wasn’t the ending I was expecting. It wraps everything up in a very simple, artistic fashion, stripping it all down to the core message of the film and not attempting to add fluff where it doesn’t belong” (North Wind). The fact that there was not riding horse at the ending like a classic western movie should be, furthermore, Mattie had scowled on her face; she looks emotionless and full of