 |
| Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) in True Grit. |
Out to pasture/yes
By John Esther
If you like old fashioned, orderly, ontological narratives punch drunk full of sympathetic brutes and iced with eth(n)ical insensitivity, your holiday movie gift arrives with co-writers/editors/directors/producers and brothers Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit. The latest film adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, True Grit, is every bit as intellectually demanding and politically reactionary as director Henry Hathaway's 1969 version starring John Wayne in his only Oscar-winning role.
Set somewhere in the Oklahoma Territory post-Civil War, 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is determined to get justice for her prosperous pa after a working man who is going by the name of Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) robs and kills daddy in cold blood. As every bit smart, tough and misguided as the mythological adolescent male tough guy -- but still a girl who needs male help (Mattie is no Malpaso Man) -- Mattie uses her brains and bucks to recruit Rueben J. "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges). An ornery U.S. Marshall known for killing first and asking questions, then drinking later and before, it is going to take all of Mattie's moxie and money to persuade the "true grit" law enforcement officer to take the job.
Fixed in the mix is le beefy Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who is also after Tom Chaney. Ever since the desperado killed a U.S. Senator in Texas three years ago, LaBoeuf has been on the trail. Au Juyceian.
Moving beyond the pretense of western civilization into the back country, the three of them intertwine as the plot twists and turns until True Grit walks its predictable path without any attempts at deconstructing western myths, intriguing innovation or other worthwhile purpose. At its basic, True Grit is hardly more than a story about retribution from an adolescent viewpoint.
Since the film begins with 40-year-old Mattie (Elizabeth Marvel) telling her story, 14-year-old Mattie's survival throughout the narrative is never in question regardless of how many rough men she done gets herself mixed up wit'. Come hell and hi, high, hype hi, "what her?" slaughter, the filmmakers make it clear from the onset Mattie's destiny does not conclude at an early death.
Rooster's success is not in doubt, either. Like any one of countless traditional movie lawmen who operates by his own sets of rules, Rooster has killed so many men with immunity he cannot even keep track. He is just a good old boy who kills the bad guys, and if he makes a mistake every so now and then, True Grit repeatedly asserts we are suppose to forgive the loveable, filthy, old coot because things like habeas corpus and Magna Carta are just plain annoying (right, PATRIOTs). In fact, Mattie had the option of picking another man to track and capture her father's alleged killer, but that lawman values due process of law so forget him. The relatively clean, young lady is hungry for some hanging.
While on the subject of hanging, True Grit is filled with Freudian metaphors of adolescent angst toward sex. Mattie's recollections of her manhunt involves lots of hangings, dismembered fingers, a traumatic encounter with snakes – as a result of removing the clothes of a dead man, "Rooster," a spanking by "The Beef," an amputation as result of shooting a big gun -- which knocks her back down a big hole, stabbings, bullet holes, the metanarrative with the her horse (D.H. Lawrence) and all those guns that keep appearing then disappearing then reappearing again. Although rudimentary, viewing True Grit as a psychological coming-of-age story makes it more entertaining.
On another hand, in accordance with the film's dominat(e)-ion narrative, as far as non-whites go, they are essentially non-existent in a film whose heroes, in addition to everything else backwards in the film, fought on the Confederate side. There are two African Americans, both there to serve their white masters. While their general discard warrants little attention, the film's treatment of Native Americans is deplorable. Essentially there are three scenes with Native Americans, each time they are used as a comical ploy -- to considerable and uneasy effect at the screening I attended. The Condemned Indian (Jonathan Joss) is silenced and executed and the audience laughed. The second involves Indian Youth (Brandon Sanderson and Ruben Nakai Campana) being literally kicked around by Rooster and the audience laughed. The third... It seems it is Ok to wash away the Trail of Tears with laughter.
Conversely, the much more positive area of True Grit, there is plenty of that crisp dialogue -- here greatly aided by the film's rather faithful adaptation of the novel (so I am reliably informed) -- we can almost always expect from a Coen Bros. film. In particular, LaBoeuf, who is a more interesting, amiable and original character than Rooster, offers a humorous, often witty, proud way of looking at life as a Texas Ranger.
