True Grit vs. True Grit

Then don't see her movies, or Bridges'. Simple solution, if it's a problem for you.

I'm not into field trips, but I'm very much in favor of the idea that people are entitled to their opinions. All people. Even when I disagree with them.

I guess I agree with that approach, up until the point the other side's opinion is detrimental to society like the anti's are, that and their other belief's are a threat to America and it's core values.

As far as you and I disagreeing goes, no big deal we disagree, I think we can still be friendly and mature, neither of has to be the "winner." Right? We may very well wind up on the same side next time. Have a good evening.
 
Last edited:
Im not Trying to make it seem like im ganging up on anyone (nobody in particular) with thumbs up agreeing with another post--but merely making a point while agreeing with the person posting. John Wayne made 166 movies--or about 85 movies from the start of his time to Dec 1939, vs Jeff Bridges making to date: 74. I think the volume of movies twixt the two speaks volumes. Duke did loads of "B"s as well as made three Serials-in order to "Pay the Bills" and feed his family and such. 1939 was when he became an "A" list actor thanks to the movie: Stagecoach-as: the Ringo Kid) Duke made many more memorable movies than Bridges did--and I have not a thing against Bridges and my favorite seen Bridges movie is King Kong--one of the few remakes of movies I like. However, Bridges will never cotton to Duke in screen presence nor will compare to his place in hollywood. Duke came along at the right time, and it cannot be contested to how important Duke is--to hollywood history. Bridges is important too--but not in the same category as Duke--even if he might be a better actor than Duke was. Also, Duke is my absolute most favorite actor--but I can easily say that actors like: Richard Basehart, and Errol Flynn-can out act Duke--but Duke meant more to the movie audiences of the day.

Someone mentioned he has been a life long Duke fan--same here. I remember my Mother or Father yelling outside that a John Wayne movie was coming on--and I would drop what I was doing with my friends-and would go in and watch the movie no matter how many times ive seen it.

By the way, Duke has beat Clint Eastwood in the AMC Favorite Western Actors poll, every year they have ran it.And for me to choose between the two--was some of the most difficult decisions ive made.
 
Last edited:
There are actors, then there are movie stars. Then there is John Wayne.

He is a unique and memorable figure in the history of cinema, who will be remembered and watched long after other fine actors and movie stars have faded from memory.

He is also intertwined with the myth of the American West, and no other film actor personifies America quite the way he does.

Wayne still casts a giant shadow...
 
As to Jeff Bridges vs. John Wayne as Rooster, the difference in their interpretation of the character Rooster Cogburn is exemplified by the hats each wore in their films.

Just look at Wayne's hat...To begin with, it's black. In the earliest days of Westerns, the Villain wore black. Wayne seldom wore a black hat. He did in "Red River" and "The Searchers"...both serious performances where Wayne played complicated characters who, at a point in the movie, are almost the villain.

Wayne's hat, as Rooster, is black, but has that characteristic high crown, and wide sweeping brim. It's worn, but not broken down. It is complex: it conveys the dark side of Wayne's Rooster, but also his strength. That hat conveys something both formidable and gallant. It perfectly suits Wayne and his interpretation of that character.

Now, take a look at Bridge's hat...a slouch hat, unremarkable, a battered, a hat that might be on the head of a man as likely to be drunk in the gutter as not.

It, too, personifies Bridges' interpretation. Bridges was wise not to imitate Wayne in any respect, but try to find his own interpretation of the character. His interpretation, though, is in keeping with the trend of recent Westerns...which generally attempt to de-mythify (my word) the American Wild West.

The two actors, and the two films, are as different, as those two hats.

Personally, I like Wayne's hat!
 
Bridges was so good I can't even remember him in Tequila Sunrise.

I do remember Raul Julia, Mel Gibson and Kurt Russell but not Bridges.

That tequila can mess with a guy's memory. I was thinking of Jagged Edge, but how I conflated Glenn Close with Michelle Pfeiffer I'll never know.
 
John Wayne IS Rooster Cogburn , and the origional IS True Grit. And any attempt to remake it and not suck would be near imsurmountable task.

That said , I was pleasantly surprised by the 2010 version. There was just enough difference in tone and atmosphere to allow judging each for what it was.

I have read the book. ( Yes . the book was centered on Mattie , but was by no means aimed at a "Young Adult" audience .) As mentioned there was just enough difference in interpetation , to judge them was two different film. But each one stays closer to the (same) book thanmost films ever stick to their source material.

2010 is above average. The origional is an Iconic Classic.
 
