PDA

View Full Version : True Grit


twhidd
December 22, 2010, 07:15 PM
I saw the Coen brothers' remake of True Grit today. Pretty good movie. There's a glaring mistake that kind of bothers me though. John Wayne wore the patch over his left eye. Jeff Bridges wears it over his right, which makes it difficult if not darn near impossible to aim a rifle when shouldering it right handed. I know it's just Hollywood, but I think someone should have caught that.

Zhillsauditor
December 22, 2010, 07:49 PM
I read the book, but I cannot remember the issue being addressed. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailer showing Bridges firing a rifle (1866 winnie I think), shows him firing right handed but aiming with is left eye.

I've a problem that way myself, and have given in to using my less dominant, deteriorating right eye, as I cannot teach myself to shoot left handed. I came to shooting late in life, and am useless with my left arm.

Hawg
December 22, 2010, 08:50 PM
Adds a touch of realism doncha think?

rem1858
December 22, 2010, 08:56 PM
Reminds me of a guy I used to work with.

We went shooting guns and rifles one weekend and he was a very good shot with both.

I noticed he was right handed but sighted with his left eye.
Asked him about it and that is when he told me that he had a glass eye.
Never knew it until he told me :D

Clarence

sewerman
December 23, 2010, 08:37 AM
wife & I caught the new grit movie yesterday too.

then watched the john wayne version on cable that evening.

man! what a world of difference!

producers today go to greater effort to portray correct historical clothing & language than the movies of yesteryear. more money is dedicated to offering the audience a historically correct film creating realism & a learning experience instead of just a story line filled in with cast & off the shelf non-researched clothing, equipment, & diction. ...and i would like to think most people, even those not appreciative of history do enjoy the effort.

the older version was nothing more then a longer weekly T.V. western program.

BTW i'm left eye dominate too. i read in a gun magazine that somewhere closeto 40 % or more right handed folks are left eye dominate!

sewerman

twhidd
December 23, 2010, 10:21 AM
I'm also left eye dominant. But when I shoot rifles or shotguns I am forced to close my left eye and aim with my right. I can't seem to focus on the sights otherwise.

Foto Joe
December 23, 2010, 10:54 AM
My youngest daughter (26) is:

Left handed - shoots right handed - is left eye dominent.

Watching her shoot a lever gun kinda makes me dizzy, but she hits what she's pointing it at!!

starbuck125
December 23, 2010, 11:41 AM
my sons the same way, right handed, shoots left handed, closes left eye, he also hits what he aims at generally. i'm lucky enough to be able to shoot either way though.

kymarkh
December 23, 2010, 11:47 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.

I had a friend who was cross-dominant and it did not affect his trap shooting one bit. He never let me forget it either!

wheelyfun
December 23, 2010, 10:12 PM
Just returned from seeing the movie, and also watched the John Wayne version last night.

The Coen brothers version follows the novel (written by Charles Portis) more closely than the 1969 version.

This movie is full of great weapons; single action army revolvers, Colt Dragoon, Sharps rifle, Henry rifle, and various lever action and shotguns.

This movie is great, see it if you can!

JohnKSa
December 23, 2010, 10:58 PM
I saw or read an interview in which it was mentioned that John Wayne had the prop folks make him up an eyepatch that didn't actually obstruct his vision. Although it appeared to be black it was nearly transparent from the inside. So he could actually see out of both eyes for the movie.

I noticed one commercial clip from the current movie which appeared to show Jeff Bridges sighting a pistol with his left eye. I wonder if the eyepatch they gave him is actually functional?

eastbank
December 24, 2010, 06:43 AM
i am left eye dominant but was right handed, i taught myself to shoot totaly left handed at a young age. but i still do every thing else right handed. it was hard for me but it was worth it. eastbank.

wittzo
December 24, 2010, 04:55 PM
One of those method actor things, I reckon. Jeff Bridges will probably slap himself when he finds out. :)

I used to be stigmatic in one eye and myopic in the other. Now, my eyes are starting to switch on me. I use a cpap machine and I sleep on the left side of the bed, so I hold my books on that side and my left eye is the one I use to read with, because the mask blocks my right eye.

Now I keep wanting to aim with my left eye and close my right eye even when I'm using a scope. Hopefully a lamp in the middle of the bed will fix it.

wogpotter
December 24, 2010, 05:09 PM
Did they get the surroundings better than the original?