As far as acting, the accolades are slow in pouring for Bridges, Steinfeld and company. They were ignored at Golden Globes and only garnered two at the recent SAG nominations, including an absurd Best Supporting Actress nomination for Steinfeld whose character is present in well over 80 percent of the film. Last year's Oscar winner for Crazy Heart, Bridges performance as Rooster illustrates what a political charade it was when Wayne won Best Actor (who laughably beat out Jon Voigt and Dustin Hoffman for their performances in Midnight Cowboy). Steinfeld is definitely headed for some major roles after her feature film debut. Not only does she show dramatic range, Steinfeld can be funny. In a scene where Mattie haggles over horses, Steinfeld performs with an impressive amount of confidence and comic timing. Thanks to Steinfeld, Mattie is probably the funniest female character in the Coen Bros. oeuvre since Jennifer Jason Leigh's Amy Archer in The Hudsucker Proxy (1994).
No doubt many will favorably compare True Grit to the vastly overrated No Country for Old Men (2007) and rightfully so. They both share beautiful landscape cinematography by Richard Deakins (who also did this year's superior film, The Company Men), nostalgia for a mythical American past, violence, clever characters, some hilarious dialogue and a political ideology very much right of center. Add the female protagonist aspect and I see no reason why someone like Sarah Palin would not love this film.
Posts
You should just come out and say "I hate all westerns unless they're post-modern deconstructions of the 'Western myth'". It's shocking that a movie set in post Civil War Arkansas/Oklahoma territory would involve lawmen who fought for the Confederacy. Scandalous! And to think there are guns. And violence. And racism. Oh my! I have some advice for you...don't go to the theater to see Westerns! Your biases make your review worthless.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you expect to see? Did you expect to see Native Americans treated with respect and dignity? Did you expect to see a CONFEDERATE STATE without racial inequality? How shocking it is that a movie is actually true to the time period and doesn't pander to the politically correct driven dialogue perpetuated by people such as yourself. You went into the film biased and you watched picking out anything to support that bias and then you dribbled out that bias in your review. This is the most worthless review I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteYou greatly condescend the Coen brothers' use of a "mythical American past," but also, show anger towards the film's portrayal of ill treatment of Native Americans. Go read a book on American history, Mr. Esther. A Western that shows the "proper" treatment of non-Whites would be a crappy, left-wing enactment in (ironically) backwards thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnd the pussification of America is complete
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand what you expected from this movie. Clearly you didn't expect it to be a western? Your review is filled with personal beliefs and opinions that don't really belong in a movie review. Write a book about your ideas, but don't review a movie like this. It's very misleading.
ReplyDeleteWayne deserved the Oscar, you brush popper.
ReplyDeleteIt's okay to not like a film but your reasons are ludicrous. The Coen Brothers choose to adapt a book that is set in a certain time period and thus must create the appropriate atmosphere. Racism existed, people had guns and southern accents. Your assertion that the movie is somehow flawed because it has some imaginary conservative view is appalling. How can you seriously judge a movie based on such petty criteria's? I would be ashamed to put such a review out to the public. Mind you my political leanings are left of Karl Marx, so I'm no Republican. I just find it unfathomable that someone would inject such petty political views into the supposed worth of a movie. Very sad that art should be judged this way............
ReplyDeleteI'm astounded that you could misinterpret this film so thoroughly. This film, like the Charles Portis novel it so closely follows, is a satire of the traditional western genre (a genre that was largely -- and wonderfully -- subversive in reflecting liberal or leftist values wrapped in a package of violence, gunplay, land conflict, cattle drives and sweeping western vistas). True Grit merely takes the conventions of the traditional western and plays them to the extreme. The Coen Brothers making right-wing propaganda from the novels of Portis and Cormac McCarthy? Seriously? That's funnier than anything in the film (which I thought was wrought with wry humor). Okay, let me let you in on a little secret. The reason the audience laughed when the Indian who was being hanged was silenced so quickly is that they recognized it as a sardonic commentary on the attitudes of the time. Black men would rarely have been treated as equals anywhere in the United States in those days, much less in Arkansas. Would you prefer that period films lie about the way things were and portray race relations as one big, happy family that has never existed and does not exist to this day? That, actually, would be the sort of thing the Sarah Palins of the world would like to see. And you seem to have some serious sexual hangups regarding the imagery of this film. Removing the clothes of a dead man? What I saw was a girl whose foot was caught trying to drag a skeleton closer so she could get hold of a knife and cut herself free, only to have the tattered clothes rip, exposing and waking the hybernating snakes. To find anything the least bit sexual in that is perverse. I'm completely baffled that you could come up with so much nonsense to fill a review.
