True grit (2010) *** ½/ 5

‘True grit’ is a good film but there is something missing. I will not state that as if I do not know because I do: it is the melancholy of the Western frontier. It is the type of melancholy that reflects some form of solitude or heart ache. Man and nature do not seem so definable in that setting because they become one. Man, who in the present day is the embodiment of greed and materialist values,  seems more at place with nature and not from the perspective where you watch a sunset or gaze aimlessly at the stars. It is a melancholy setting because of the material advancements man has made since then. The frontier was basically paving the way for settlement of human beings so that commerce could thrive. This film also seems like a run o the mill sometimes and you never feel as immersed as you should be about the West. The production values are good, with the cinematography being a highlight, however there is not much elaboration on what it means to have True grit which is supposed to be some form of temperament that can weather almost any storm. It is particularly essential to have True grit when you are far from so called civilization and your only form of solace is your ability to understand the birds and the bees with no recourse to the laws of man. The story, which is basic, centres on Mattie Ross (Haile Stanfield) who enlists the US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down her father’s killer Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin).  The Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) also tags along for he too has been enlisted by the family of a senator to track down Chaney. These are before the days of Chuck Norris where no one respects this set of individuals.  There is a early scuffle between Mattie and Laboeuf as to where Chaney should be brought to justice. She believes that he should hang in the town where her father was killed whereas the Texas Range wants to bring him down to Texas. Mattie hires Rooster because he was said to have true grit which more than likely means that he can brave the elements of the vast countryside that greets someone once they leave the populous areas where man is concentrated into his concepts of civilisation. The performances are good although you become more than mindful that they are acting because the characters do not seem more than caricatures at times. The Texas Ranger as played by Matt Damon is very straight and there is no deviation in his behaviour; there are no reflective moments and this is where you become conscious that an actor is going through the rounds. His character is also a source of ridicule and so it is hard to take him seriously. As good as Bridges is as Cogburn his character is basically played straight and you become aware that he is a caricature because he seems, at first, only a  source of laughter and only by the end when there is a rush to save Mattie do we get a sense of some variation in his character. People should not miss however that the comedic side of the film does reveal the true grit of Cogburn because of his apparent nonchalance. The film is good but there are no real meditations on life in the West and this is what elevates all the great western films. There are no real shocking elements that would make this seem more than just a retread. The approach seems too conventional and straight with not much deviation i.e. there are no elements of shock which jolts the consciousness or makes us feel that we are witnessing a truly definitive Western. With jolts of consciousness man revels in his originality i.e. when a man encounters something shocking he normally react in a way as if he has never seen it before and this is why we have great music, film, dance, theory etc. They jolt our consciousness because we see things that we have not seen before but later come to the realisation how come I did not see that before and so later accept it as a fact of life always using that moment of shock as your justification. ‘True Grit’ did not do that for me like other westerns like 3:10 to Yuma (2007) and Unforgiven (1992).   I choose to see this film as a solid entry into the canon of Ethan and Joel Coen. All great directors have a canon that represents their body of work where there is usually a masterpiece in the mix that represents the peak of their powers. The others in the canon may not measure up to this masterpiece but certainly fit securely within their style of filmmaking. This is how I choose to see this film ‘True Grit’ as one measured against the superior film ‘No Country for Old Men’ while at the same time adding to the philosophy introduced by that film. While this film will make you want to see ‘No Country for Old men’ again it still has enough to stand on its own and thereby continue the forays of the Coen brother into the Western.

When one has true grit one is firm in his or her temperament. Man has been so besotted by emotion and reason to the point where we have lost of the things that made us master nature. As it stands we are incapable of surviving without the latest gadgets. The final rush to save Mattie in this film reminded me that not many people have that particularly in urban areas however you will find it among some men and women in the countryside who the urban dwellers foolishly ridicule not realising that they grow weaker by the day. How many men today are prepared to give up their material comforts to live a life where it is only your mental temperament that can save you from madness. People with true grit are not so easily identifiable we sometimes think that it is the most aggressive male when in fact his muscles are mush and when real danger comes you realise that his aggression only masks his fears. Aggression at times is only a projection of the fears we hold within nothing more that does not always determine whether you have true grit. I am speaking of those people that are firm almost immovable and staunch in the defence of their beliefs or who when faced with adversity or great loss are able to shed the old skin for the new. The ones without true grit normally curl into a corner to die with their fears which they try to fend off as if they (the fears) are ghosts. They, at times, try to project an air of aggression which has as its foundation fear. The men with true grit normally do not dwell too long on matters they plod along almost without a conscience they are hardly besotted with emotion like the aggressive individual who revels in his or her emotion for comfort. The men with true grit are oftentimes placed in the same category with animals or savages.  Humans get weaker each time man envelops nature and expands his industry and material benefits so that we can live comfy. This is why I believe the Westerns are still important in the film industry to remind us of how much we are losing our oneness with nature. All great Western film remind you of this: The Searchers, Unforgiven, High Noon, Shane,  Dances with Wolves, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly which features the directorship of Sergio Leone and stars like Eastwood and Lee van clef. More recently there is 3:10 to Yuma (2007) the remake of the 1957 classic and ‘No Country for Old Men’ with its modern edge but still retaining elements of the classic westerns.  There are others to be sure but these films remind you of what it was to have true grit which is being lost day by day.