Having spent some time in the Ozarks between Fort Smith & the Oklahoma border I can say I never saw snow capped majestic peaks in the entire time I was there.:D

My buddy, who lives in the area rented the John Wayne version & the first question his wife asked him was "Which Ozarks did they film this in & why haven't you ever taken me to them"?:eek:

bedbugbilly
December 24, 2010, 05:58 PM
I'm right handed and was right eye dominant until I started having some vision prombems - now I don't have much central vision in my right eye so I have to shoot rifle left handed. You learn to adapt. I still aim pistol in a right hand stance but aim with left eye - as I said, you adapt.

In regards to which eye had the patch over it in the "old" True Grit and the "new" . . . . cheer up! He could have had a patch over both eyes and I'm sure Hollywood would have worked that out as well! :D

Was glad to hear all of your comments on the new movie. I've seen the ads for it and am looking forward to seeing it. Let's face it . . . WE NEED MORE GOOD WESTERNS!!!!! :)

43FLcracker
December 26, 2010, 01:06 PM
What were the two guns Cogburn kept holstered on the horn of his saddle?

twhidd
December 26, 2010, 02:06 PM
They were Navy Colts. He briefly mentioned his "Navy sixes" at one point in the movie.

Hardcase
December 26, 2010, 02:36 PM
Beyond the historical accuracy, it was a crackin' good movie. We saw it last night. My wife had to keep up a running translation of "Western" to "American" for my sister, who just never go the hang of westerns, despite being born and raised in Idaho.

She still wants to know why Dick had such a tight hatband.

Hawg
December 26, 2010, 07:32 PM
No disrespect for the Duke but I thought it was much better than the original. My only complaint is the grammar and pronunciation was too good.

Hardcase
December 26, 2010, 08:12 PM
I thought so, too, Hawg, but reading letters from my forebears going back to around 1810 make me wonder. They were beautifully written, not just in penmanship, but grammar. The spelling tended to be pretty atrocious, but the language was really quite prosaic. These were folks who had a grade school education, if they were lucky, but they were all fairly well read - if nothing else, they had all read the family Bible cover to cover.

I also have a recording that my great uncle made of my great grandmother in the early 1970's. She was born in 1880 and spoke quite eloquently about her life as a child in Idaho City.

So I'm not sure about the language.

psycho nut
December 26, 2010, 08:37 PM
I really liked the movie.

And knowing a word and being able to spell it are totally different. Don't be so quick to assume that they all spoke like idiots.

Hawg
December 26, 2010, 08:48 PM
Don't be so quick to assume that they all spoke like idiots.

Oh I don't but with as many uneducated people as there were I didn't expect the whole cast to sound like English teachers.:D

Model-P
December 26, 2010, 10:11 PM
Grammar has gotten worse, not better.

How often do you hear poor grammar such as in these examples in any given day?!

Incorrect / Correct

Where are you at? / Where are you?
Here's the keys. / Here are the keys.
Talking good English. / Speaking English well.
It's me. / It is I.
Me and Clara went to the store. / Clara and I went to the store.
Who did you give the present to? / To whom did you give the present?
No one hates garlic as much as me (which means, "No one hates garlic as much as they hate me."). / No one hates garlic as much as I.
He has a red sweater like me. / He has a red sweater like I (do).
What are you kicking me for? / Why are you kicking me?

Etc., etc.

sewerman
December 28, 2010, 05:53 PM
model-p,

excellent point made on the grammar subject.

i believe hollywood is solely responsible for promoting folks from the 18th century as illiterates.

the school system of the 1800s, though short in years for many pupils, focused on the fundamentals of education......something our 20th-21st century school systems seem to have forgotten.

S.M.

MLeake
December 28, 2010, 05:58 PM
... then the common lexicon had three times the number of words in Shakespeare's day as compared to modern English.

Commoners attending one of the plays at Stratford were actually expected to be able to follow the language, as well as the storylines.

So the question is, has the language become more streamlined and efficient, or just more boring?

To keep the thread on the subject of guns, though, I was actually surprised that Mattie fired even one successful shot, given that they never showed her reloading her cylinder after being immersed in the river. I would not think that would work so well with a cap and ball revolver....

Hardcase
December 28, 2010, 06:20 PM
MLeake, I figured that the ball on the one end and the cap on the other served to keep the water out, at least for the one chamber. For the sake of drama, I guess that she was that lucky.

Regarding language, I'm going to scan a few letters this week and post them in a new thread. Some of you may like to get a little flavor of the language (and topics) of the time.