ReplyDeleteAwww, Nancy didn't like the movie?
ReplyDeleteThis is a truly idiotic and biased review.
ReplyDeleteU Mad?
ReplyDeleteI love that you bring politics into your review, very classy.
ReplyDeleteYou completely misread this film from a political perspective, and if anyone like Sarah Palin said they enjoyed this film, it's because they completely misread it as well
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou know, females CAN exist in the world without every single they thing encounter being a metaphor for wanting your manly wang. I can assure you that no, watching a man get shot is not us being repressed, nor is getting bitten by a snake or firing a gun at the man who killed our father. I know it's hard to believe that every single object doesn't represent your all-important penis, but believe me, it doesn't. In fact, just the other day I used a garden hose, and it wasn't an expression of my repressed sexuality. I just wanted to wash out the trash can. But wait! A hose? Spraying liquid into a container? I MUST HAVE SECRETLY BEEN HANKERING FOR SOME SWEET, SWEET PENIS. SMELLY TRASH CANS JUST TURN US LADIES ON LIKE THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE DO AND THINK REVOLVES AROUND YOU MEN.
ReplyDeleteReviewer accuses the film of ethnic insensitivity, when basically, he is angry because its heroes are white southerners. But at a time when many southern reactionaries were becoming outlaws (the James gang et al.), Rooster Cogburn has instead chosen to enforce the law in the service of a Northern federal judge. He is right that the two blacks in the film (one of whom is a mere child) are not in positions of authority, but how could he expect otherwise, given the period? Yarnell's race is actually a plot point, since it explains why Mattie was able to defy and ditch her assigned adult supervision. The mistreatment of the condemned Indian (which was worse in the novel, but in a different way), was not any doing of the heroes. The two Indian boys were punished by Rooster for torturing a mule, not because they were Indians (one of them was white in the book - I'm not sure why the Coens changed it). I'm unsure what the third Indian reference is.
ReplyDeleteUseless review. Since your cinematic diet consists almost entirely of high-budget, politically-correct cotton candy spun out in bulk by narcissistic Hollywood, a candid period piece like True Grit is simply beyond your ken. John, you would last exactly 6 minutes in the West depicted in this film. You'd saunter into the first saloon, order a grande skim latte, and then complain about the service. Later, when you regained consciousness in the hospital, you'd complain about the harsh treatment.
ReplyDeleteI know you'd've preferred a gay Rooster Cogburn chasing a transgendered Tom Chaney accompanied by a lesbian Mattie Ross and female Texas Ranger -- and nice sensitive language and comfy cushions in lieu of guns. But then the movie wouldn't be True Grit, would it? Useless review, great movie, true to the classic Charles Portis novel. A must see.
Yes you are a worthless critic, but most are so don't feel too bad. Is it lonely over on your side of the fence? You're about the only one who didn't like this film
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear that you are incapable of understanding Coen brothers films and your superficial criticism are laughable.
ReplyDeleteThis review is beyond idiotic. The native american kids were being kicked around because Rooster saw they were tormenting a helpless animal. The man at the hanging was silenced because that's the way it was back then. If your audience laughed at the latter, then that's a bad reflection on your audience, not the film. "A spanking by "the beef"..."? Sarah Palin? Seriously? You are the only person alive to make these inane conclusions. Well done.
ReplyDeleteLike a permanently shy D student in a community college debate class or a fat girl attempting ballet, you just simply shouldn't be doing this. Stop writing. Stop embarrassing yourself. Take up pottery or something.
I don't agree with this review, but it is interesting and well written. cheers.
ReplyDeleteIs it normal to easily identify the political affiliation of a critic simply by reading one film review?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just come right out and say, "This film offended me because it doesn't mesh with my liberal ideals."? That would be more honest.
This "review" is what results when The Idiot Left is allowed to watch movies. Losers, all.
ReplyDeleteAs a Native American myself (I was born here), I take offense at this ignorance on display.
