Ok, funny. Yesterday it was announced that Matt Damon and Josh Brolin were in talks to join Jeff Bridges (who’s still evidently in discussions) to star in the Coen Brothers’ remake of the John Wayne-starring 1969 Western, “True Grit,” for Paramount, and producers Scott Rudin and Steven Spielberg.
The Coens response? “Yes. Jeff, Matt and Josh, that’s true — something that you read in the trades that actually turns out to be true!”
Ha. The difference between the Henry Hathaway-directed ’69 version and their take? It will be much closer to the source material written by Charles Portis, the original film only being a loose adaptation. “It’s partly a question of point-of-view,” Ethan Coen told IGN. “The book is entirely in the voice of the 14-year-old girl. That sort of tips the feeling of it over a certain way.”
People have wondered if this will be in the vein of “No Country For Old Men,” but Ethan suggests Portis’ original has a lot more wit to it, which stands to reason as many of his novels contain dry humor.
“I think it’s much funnier than the movie was so I think, unfortunately, they lost a lot of humour in both the situations and in her voice. It also ends differently than the movie did. You see the main character — the little girl — 25 years later when she’s an adult. Another way in which it’s a little bit different from the movie — and maybe this is just because of the time the movie was made — is that it’s a lot tougher and more violent than the movie reflects. Which is part of what’s interesting about it.”
Joel Coen suggests the peculiar novel is more attuned to their off-kilter sensibilities. “I don’t actually remember the movie too well, but I do remember it as being much more of a standard western, and the book is just an oddity. It’s a very odd book.”
More examples of Portis’ work being inherently comedic: Greg Mottola and comedian Bill Hader are working on an adaptation of Portis‘ “Dog Of The South, which is essentially a roadtrip story and a sarcastic noir tale about a man tracking down his wife who has left him for another man (Hader will star once they get funding, but that one is further down the road it seems).
Production on the Coens’ “True Grit,” is set to kick off March 2010.
Hmmhmhm…
I think the coens wanting to be more "Faithful" to the book, is a terrible idea…
I think that it's always better when a movie adptation departs from it's source (And history pretty much has my back on this one…)
And the reason for this is quite simple… What works in a book, sometimes (often) does NOT work in the same way on film.
That is what ruined (in my humble opinion) their overrated "No country for old men".
They decided to go where the book went, and that just didn't work for a movie with so much build up.
It's so misplaced, it's hard to believe.
I'm sure they thought they were being clever, and anti hollywood (and that is pretty much the defense from everyone who loved that movie) but there is nothing smart about that ending.
Of course, I am not the biggest Coen fan really, so i might be in the minority here, i only liked (A LOT!!!) The super cult classic "The Big Lebowsky" and thought "fargo" was ok. But that's pretty much it.
Nice that they they confirmed everything personally, but I don't think adding humor is the way to go. Don't get me wrong, the Coens were some of the best humorists around, but the key word there is WERE. The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona are two of the best comedies ever and the fact that they advertised Fargo as a thriller when it also was a comedy (mind you a black one) was a joke in and of itself, but their comedies lately have really missed the mark in my opinion. I mean they made those other great films, so I'm sure they still retain their twisted sense of humor, but it just hasn't shown through with the likes of Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers and Burn After Reading. Thats why I was so happy with No Country For Old Men. That film has some of the best violence I've seen on screen, and after it came out, the Coens were quoted saying they have a western script they wrote that is the bloodiest thing they've ever written. Well, I wanted to believe it was this True Grit remake, as what's the chances the Coens mention they wrote a western and then announce they're about to shoot a western and it's not that film? I guess better than you'd expect.
I have no problem with this.
Adding some quirky comedy to a western revenge tale could be an interesting combination.
Of course, the Coen's could film a dag taking a crap on the side of the road and I'd probably watch it.
(P.S. @cirkusfolk…Burn After Reading was pretty good methinks.)
circusfolk — They're not adding humor, I'm reading the Portis book right now and it is funny–very funny actually. It's also very violent.
Monty — you are most definitely in the minority, thank god.
@Monty
No, they weren't trying to be anti Hollywood. It's clear that you just don't understand the ending. The entire point of the movie would be lost had it ended differently.
Also, the Burn After Reading hate is confusing. Is it because it followed No Country and people were expecting something Oscar caliber? It is what it was intended to be, a dark, funny, take on modern middle age relationships.
Well if it's gonna be a violent humorous film as opposed to a violent non-humorous one (No Country For Old Men), it can one of two ways I guess. Like I said, Fargo was very funny, in a less broad way, yet had some shocking violence in it, while Burn After Reading tried to be in-your-face funny while alos adding extreme violence. Difference is, in Fargo you bought the violence and in Reading you didn't. I just don't want them to mess it up is all. Maybe I'll read the book.