NEW VS OLD

Sometimes I have to wonder why they spend the time $ & energy to try and improve on perfection. Now they are gonna re-do Bonnie & Clyde, good luck with that. while I'll give credit to Damon and Bridges. The cinematography, sound, music, lines/writing and characters of Strother martin, the Judge, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, the Chinaman, Chicken George, the bad guy they were after, and of course the Duke, more than made up for Glen Cambell and Kim Darby. the classic scenes of "you can't serve a writ on a rat baby sister", or "fill your hands you ***" can't be beat and I will watch the original EVERY chance I get. I can't say the same for the remake however good it was.
 
Who are you thinking about? I cant think of anyone in True Grit who was in either of those excellent Westerns. Not complain'n just..... :D
Strother Martin, if that's who the poster was referring to, was in True Grit AND The Wild Bunch, but not the Professionals. In 1969 he was in T.G., The Wild Bunch, and Butch Cassidy, playing three completely diverse characters. And in 1967 Cool Hand Luke. That's why he's my favorite character actor of all time. He was like a chameleon.
 
HANOI JANE, STILL?

Glad I never did anything stupid when I was that age. What century is this again? Time to move on already. I doubt she's gonna go to Iran or North Korea for a sequel and straddle a nuke. If that's how you feel about activists, may as well boycott 90+% of all movies, TV, and music also.
 
IS IT OUR PLACE TO JUDGE OTHERS?

Someone higher up than us already has that job.Was she right with that stunt? Heck no. I'm not defending that action. Was she young?, perhaps still a teen, gullible, naïve, misguided, easily led? At that age I know I was all of those things at one time or another, weren't ALL of us? Even still today at times. Was it her idea, or some propaganda/press that came up with it, and she did as asked without thinking it through or the possible consequences & ramifications, NAH, I've never done anything like that, you either I'm sure. We are getting awful close to a political debate so I'll cut it short before it's done for us. Just a couple things come to mind, I recall hearing things about judging others, glass houses, and forgiveness.
 
Not sure why I came back to this one. I won't again. The deceased horse has been flogged to death again, and the thread has slid sideways into stuff unrelated to the original post or the merits of the two flicks. For whatever I may have inadvertently contributed to that I apologize.

I'm out.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, we've gone far enough on the subject, we'll leave it we disagree. Have a good one.
 
That tequila can mess with a guy's memory. I was thinking of Jagged Edge, but how I conflated Glenn Close with Michelle Pfeiffer I'll never know.

Not a big fan of Glenn Close or Michelle Pfeiffer, but I hope they bury me before I ever get them confused! LOL I may forget where I left my car keys pretty often, but I definitely know the difference between those two.
 
I'll be honest...

Nostalgia and the memory our perception of Wayne lead many of us who are a bit aged to view the Duke as a great actor.

Truth be told, John Wayne really wasn't a great actor. Wooden to say the least. It's often been said he played only one character: John Wayne.

Absolutely he was in some good movies. He just was not a strong actor. He lacked depth and versatility.

He was an actor from a different time. He was good because the film companies said he was good. And that worked back then.
 
Nostalgia and the memory our perception of Wayne lead many of us who are a bit aged to view the Duke as a great actor.

Truth be told, John Wayne really wasn't a great actor. Wooden to say the least. It's often been said he played only one character: John Wayne.

Absolutely he was in some good movies. He just was not a strong actor. He lacked depth and versatility.

He was an actor from a different time. He was good because the film companies said he was good. And that worked back then.

Will have to agree in part and disagree in part. He developed the Wayne character over his lifetime in film, true. No one can touch him there, of course.

In terms of his skill as an actor, I think he is underrated. He was at his best when a really strong director was at the helm. Consider the scene in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon", a John Ford film, when he is turning over the troop on his retirement. Never mind that he's playing a character much older than his age at the time, he brings quite a lot of depth into that scene. His performance is subtle and he conveys so much. It's a poignant and memorable moment.

We think of John Wayne only being able to play John Wayne because that is the role he chose to play most often...he knew he was a brand, knew what his public wanted from him, and offered it with several movies a year, year after year. And, year after year, he became more seasoned at his craft. He was extraordinarily hard working.

Today, many movie stars like to explore different avenues, do different things. They avoid, consciously, developing their own brand.

Wayne accepted his brand and would avoid projects or choices that ran against it. For instance, when filming the gunfight in "The Shootist" he refused to follow the action exactly in the book, where his character mercilessly shoots one of the bad guys in the back. Why? Even though it might have been a strong choice, artistically, and revealing of character, he would not do something that ran against the John Wayne brand.

It is because he stayed so true to his brand throughout his career that he is so beloved.

It is also why we will never know all that he might have been capable of doing, as an actor, if he had not remained so true to that brand, and so loyal to the expectations of his public.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top