This is a terrible review; posted on rottentomatoes.com with other, much better-written prose. I don't even care about your opinion of the film; you did such a terrible job composing this, and your facts are just plain wrong. Amputation due to firing a gun? It was the snakebite and infection that led to that. Native Americans mistreated? That's how it was back then! It has nothing to do with being politically correct; it has to do with remaining faithfulbto the time period. What, did you want the Blacks treated equally to Whites just to make you feel better? They had to FIGHT for equality for the next 75+ years to get the right to vote! I'm going to find out how to get you removed from rottentomatoes.com so other people don't confuse you for a real writer.
ReplyDeleteIt's truly surprising that you were even able to view the movie properly. From the vantage point you were taking, it's amazing your nose wasn't in the way of the picture the entire time...
ReplyDeleteSo . . . obviously it's a can't-miss slice of red, white, and blue Americana. Can't wait.
ReplyDeleteIn other news -- add the sweet nature of the treat, and I see no reason why Hitler would not love sugar.
ReplyDeleteSo according to this reviewer being true to the period something is set in is not the proper way to do things. Instead a period should only be seen through the narrow scope of politically correct thinking that this reviewer feels is his right to impose on everyone else who doesn't agree with him.
ReplyDeleteWhat a faggot
ReplyDeleteWhat a tremendously illiterate reaction. Mr. Esther, if you aren't prepared to be exposed to the depiction - not even the endorsement, but the mere explication - of times, places, and people that you find objectionable, your critical career is going to be an embarrassingly superficial one.
ReplyDeleteHave to agree with the other two comments. First off, it is a MOVIE, not reality. Why most of our supposed "movie critics" (how did that even become a paying job!) seem to treat anything out of the norm in a movie "as unbelievable". This might be an indication that they are definitely in the wrong profession. Suspend belief and enjoy! When a director does try to portray things as they were in a certain time period, critics like Jesther, get up in arms if something is not politically correct, even if it is the way it was during that time period.
ReplyDeleteYou lack a sense of irony, otherwise you'd see this review is a self-parody.
ReplyDeleteChaney is guilty of killing the man who had the charity to give the drifter a job, it's in the movie; he deserves to die. And had not Cogburn been a killer of outlaws, relative to other law enforcement officers, the killer would have gotten away. This not a courtroom drama or mystery requiring that examination of the laws or rule of law you feel it did not.
You, it turns out, lack the ability to question the myth that due process or the disposition toward due process is ethically valid when it is really a behavior inducing default into which you are born. In the jungle, there are no rules and Chaney escaped into the jungle.
Violence, vengeance, criminality to punish criminality are as valid as any worldview of yours, properly deconstructed
So, if the snakes and dismembered fingers and guns are all Freudian phallic symbols, are the bullet holes all vaginas? I mean in the peculiar world you inhabit?
ReplyDeleteDear madam or sir--
ReplyDeleteYour vulgar marxism takes the easy avenue, misrepresenting the film's realistic and comedic handling of race as being purely racist. Also, please desist from linguistic puns--yours are truly awful. Your senior seminar ideological stance and punning give the intellectual elite a bad name.
Its as if you went into this movie hating it before you even saw it. Too bad a movie that takes place in a post civil war era doesn't conform to your left-wing, politically correct liberal views. All the performances were excellent, the cinematography was fantastic, and the dialogue was witty and spot on in every way. The Coen Bros. did a fantastic job with this film. It seems as though the people commenting on this see right through your BS as well. You can take your review and shove it.
ReplyDeleteYou are a sick soul.
ReplyDeleteYou sir have no idea what you are talking about. I consider myself a liberal at heart and while I may not like what we have done in the past I know the truth about how we treated our fellow man. We like most countries had a racist and mistreat of people. The movie was honest about it, and we should watch it thinking how far we have come. Not turning a blind eye and getting angry with the film makers.
ReplyDeleteYour bias were made clear when you described the victim as "prosperous" and the murderer as a "working man."
ReplyDeleteEsther, it's an ass like you that confirms my opinion of those who don't appreciate the reality of a film because it doesn't conform with your progressive view of life. I suppose that the campfires were ill advised because they contributed to global warming. And gosh, if we had proper gun control laws way back in the mythical past there would be no concern running into a drunk roque cop who is impolite to indians. And I wonder if the tobacco was properly taxed to support health care!
