One of my favorite movies of all time is “Big Jim McClain” (1952) in which the Duke plays an investigator for the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) who chases Soviet agents through Hawaii. Lionizing HUAC is about as politically incorrect as one can get.
I’ve go to go against the current here. As much as I am a fan of the Duke’s, I’m also a fan of the Dude’s.
On almost every level I have to go with the Coen Brothers. Cinematography, acting, score, pacing all go to the Coen Brothers.
Cinematography: This may be tightest contest between the two films, but Roger Deaken’s use of the camera in the Coen Brother’s film is masterful and honest. Of course, one will always marvel at the absolutely stunning landscapes of the original (Lucien Ballard) , but it’s kind of hard to screw up spectacular scenes of the Colorado Rockies. One just has to wonder how the crew managed to wander so far from Arkansas and Oklahoma in the first place. Were they totally lost, or were they going for a cheap thrill?
Acting: Hailee Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross is deeper, more nuanced, and more engaging than Kim Darby’s. It’s kind of hard for a 22 year old to come off as a believable 14 year-old, and in Kim Darby’s case she didn’t manage to pull it off. Steinfeld is heading directly to the Best Supporting Actress Oscar.
And whatever you want to say about Matt Damon’s LeBoeuf, nothing could be worse than the acting butchery of Glen Campbell.
I don’t think it’s useful to make comparisons between John Wayne and Jeff Bridges in the Rooster Cogburn role. One’s an actor and the other is, well, he’s John Wayne. You either buy into the deal or you don’t.
Score: Elmer Berstein may your cup of tea, and his overproduced, blowsey score may just light your fire. Not mine. I found Carter Burwell’s score, based around the haunting melody of “Leaning of the Everlasting Arms” always appropriate, always adding to and never detracting from the development of the story.
Pacing: The original unquestionably drags in places as the director struggled to get Wayne more time onscreen by having him ride his horse hither and yon. The Coen brothers didn’t need to cater to Wyane’s ego and hence could keep the film moving nicely along its story arc.
The original will still be an admired classic 20, 40, 80 years from now. Though an OK movie, The remake will be forgotten in 10.
I’ve seen them both. If the 1969 version had never been made the 2010 movie would have won oscars too. As it is though, John Wayne simply overshadowed the newer version.
One had The Duke. One didn’t. Although I really really enjoyed the remake, I have to go with John wayne.
However, the "Grit" in the novel - which is still required reading in many middle or high school classes - is 90% the grit of a fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross. One of the quirky things about the novel is the formal manner in which Ross speaks (for example, never using a contraction).
The 1969 version of True Grit was the best John Wayne movie. It failed (miserably) as an adaptation of the novel True Grit (Kim Darby as a fourteen year-old girl? And don't get me started on Glen Campbell's acting; even Campbell jokes about how bad he was).
The Coen Brothers version was a much better version of the novel True Grit.
So how to you want to compare them? As John Wayne movies, the 1969 version is clearly the best. As movies overall, the 1969 version still has the hearts of those who saw it as adolescents or young adults. As movies overall, without the nostalgia? Coen Brothers.
If you didn't know who John Wayne was and you were a fan of the novel? The Coen Brothers film wins. If you didn't know who John Wayne was and you simply wanted the better movie? The Coen Brothers film wins, in my opinion.
1969 True Grit has John Wayne and nostalgia going for it. And it borrowed the name of a novel, the general plot, and the names of some characters. And the Academy, which had overlooked Wayne throughout his career, saw a chance to give him a lifetime achievement award by giving him an Oscar for his performance in the film.
I give the edge to the Coen Bros. version. Both are good films, and The Duke is always The Duke. IMHO, though, the acting of the supporting cast in the original was very hit-and-miss.
The first one is one of my least favorite John Wayne movies, he’s great but pretty much everybody else stinks. The second one is a great movie all the way around.