True Grit

Joel and Ethan Coen's “True Grit” aroused high expectations, especially due to the impressive ten nominations it had received from the Academy. The talented brothers, with an unbelievably fertile imagination, fiddling and playing around with convention, disintegrating various set stereotypes, create masterpieces and one of a kind motion pictures with a characteristic aura, with an attractive and recognisable style, giving life to mass imagination. This is why their movies arouse emotion, attract attention. Besides the fact that they produce atleast one film each year, contrary to other renowned directors such as Christopher Nolan or David Fincher, critics can always feel confident that with the premier of another Coen brothers motion picture, something special is in store for them and atleast a satisfactory movie awaits. Unfortunately “True Grit” is just a satisfactory movie.

A resolute Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) intends to kill Tom Chany (Josh Brolin), the murderer of her father. However, the fourteen-year-old girl isn't capable of capturing such a lethal criminal on Indian territory and thus seeks help.  She sets out in search of Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) – a brutal and merciless drunken federal sheriff. And eventually finds him. In an outhouse.

In “True Grit” the creators lack conviction. The Coen brothers portray a world known from classic westerns – the gold of desert seems striking in the beautiful pictures, the scenography is identical to that of “3:10 to Yuma”, the music reminds of the 70's and 80's westerns. The movie's setting adhers to a classical western, but it doesn't lack cliché-less scenes that are capable of taking any western into an 'anti-western' direction. However, the directors fail to give us an idea of what kind of a film they intended to create. Was it a tribute to the genre? Was it supposed to be a demostration of breaking the rules, playing around with convention, a real anti-western? Perhaps a homage of their own, seasoned with a pinch of Coen-like irony? To defend this assumption, it would be necessary to notice  something more than a handful of shocking scenes in 'True Grit' in which the character of the creators of “No Country for Old Men” is evidently present. Moreover, the story itself seems a little bit bookish, as if it weren't properly “remade” by the screenwriters. Lengthy dialogues with a classical exchange of information embossed with a touch of irony seems to be the remedy here, only traces of the characteristic humour can be observed, and the final showdown disappoints with its sloppy portrayal and lack of finesse.

 “True Grit”, like I said earlier, is a satisfactory film. As if by tradition, the Coen brothers have a strong cast. Above all Jeff Bridges is the one that fascinates and intrigues, portraying a role that is complete and just. Actors restricted by the script like Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and the known from “Saving Private Ryan” Barry Pepper all showed titanic effort in their roles, and though graced with little screentime, their performances remain ingrained in memory. A certain maturity can be noticed in their performances and, especially in the case of Brolin, the audience can be slightly disappointed due to their shortened to the minimum plot. Unfortunately, Hailee Steinfeld who appears throughout the majority of the movie offers only a mediocre performance. Her portrayal of the character lacks clarity and, in fact, irritates instead of arousing sympathy.

The greatest pro of the film are the pictures. Classical and highly picturesque, at times even striking. The professional contribution of Roger Deakins can be felt. It is the sequences of the sheriff on a galloping horse in a race with death and the initial pictures from the prologue that remain ingrained in memory. However, the mentioned earlier final showdown turned out to be a disaster for the whole crew and even Deakins presented it in a sloppy a manner.

 “True Grit” is the Coen brothers' poorest motion picture since “Intolerable Cruelty”. It lacks an artistic bite, a certain confidence in implementation. But it is watchable and has a few memorable scenes. However, the Coen name has set a rather high level of expectation and it just doesn't seem right to plunge below that anticipated level and create a movie that is not worth the hype. For the audience's sake and benefit, and also the creators'. That's why I have to put this film down to a cautionary three.