ReplyDeleteIf you can for a second take the lemon out of your a__ __ and try to enjoy the beauty of the film, the greatness of the actors and director and the open hearted brilliance of this experience - nah, why bother. Your world vision is set firmly in exlax.
what you're all missing is the reviewer is pointing out that what's disturbing is these racist attitudes are played for laughs in the movie. Watching a grown man kick two kids off a porch for no reason other than they are Indians whose land was stolen is revolting.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this person have a job as a reviewer? Reading through reviews on rotten tomatoes decided to read this one. Complete drivel.
ReplyDeleteI think Sarah only watches God movies. It's where she gets her inspiration to comment on issues of the day.
ReplyDeleteThis review was total shit, full of a (clearly) liberal biased ideas and viewpoints. Fine on its own, however you use these utopian ideals to judge a film about a not-so-utopian part of american history. There weren't fluffy bunnies or rights for everyone back then, and yes, sometimes it was more effective (and deemed so) to just kill the "bad guy". Shit happens. We can't all be so enlightened as the author of this review... who clearly has never even seen a gun, much less fired one. Perhaps you haven't even been in a fight either, afraid to break a nail and all that. Quite frankly I think you're an ignorant nigger.
ReplyDeleteIrony, in case you didn't "get it" like you didn't "get" this movie. Don't watch it next time and we won't have to hear your crappy opinions or thoughts.
Cheers
Let's just get to the point: YOU, sir, are a complete moron.
ReplyDeleteI didn't read the whole review as there are obviously plot spoilers throughout so I only scanned. Geez... man... are you ever biased and off your game. You say, "the vastly overrated No Country for Old Men". Is that a way of saying that you didn't get it? Or are you simply against violence in movies? My wife and I went into NCFOM without any idea about the plot actors or anything and we came out going WOW. Trust me bud... if a critic says it is recomended or simply a good movie it is not overated.
ReplyDeleteI come at this crappy movie more from a Marxist angle than from the prism of cultural studies, but I found this review refreshingly *critical*. Considering the way that the critical establishment treats the Coen Brothers like it used to treat Woody Allen, we need more people who can maintain a critical distance like Jesther. My review is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/true-grit-humbug/
Frankly, I don't get your political shock by the images. Rooster is depicted as a killer and marauder, the Texas Rangers as preening and ineffectual, the executioner as racist. In fact the protagonist should be viewed as a feminist hero: she outsmarts virtually all the adult males, and in the end she (not Rooster) kills Chaney. Therefore, I wouldn't see this film as being popular among the Sarah Palin set.
ReplyDeleteIf the reviewed is smarter than Palin, it ain't by much!
I agree. The portrayal of Native Americans and African-Americans was deplorable and certainly not in accord with history. The film should have shown African-Americans not as servants but instead as landed gentry, a Cosby Show like Bourgeoisie if you will. In addition, the Native Americans should have been shown as fierce, impeccable warriors, and the Choctaw nation should have been given its proper respect with a scene where the main characters go into great detail about its advanced and sophisticated nature as one of the world's leading nation states at the time.
ReplyDelete/sarcasm
Though the audience might have laughed, there are certainly other readings of the silencing of the Native American victim, given that Native Americans were silenced for much of US history. And the presentation of RC as a Missouri raider could likewise be read critically. No easy heroes in this film, or in the Coen Bros. in general.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part these responses are hysterical. Dripping with sarcasm, they fail to refute anything the author said. Some people just can't tell the difference between a story with racists (okay) and a story that is racist (not okay). I'll second the author on the Native treatment in the film and the audience laughing at them. We experienced the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThis review is hilarious and insightful. Why on earth are people so mad at Jesther? He didn't say anything bad about Westerns nor did he say that showing our historical mistreatment of African and Native Americans is a bad thing to do. It's how you do it and the Coens did not do it well at all in "True Grit". The Natives are a punchline in the film. This should come as no surprise, The Coen Bros. are very conservative filmmakers. Face it and move on. And don't get so pissed off when somebody writes a review you don't agree with that you start calling names. It's silly.
ReplyDeletesomeone referenced this person having a job as a critic. Don't worry he likely isn't being paid for his politically correct movie reviews since he has a .blogspot.com website. I am guessing hes probably a film student living at home working to pay off whatever massive debt load he accumulated while training to become the director that would finally make all the movies american cinema has been waiting for. The story of a black midget lesbian union organizer from the back woods mississippi for instance. The only thing funnier than his stupid ass review is the responses. Even liberals think you are going to far, take off your democrat/LGBTA/liberal colored glasses and enjoy a piece of film for what it is.