Hawg
December 28, 2010, 07:52 PM
She got the one shot off before the water got to the powder. I have writing examples from the family back to the late 1700's. Writing was eloquent Victorian script. Spelling for the most part was correct for the times(spelling has changed). Language was flowery. maybe I am somewhat influenced by Hollyweird but it still sounded funny.:D

youngunz4life
December 28, 2010, 08:09 PM
I saw the movie. I liked it a lot. The movie made me think which is always a good thing in my book, and I think I need to see it again sometime to catch everything. Maybe it just brought back memories of the first version I saw as a child. I had been worried about Maddie's(spelling?) role as in the actress, but I thought she did a good job. Only difference in the movies I Can Remember was the very, very last part..........but who knows - maybe that was "Rooster Cogburn", the sequel with katherine hepburn I was thinking of....

ps- who knows, maybe jeff bridges demanded the eyepatch the way it was. It could happen that way, as in I believe it to be still realistic. Now can a 19th century revolver get soaking wet and still be fireable? Honestly I don't know, but the thought crossed my mind in the movie.

pps- some movies just have a special place in one's heart (this parentheses bit is my wife: :barf:). Lol! I know some people can't do 'reruns' because they are against the nature of it ( sort of like if 'jaws' was redone), but I recommend the movie!! Happy New Year

vico512
December 28, 2010, 08:11 PM
I figured the same thing about the Navy Colt -- she was able to get off at least one shot before the water leaked-in around the nipple. I used to have an 1851 Navy .36 cal (replica). Amazingly inaccurate! After charging, I filled the cylinders with Crisco, to keep from getting crossover ignition.

Just saw the movie today & thought it was much better filmed and acted than the original. Sets were very authentic, such as the black oaks in Texas. The Santa Fe settings also seemed to fit the original story pretty well. Seeing the movie from Maddie's perspective stayed much truer to the book.

Hawg
December 28, 2010, 08:14 PM
I figured the same thing about the Navy Colt

It wasn't a Navy it was a Dragoon.

MLeake
December 28, 2010, 08:46 PM
.... Mattie had a Dragoon.

Rooster had a pair of Navy Colts in his saddle holsters.

But I wasn't thinking about the scene where Mattie fires the Dragoon, as far as the chambers getting wet. I was thinking about her fording the river, earlier. All her chambers should have been soaked, no?

Hawg
December 29, 2010, 06:27 AM
That was days earlier. A movie cant show everything altho it would have been a nice touch to see Rooster cleaning and reloading it for her.

MLeake
December 29, 2010, 09:19 AM
I understand your point, Hawg, but since nobody had even taught her to cock the hammer, I find it unlikely anybody taught her about dry powder.

Hawg
December 29, 2010, 09:28 AM
I understand your point, Hawg, but since nobody had even taught her to cock the hammer, I find it unlikely anybody taught her about dry powder.

Read my post again.


it would have been a nice touch to see Rooster cleaning and reloading it for her.

mikecu
December 29, 2010, 09:32 AM
With this kind of feed back, I gotta go see it.

youngunz4life
December 29, 2010, 01:51 PM
keep a bodycount(as in dead bodies), and keep tabs on the "Dr". you're not gonna see or hear from him much so I am not ruining anything for you but was the Dr the same dr or a different dr(you'll understand when you see it)

twhidd
December 29, 2010, 03:57 PM
was the Dr the same dr or a different dr
I wondered the same thing. I figured it had to have been.

napp
December 29, 2010, 04:01 PM
The same question about the doctor ran through my mind. The movie doesn't answer the question. Haven't read the book; so I can't say if the answer is there or not.

Model-P
December 30, 2010, 01:40 AM
I finally got to see it and can understand some of the comments.

I did~not find the grammar unreasonable for the period, but the lack of contractions (as I~am purposely trying to mimic here in this post ~;)) really struck me from about the kidnapping scene onward. It goes over all right in writing, but seems a bit strained and awkward in speech. Did they actually talk that way then?

I~would see it again in a while, but do~not feel the desire to see it over and over. I think it~is a pretty good movie, but not great. $5 and a couple hours well spent on a rainy day. JMO.


I saw it before the "Dr" posts were made here. What is that all about? I don't....errr, I mean.....do~not get it.

Hawg
December 30, 2010, 03:53 AM
I think what they're referring to with the Dr. is the guy that bought the dead body from the Indian claimed to be a Dr. Then after Mattie was snake bit Rooster set out to take her to a Dr. but it never showed him getting her there. Was it the same Dr. or a town Dr.? I think they were too far from any town so to my way of thinking it had to be him.

Model-P
December 30, 2010, 05:19 AM
Ah, thankyou. I don't know about anyone else, but I found that character particularly disturbing!

One thing that didn't make sense to me was the shooting of the horse near the end. I understand that it is possible to run a horse to death, but that horse was exhausted, not dead yet. I didn't see that she was lame, and it appeared she should have pulled through after a period of rest. Seemed "Hollywood" to me.