 ‘True grit’ fails to elevate itself to the level of these great westerns because there is no meditation on life in the west there is only Rooster who spouts comedic anecdotes about himself and I suppose these anecdotes of his life, which seems like a failure based on how it is relayed by him, reflect his casual attitude towards them and how little they have affected him. In one anecdote he make mention of his ex- wives who seem to wish he was civilized enough to live a decent civilized life which means he must conform to the rules and ways of man.  There is quirkiness here and you see it in the character of Bridges especially in one scene where he, in a moment of comic mischief by the Coen brothers, kicks two Native Americans from a railing and this reflects more than anything his true grit which is why it is supposed to be funny because how many people today can kick someone off the railing so casually with no regard for their feelings. I then came to understand the reasoning behind the comedic attitude of Rooster. We are introduced to Rooster in court where he is giving testimony and the defence lawyer repeatedly questions Rooster on his arbitrary manner of doing things thereby highlighting his somewhat bestial nature or his unconscionable nature. It is to the credit of the Coens that in this opening scene we actually see a jolt of conscience in his character (try not to miss the pause in his nonchalant testimony).   The elements surrounding the pursuit of Chaney are well detailed and it logically seems to follow as he is a member of a gang and if you find that gang you more than likely find Chaney. A man does not wander wild in the wilderness without company or without the knowledge of the land. It all logically adds up but unlike ‘No country for Old Men’ where there was some meditation by the Sherriff on the changing times there is not much here. In ‘No Country for Old Men’ there is a keen resemblance to this film because everyone is on a trail where paths will collide and there will be clashes and therefore confrontation however the character of the Sherriff is what made the difference in that film as well as the death of Josh Brolin who was seemingly unaware of his being the centre of all the trails that were to lead to that money. He was simply overwhelmed. In this film Chaney was not given much room for development and only appears towards the end of the film. He seems like a very careless individual with few inhibitions and he seems unaware of what is going on at times. The character does not live up to expectations. In this film you hear of all of Chaney’s misdeeds and so you are eager to meet the man himself but there is some weight missing from Brolin’s performance which does not make you wonder about this man and his mode of thought i.e. what are his views on his own actions in life how does he justify them or what is it about this life that makes a man so callous. They instead make him seem like a simpering child a regular vagabond and that is all good for he is an ordinary man but in the Westerns these men always have some sentient weight.  This film is more about the trail of vengeance where she explains at the beginning that everyone has it coming to them. This is why there is an interesting opening shot where Chaney gallops off on his horse thinking he has seemingly escaped however as the movie delineates it logically that wherever you go there is a trail that will lead to you no matter how low you choose to sink. It is the same method used in ‘No Country for Old Men’ but with more tension.

The performance of Hailee Steinfield is the most interesting element in film aside from Bridges. She represents a montage of ideas about civilization and this is reflected in how she negotiates with people presenting herself as mature beyond her years.  At times she seems too clever and Rooster also thinks at first that Mattie is simply a talkative young girl trying to act older than she really is but you understand that he takes her more seriously when she crosses the river, which has a strong tide, to get to the other side where the Marshall and the Texas Ranger are located and where the Marshall feels she wont be able to follow. That scene demonstrated to the Marshall that Mattie was one who had True grit i.e. she has a firm temperament and this is also made clear by the end when you realise that Mattie has lost something but, despite this has carried on firmly in life. She is certainly a sexually repressed female and these women you have to take seriously because they are not besotted like the regular female by romance/emotion and the yearning to have babies as they await their prince charming. These are the type of women who can tangle with men in the cutthroat world. You only realise this at the end with Mattie when she is all grown but you know that she is one of those tough females with how the young Mattie handles the males in this film. Her behaviour is not only unbecoming of a youngster but of a female. She may not have the experience but she certainly has true grit and this is why Rooster takes her seriously. She also encounters an attack of her sensibilities as she has her own preconceptions of how the world works seeing it only through the eyes of the so called civilised world which all boils down to the laws of man. This is where her immaturity figures as she soon realise that she is in the wild and anything goes; the laws and rites of man cannot save you.

All in all this is a good film but I wished there were more reflections on the west and what it means to have true grit. This would have lessened the apparent perception of Rooster Cogburn as a caricature and explain his nature more thoroughly and evoke the old melancholy of the West as all the great westerns do. Some of the actors do not add dimensions to their characters and they seem stiff and motionless. This would only have resulted if the Coens sought to break the conventional mould a little and shock us as they did in ‘No Country for Old Men’. This is still a worthy entry into their canon.