ReplyDeleteYet another liberal twit attempting to bring its political ideology into a pseudo movie review.
ReplyDeleteTrue grit is a fine movie which will resonate with the majority of the folks who go to see it, just as most Americans can identify with Ms Palin.
You libs live in a small world where only you can dictate what is good for everyone else.
Go back to watching brokeback mountain and stop pimping this pathetic blog.
It annoys me that commentators are accusing the reviewer of not liking the movie because he is a liberal. Well, I'm extremely liberal - and I teach a course on race relations - and I do NOT agree with this review on many levels.
ReplyDeleteJust for two examples, I felt that the Native American being silenced before he was hung was a comment on how Native Americans were silenced and experienced unequal justice during this time (as they do now). Secondly, Rooster smacked those two Indian kids around because they were torturing an animal. Did Rooster's treatment of the kids disturb me a bit? Did I totally agree with it 100%? No, but they were doing something cruel and wrong. To say that he hit them just because they were there is just incorrect.
Do I wish there was a non-white character who played a major role in the movie? It would have been great. But I have no interest in falsely representing history in terms of how the white characters would have thought of non-whites. Plus, I was overjoyed at the sight of an interesting, brave female character who didn't grow up to be a ravishing beauty. And that phallic stuff? Come on. You can make anything into phallic imagery if you try hard enough.
Also, is the reviewer just angry at the thought of Confederate characters as the good guys? Guess what, people who fought for the Confederacy are every bit as emotionally complex as people who fought for the North. Calling the movie "backwards" because it has heroes who fought on the wrong side of a war demonstrates simplistic, black and white thinking.
Does every movie need to be groundbreaking or innovative? The reviewer got it right when he said that this is a vengeance movie from an adolescent perspective. Why does it need to be more than that?
This clown manages to work both the PATRIOT act and Sarah Palin into his review, and expect anyone with a brain not to recognize this mangled, rambling screed as nothing more than the politically slanted garbage it surely is? Moron.
ReplyDeleteI'm somewhat confused by your review, frankly. I get the political jab, but I don't get the distaste. You describe a film that, "is hardly more than a story about retribution from an adolescent viewpoint." and a "coming-of-age story" as if these are inherently bad. There's nothing wrong with a good bildungsroman, least of all one that's filled with beautiful landscape cinematography.
ReplyDeleteIf your primary complaint is with the treatment of Native Americans in the film, that's another thing entirely. However, if that is your objection it's disingenuous to frame it as political, as you clearly tried to do. Ethical treamtent of Native Americans is not a political issue, and it's hardly better represented by one party today than it is another. To imply that Sarah Palin (and thus many modern conservatives) would endorse the film despite or because of the treatment of certain ethnic groups is a cheap shot, especially when it's what your review is built around.
Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time and providing an opposing viewpoint.
Jesther, don't worry about the so-called liberal criticisms here. They tend to think Chomsky, Vidal and Nader go too far, too, and they only like Moore because of his non-threatening populism and Maher because he makes them laugh. (For the record, I like Moore and Maher, too.) As for the homophobe, ant-political comments here go, their own words undo them more than anything I could say.
ReplyDeletePeace,
MH
It seems most people stopped reading this review after the paragraph ending with "It seems it is Ok to wash away the Trail of Tears with laughter." Mr. Esther said nice things about the film's actors, dialogue and cinematography. Maybe after re-reading the controversial paragraph about how Natives are treated in the film until they understand it, people posting comments should actually finish the review before posting a comment.
ReplyDeleteYes, yes. It's very clever to use one two words at once through the use of parentheses in an attempt to mask bitterness over the failure to "make it in the business". I don't have a problem with the review itself; All art is subjective. But the smug, too-cool-for-the-room attitude is nauseating. Over-analyzing like this is a sure sign of reaching for something insightful to say.
ReplyDeleteThe intellectual insecurities displayed in these comments are almost as educational as the review. Incapable of comprehending what Esther said, many of these posts are simply unfounded attacks against someone whose opinion was just too critical for the base. Stick to the likes of Peter Travers and Michael Medved if you can't stand real criticism. You'll feel more confident about yourself.