I did appreciate the attention to period details. Even Rooster's saddle was period correct with its high cantle and Sam Stagg rigging.

Hawg
December 30, 2010, 05:54 AM
One thing that didn't make sense to me was the shooting of the horse near the end. I understand that it is possible to run a horse to death, but that horse was exhausted, not dead yet. I didn't see that she was lame, and it appeared she should have pulled through after a period of rest. Seemed "Hollywood" to me.

The horse was near death. He did it a favor by shooting it.

Model-P
December 30, 2010, 01:06 PM
The horse was near death. He did it a favor by shooting it.


I understood that was the idea. Then, after he shot the horse and had to carry Mattie until he could no longer walk himself, I thought when he pulled his gun out of his holster he was going to shoot himself too.;)

O.K. After some research I find that a completely exhausted horse can die "if not treated". I didn't know that. I always thought shooting a horse was only reserved for a lamed horse. Thanks again, Hawg.

youngunz4life
December 30, 2010, 01:58 PM
also Hawg - when Rooster made his charge: "Fill your hands you son of a bitch." - I thought he said something to the Dr right before that while talking and then subsequently this same character held his saddle and took some cover by riding on his horse's side. To my knowledge he was the only character who survived in the entire movie after being on opposite sides of Rooster. I do not think he was the dentist with the bearskin but thats why I brought it up; I had sort of figured the Dr was there tending to whatever injuries the outlaws had, but I wasn't sure. It was hard to catch everything with only one viewing.

ps-I liked your point about the cleaning of the weapon. We do not know what transpired except in the footage we the audience could view.

Hawg
December 30, 2010, 03:55 PM
I guess I overlooked that part.

PawPaw
December 30, 2010, 04:30 PM
Going to see it in about an hour. I hope it lives up to the hype.

youngunz4life
December 30, 2010, 04:38 PM
have a good time pawpaw. check back in with us on this thread if you get a chance. you know how hype goes though:

my dad told my uncle that "Citizen Kane" was the best movie ever(mainly due to how it was listed by film experts as the best more than once // I always thought "Casablanca" should take out "Citizen Cane" but "Citizen Kane" was monumental at the time). anyways, my uncle was so hyped up to see this one yr as a family: my mom, aunt, uncle, and dad. well at the end my uncle was still waiting for the part of the movie to take off so he could understand why it was the best movie ever. the hype killed it for him

Hawg
December 30, 2010, 04:56 PM
It's a good movie. If you liked the original and you're not put off by a John Wayne remake you'll enjoy it. The speech is kinda weird tho.

Zhillsauditor
December 30, 2010, 06:02 PM
A movie cant show everything altho it would have been a nice touch to see Rooster cleaning and reloading it for her.
In the book, the gun misfired on the chamber that Rooster (drunk) had reloaded after he shot a rat with it, back in town. That scene was in the first movie, but not this new one.

Hardy
December 30, 2010, 07:25 PM
Jeez--gonna go see this tomorrow! After looking at all these posts I will have to say that I also have letters from Antebellum that are written very eloquently with proper English from enlisted Confederate soldiers writing home from Richmond and Petersburg. I posted these letters on an old thread about a year ago but don't remember what topic.

Not tryin to be a medicine show salesman, but I do have great buys on 1851 navy 36 steel/with spare cylinder :D email bhardy360@aol.com I have back ordered Uberti dragoons.

WBHARDY

jhenry
December 30, 2010, 07:51 PM
In the Charles Portis novel Cogburn shoots the right two times without aiming using Mattie Ross's Dragoon revolver. In the 1969 John Wayne version Cogburn uses his own SAA to shoot the rat. In the Bridges version there ain't no rat shooting at all. And no cat named General Sterling Price either.

You can't serve papers on a rat Baby Sister, you gotta shoot him or let him be.

salvadore
December 30, 2010, 10:40 PM
I came in a minute or two late but I thought they were in Fort Smith Arkansas, not Santa Fe. As a personal aside, after many years of getting thrown and other indignities, shooting a horse makes infinite sense to me.

Stiofan
December 30, 2010, 10:40 PM
This site shows most of the guns in the original movie. http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/True_Grit

In the new movie Lucky Ned carries a Remington 1875 and Mattie's gun is a Colt Dragoon and not a Walker as in the first movie.

Hawg
December 31, 2010, 02:32 AM
Mattie's gun is a Colt Dragoon and not a Walker as in the first movie.
In the original it was supposed to be a Dragoon but the prop people messed up.

