I tried to watch the original True Grit last week.  I couldn’t muster the strength to finish.  

I watched the new True Grit last summer with my brother.  Though I came away unimpressed, I was not completely bored (I was close though.)  I made it one hour through the original before I threw in my hat.  I found the new adaptation cheesy in regards to characters, and circular in regards to plot.  I found that and more to be true of the original.  Dare I say the original bordered on disturbingly flat and boring?

I remain unimpressed by this western tale of drama, action, and adventure.  Perhaps my lack of enjoyment with the majority of western fiction and entertainment clouds my judgment here, but permit me to put forth a few thoughts that I’ve gathered relating both to the mechanics and actual style of this story, as well as to what I’ve perceived to be a misunderstanding of morality, justice, and human responsibility.

• The circular plot leaves much to be desired

I did not reach this point in the original movie, but in the new adaptation, the majority of the plot circles around Mattie, Cogburn, and LaBoeuf doing the same five things over and over.  This includes going out on the search together, making each other angry, splitting up, realizing eventually that they need each other for the search, and banding back together.  I lost interest quickly when I noticed this theme later in the movie.  That is evidence of poor story-telling and lack of development on the author’s part – not a lack of taste and culture on mine.

• The character development lacks relatability

I can relate to a young girl losing her father, but here is nothing else relatable in this story that has captured my attention.  True, this is set in 1873 and not much of my life corresponds to that of a teenage girl living in America in the late 1800s.

I found the static characters irksome.  Mattie, while calm and collected, is bent on vengeance in her way and in her time, and everyone better help or else get out of the way.  She seems not to change and continues on in her calm and collected way even after Tom Chaney dies.  Tom Chaney himself bothered me even more: he begins, continues, and ends a floundering, idiot drunk.  This man was not worthy of a man-hunt in my opinion because his heretofore stupid ways would have gotten him killed eventually, if the law (specifically LaBoeuf) didn’t find him first.  I found Mattie’s obsession over bringing him to justice illogical for a few reasons.  First, if LaBoeuf was going to deal with him in Texas, why does that not count as justice?  Second, why was it so important to track a dumb man down personally?

I found issue with LaBoeuf in another way: his attentions towards Mattie are gross, even though he found her to be pretty and assumed her to be older than she was.  I’ve heard no one make a big deal of this, but a few of LaBoeuf’s comments felt slimy, inconsiderate, and ultimately rubbed me the wrong way.  Maybe I saw more than was actually present, but what was there was enough to make me feel uncomfortable.

• I’ve seen worse acting . . . 

Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld deserve praise for their acting in the 2010 film.  Perhaps the characters themselves were less than stellar, but the acting done by these two is admirable, I’d even say enjoyable.  However, I’ve never rolled my eyes more than when I saw Matt Damon and Glen Campbell play LaBoeuf.  I realize they are portraying a Texas ranger.  From what I understand, Texas rangers were cocky, proud, irritating people.  Beyond even that, LaBoeuf’s character is borderline cringe-worthy and drove me crazy.  I don’t care if you’re a good actor, LaBoeuf will always earn an eyeroll and huge sigh from me.  I was severely disappointed in Josh Brolin’s Tom Chaney.  I haven’t read the book and I hadn’t seen the original movie yet at the time, but I found little satisfaction in the chasing down of an unintelligent hired hand.  In some ways, Brolin did a good job portraying this character, but if I find no reason for that type of character in a particular story, I won’t necessarily care for the acting either.

Don’t shoot the messenger, but I didn’t care for John Wayne in this movie.  His acting was minimal, uninspiring, and surface deep.  I enjoyed him as John Chisum in Chisum, but as this is the only other movie I’ve seen him in, I’m less than impressed and don’t care to necessarily seek out his other movies.  Creativity as an actor is important and John Wayne lacks this from what I can tell, but I withhold a final judgment until I’ve seen more of his acting.

• Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord

I’ve already mentioned that I don’t agree with Mattie’s wholehearted efforts in tracking down Tom Chaney.  This isn’t a personal vendetta of mine that I have against particular stories – the Bible actually deals with this exact issue.  Romans 12:19, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,  says the Lord.'” God does not take kindly to any man (or woman) putting themselves in His place in the judgment seat.  This story does beg a serious question though: what do we do with injustice?  No one, including the sheriff, wanted to take care of Tom Chaney even though he was known to have murdered Mattie’s father.  What should our response to injustice be?  It should not follow the pattern of True Grit, I can tell you that much.  In fact, quite opposite of how Mattie handles things (as “a good Christian” apparently) the Lord asks us to wait patiently for His judgment upon the wicked.  He even tells us that we will not come to shame if we wait for Him, as the psalmist says in Psalm 25:3, “Indeed none who wait for the Lord shall be put to shame; they will be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous.”  Not only are we to wait patiently upon the Lord, but we are to be still and not fret over the wicked.  Psalm 37:7, “Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for Him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices!”  In answer to our question, our response to injustice is to wait before the Lord, pray for wisdom, and walk forward in obedience to Scripture.  Taking the evil man’s judgment into our own hands is not an option.

• I don’t want a man with true grit

Perhaps the most famous line from this story is one stated by Mattie when she first meets Rooster Cogburn: “They say you are a man with true grit.”  I question whether a man of true grit – in Mattie’s terms – is one we would care to know ourselves.  Cogburn was known for shooting before asking questions, for hunting down wanted men, for taking justice into his own hands when necessary.  He was a drunkard, he wasted money, he presumed upon the graciousness of those willing to put up with him, and he was a gruff man of few words.  That is not a man I would care to know.  Neither is that a man I would want as a father, a brother, a boyfriend, or a husband.  This is the ideal western man for Mattie Ross, however, and he appears frequently in western literature and movies.  Though books and movies of this style would lead us to believe otherwise, these are not admirable people for any Biblical reason.

Am I done yet?

I didn’t intend this article to be this long, but apparently I had more than a few thoughts.  🙂  Have you read and/or watched True Grit?  If so, what did you think?  Leave a comment below!

Until the next soap box, have a lovely day and go read a book!