ReplyDeleteI stumbled here via Rotten Tomatoes. I'm glad I did. The reviewer seems to have brain damage. It's a sad thing, yeah. But, reading the review did provide for a lot of (unintended) comedy! True Grit is a great movie. It's well acted and well produced. It's entertaining. Isn't that what a movie is supposed to be? Guess not. After reading this review I now realize that it's supposed to present an alternate reality that more reflects our modern world, as well as the social/political beliefs of the reviewer. Toss in some invented sexuality and you got yourself a movie! I'm going to read a few more reviews! This guy's a hoot.
ReplyDeleteWTF? Why does everything end up being about Sarah Palin?
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph on 14 year old sexual angst is absolutely priceless. You are truly a sick puppy.
I agree with you about one thing. I think beginning the movie with Mattie the adult narrating was a mistake. Whatever suspense there might have been about her fate (and with the Coens, that isn't an unfounded concern)is lost.
This film review has true grit.
ReplyDeleteAs a liberal San Francisco Libertarian...you are either an idiot or have deep political insecurities. Wow.
ReplyDeleteA little more maturity is in order here.
ReplyDeleteJohn Esther mentions "Freudian metaphors..." and is accused of being phallocentric and "sick." If you read the movie review thoroughly you would see it mentions Freudian phallic symbols (guns, snakes, etc.) as well as Freudian "non-phallic symbols" such as hanging, holes, the horse, etc. Look at the film! He's bloody right, there is plenty of sexual anxiety in the film and it's not all about the penis. If viewers can't or won't see that through the film's sexual imagery then that's his or her loss, not the critic discussing it. My grievance is that Esther did not discuss it more, especially as Mattie is a female "hero" set in the old west.
Also, if a film critic (especially in this media/movie age) can accurately invoke 20th century novelists James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence into a 2010 movie review - in quite the cheeky manner - he or she is not an "idiot" or "moron", despite your grievances.
You really get paid to write idiocy? Can you get me a job please.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, most of the opinions expressed before mine regarding the review and its author basically mirror what I would have written. So in summation, the reviewer (term used loosely) lambasted a cleverly written, wonderfully acted, and beautifully produced period movie based upon a wonderfully written novel. It would be refreshing for the poor soul (Mr. Esther) to take a night off from fretting over the supposed political and social implications of a movie and just try to enjoy a film as entertainment. Relax John, you anal-retentive bore!
ReplyDeleteBig shocker your from CA. Try not to trip over your hair on the way out of the movie ....hippie! Get a life and try not to review movies with your "moral compass" guns are a part of the wild west.
ReplyDeleteThis review is unbelievably bad. Actually it ranks with one of the worst reviews I have ever read and I read Armond White reviews.
ReplyDelete1st off this movie is not about politics at least not in the modern day. When Rooster beats up those Indian children he isn't really doing a good thing, obviously his character thinks he is justified but as audience members it is up to us to make up our own minds. Rooster isn't necessarily an upstanding guy he has bad and good qualities, he is a product of the movie's universe(Mythical old west.)
Now I laughed out loud when you called both this movie and No Country for Old Men right wing movies. I am a liberal I have watched No Country for Old Men many times, it is one of my favorite movies and I am fully aware of the philosophy that it is putting forth.
No Country for Old Men is about randomness, uncertainty and mortality it is incredibly unsettling. My theory is that when you find a movie unsettling you immediately jump to the conclusion that it is somehow conservative, because to you conservatism is everything your afraid of. I see this all the time with people of different political perspectives. This review proves that your are probably as equally ignorant as Palin herself because you have not looked beneath the surface you have failed miserably to properly analyze a movie because of your own personal hang-ups. By calling No Country for Old Men and True Grit right wing movies you accuse the Coen brothers of willfully pushing some sort of right wing ideology... The Coen brothers are in their own lives clearly liberals themselves but have generally strayed away from mainstream American politics in their films, instead they speak of the human condition they frequently have flawed heroes and make movies that can be interpreted in many ways. This to me is the opposite of a conservative viewpoint, the Coens clearly push forth the many shades of gray/agnostic world view which is much more complex than the classical conservative black and white/religious world view.
Its not about your dislike of True Grit or No Country for Old Men it is the classic mistake of clearly and fully seeing something that isn't there and blindly asserting your own political views where they don't belong.
If your point was to get a lot of traffic to your blog well done, btw.