Powdermonkee
January 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
Howdy all! Just registered and here's my first post. Regarding the Coens' True Grit, whatever one's view of its overall quality versus the 1969 original, there's one area that the remake fell flat. For all the attention to detail, the guns in the film look new out of the box! For instance, Tom Chaney's Henry rifle has brass shiny enough to shave with. Same for Rooster's '51 navies in his saddle holsters and Mattie's "old" Dragoon. Also the wood stocks on all the rifles are heavily shellacked and glossy. Look closely at the original and you'll see all the weapons look properly aged. Goes to show that the old-timers got at least a couple of things right.:)

Doc Hoy
January 12, 2011, 06:49 PM
Welcome to the forum.

Model-P
January 12, 2011, 07:37 PM
there's one area that the remake fell flat. For all the attention to detail, the guns in the film look new out of the box!

I hate to spill the beans, but in the time setting of the movie, those guns were practically new out of the box!;)

Welcome to the forum.

Powdermonkee
January 15, 2011, 02:29 PM
True, Model P. But as the man said, "It's not the years, it's the mileage." My beef is that men who look like they haven't bathed since last Xmas and wouldn't know what a toothbrush is used for are toting around tenderfoot-shiny guns. Go to a cowboy shoot and look at the guns there, keeping in mind these guns belong to folks who don't live outdoors for weeks and months at a time. I could see Laboeuf with shiny guns, he almost seems prissy at times, but Rooster, Chaney and Ned Pepper? Not likely.

Powdermonkee
January 15, 2011, 02:30 PM
By the way, thanks for the welcome. I love this forum!:D

Hawg
January 15, 2011, 08:55 PM
"It's not the years, it's the mileage." My beef is that men who look like they haven't bathed since last Xmas and wouldn't know what a toothbrush is used for are toting around tenderfoot-shiny guns

Revolvers were seldom used and less seldom worn. Rifles were normally carried in a rifle boot so what mileage?

twhidd
January 15, 2011, 09:30 PM
Even if they look new at least they were period correct. You can't really say that for the original, or most westerns of that era for that matter. They didn't really start paying attention to that until later on. I would suggest that Clint Eastwood was one of the first directors to do so.

Hawg
January 15, 2011, 09:38 PM
they were period correct. You can't really say that for the original, or most westerns of that era for that matter. They didn't really start paying attention to that until later on

Another thing you have to keep in mind is earlier westerns used original guns, some of which were already in short supply or like the Henry fired cartridges no longer made. 92 Winchesters were abundant and cheap.

Model-P
January 16, 2011, 12:34 AM
Another thing you have to keep in mind is earlier westerns used original guns,....

That's right, and many of those old, original guns had not only endured the real frontier, they had also endured years and decades of being thrown in the dirt, dragged through the mud, and bounced on boulders through take after take after take of numerous westerns. Those who think that's how the guns looked back in their own beginnings should maybe reconsider. I think the reason we have mental images of guns in the Old West looking like that is due largely, in part, to having watched all those old western films featuring all those worn out and abused antiques.

Hardcase
January 16, 2011, 01:34 AM
I can't help but think that a former soldier, Union or Confederate, having been through the routine of cleaning his weapon every night would let his sidearm or rifle get too terribly beat up.

egor20
January 16, 2011, 02:00 AM
I have always heard from my father whom had heard from his father...ect:, ect;

Horse and saddlery, first
then, your firearms, second
then, your boots, third
then, you feed your self, last

Roaddog
January 16, 2011, 07:42 AM
Your granddad and dad got that right Egor20.

Powdermonkee
January 16, 2011, 05:16 PM
Good points, everyone! However, like Grant, "I'll fight it out on this line if it takes all summer." I do see the logic of "care for your horse, saddle, gun self" and the point about older western being made with original, well worn guns is quite insightful.
Perhaps it's a question of aesthetics; super shiny brass, to me, seems quite out of place on Civil War-era guns in a film set almost twenty years later. I have brass doorknobs that turn dull yellow just a few weeks after cleaning. Any vets who've had to polish brass belt buckles and rank insignia can attest to how quickly brass fixtures, especially ones that are handled frequently (like revolver grip frames and rifle receivers), tarnish up. If this weren't true Brasso would be long out of business.
So Hollywood, listen up! Before you turn out another western, send your guns to me for free weathering, tarnishing and break in. After all, I just want to do my part;)

Model-P
January 17, 2011, 01:53 AM
I see now. Yep, and brass tarnishes surprisingly fast when exposed to black powder fouling. I'd have to watch the movie again to see the brass of which you speak.