Introduction:
The first and only other Coen brothers film I’ve seen is “O Brother Where Art Thou?” which has a very strange tongue-in-cheek depression era South, a lot of swearing, and a lot of hymns playing in the background. Not surprisingly, it kind of offended everybody–mainly Southerners, some Christians, some atheists, and the politically correct types–which was interesting to watch. I personally find the film a subversively moral film and even secretly religious. Since the Coen brothers were raised Jewish, this shouldn’t be too surprising. But what’s more surprising is their non-antipathy towards WASPy Americana again seen in this 2010 film “True Grit”.
Being a true antagonist towards mainline subversively 
immoral or cynical hollywood, I hesitate to praise ambiguous films that please both the moral America and artsy film critics (which my friend Steven Spielberg often delights us with this delicate tactic to get the oscars). So I usually read the synopsis and reviews as much as I can to discover some nasty anti-moral “gotchya” (Like in Saving Private Ryan, The King’s Speech, Prince Caspian, or any otherwise artistic film ruined) before I dive emotionally into the film (which never ruins the good films I think). Well, I couldn’t find anyone saying anything greatly negative except that Jeff Bridges was NOT John Wayne (I saw that one–he was the only thing good about that movie). And I am delighted to say the Coen brothers surprised me again. They managed a subtle and yet strong American film where both justice and grace prevail. Unfortunately, it is a bit violent and morbid for the whole family but it does have a little bit of everything (my younger sisters fled halfway through, and my brothers joined me–but everyone came back for the shoot-out ending).
Overall:
Since the only other legitimate Western I’ve seen is True Grit 1969 with John Wayne, don’t consider me to be a connoisseur in this genre. Overall, I think it’s a good kind of movie particularly because of the main actress (who is an angel compared to the previous hippy in the John Wayne classic) although we get a trade-off since Jeff Bridges is slightly more hippy and definitely not as fun or moral as his Presbyterian predecessor. I confess the main song “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” really affected my feelings toward this film, particularly because it added spiritual depth and hope to small acts of valor and a man-hunt for justice. I don’t expect this to be for everyone particularly due to the morbid curiousity of the makers–particularly a hanging scene and a cabin-stabbing–and the rather pathetic attempts of the dying to portray Christian hope or repentance for the afterlife. (For some reason Hollywood portrays faith of the dying as desperation rather than peace and conviction. Since I watched several Christians dying, and one actually die, I think I better understand it than Hollywood does.) Nevertheless, there was no general or particular Christian antipathy, and I think in many ways the film is very moral and hopeful towards eternal ramifications. As for main thoughts, I think this is a good kind of movie that has something in it for everyone except for t
hose averse to numerous corpses throughout and general violence (particularly the creepy cabin scene). It is definitely my dream pre-adolescent movie, where a girl on screen finally dresses like me, talks like a lawyer, rides a horse, and goes on a man-hunt for justice–but I’m not sure it would pass the artsy types or those craving for character development (particularly of the girl). The reasons for why “True Grit” is compelling is because it finally fills the longing in our Post-moderned weary soul for a taste of Truth, Justice, Faith, and the old American way–even just a hint of it. The ending is symbolically powerful particularly because it is linked to a deeper justice and a deeper grace as the girl’s drive for vengeance does not leave her unharmed, yet the slightly less moral perform acts of valor not to justify their complicated behavior (as in “Schindler’s List” where the salvation and the sin is mixed) but in a pure, simple, and unselfish way. I’ve heard someone else say about a different horror film “You’ll never listen to ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’ without a chill going down your spine!”–and I must say I quite like that statement for this film, only I hope it’ll be a different kind of chill. As Maddie Ross says in the opening credits “You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free, except the grace of God.”
the hard cold negatives: Read imdb for parental guide–there are bad words, hanging, shooting, and a stabbing–but no sexual elements.
What to expect (no spoilers): The first third sets the scene in a slow kind of artistic Pioneer way with horse bartering, legal court case, and a hanging. The second third becomes more morbid with a random corpse that a dentist is trying to sell them (I think this is supposed to be funny) and then an eerily lit cabin scene where violence ensues. Then the last portion is exciting and humorous with the final shoot-out, parleying with their foes, and an artistic/heroic ending, and a slightly disappointing epilogue with a beautiful hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms”.
Criticism and compliments:
1. I wish this movie was less morbid. I’m typically a vibe person, so I don’t mind violence too much. Just too much hanging, stabbing, and dead bodies–the part with the Texan Ranger getting his lip hurt I thought was funny. I think the morbid fascination distracted a little from other things.
2. I wish Mattie’s character could have been contrasted with the bounty hunters for artistic purposes–particularly her religion or thoughts & feelings about her father and family which we got a little in the first third, yet no mention of it in the middle–they should have developed this so we could breathe in between shootings. Yet compared to the previous True Grit, this girl was a breath of fresh air. (I didn’t mind Matt Damon this time–he fit the role quite well and he didn’t make annoying political comments. I also thought Maddie and his relationship was sweet.) I didn’t really care for the epilogue, it felt like a let down without getting to see Maddie’s family or even her starting her own after all that mess. Perhaps if the story was m
ore about Cogburn’s redemption it would have been moving, but since the movie wasn’t really about him, it just didn’t really work. (I dunno, maybe that was Spielberg’s contribution to make it similar to “Saving Private Ryan” but I thought that movie had a stupid ending too.)
3. There’s a little bit of anti-Indian sentiment from the settlers (in the hanging and later when Rooster beats-up the Indian kids and sets their mule free, also a reference that Rooster denies of killing women and children) but there’s also ambivalence (Rooster cha
ts with an Indian, and the Indian agrees to signal danger. Also in the end, it appears they are still in Indian territory, and possibly the ending cabin gave them help) so I don’t think the film was trying to accuse a certain race above the other. I actually kind of liked the confederate squabble about the Indian massacre–it felt real. I didn’t think it was supposed to besmirch Cogburn but definitely succeeded him in making him questionable.
Deeper Metaphorical analysis: (spoilers!) Updated 1/20
1. Considering that Mattie Ross’ quest for justice for her father to be hung in Arkansas rather than Texas showed that it was not all vengeance but partly both–since he would be hung for murder in both cases–her quest is neither blood-thirsty nor purely legal, but a desire for perfection that cannot be attained on this earth alone until the last judgment. However, if Mattie was not wrong to shoot Chaney after she warned him and commanded him to come with her–then surely she was not wrong for shooting him later when he was attacking Debeouf and should not be punished by the rattle-snakes in the end? However, as my brother pointed out, since Chaney already finished hitting Debeouf with the rock, and stood up to her command for him to rise “Stand up Chaney!” than he essentially was complying to a possible arrest or capture by her rather than execution. This means Mattie broke the law of Justice or self-defense, by not shooting Chaney when he was still dangerous or by giving him a proper trial at Little Rock. True, Mattie was rather small for taking Chaney captive, but she should have made her intentions clear to arrest him and shoot him if he didn’t comply with her procedures as she did earlier the first time she shot him. Hence, the punishment of the rattle-snake bite was made symbolically clear that she was poisoned by revenge rather than justice.
2. Furthermore, what I found interesting was the contrast/comparison of the good guys vs. the bad guys. The Badguys were far more likeable from the get-go than the “good” ones are–this very obvious as Rooster is a suspicious hooligan (in this film) and Debeouf is a stuck up/insecure cowboy. But everyone makes their choices, and particularly different from the previous film is that we see them offered a way out–by Mattie Ross asking them to help her and lessen their sentences in court. What I love is how endearing Chaney is within a couple of seconds, and how relaxed and humorous Ned Pepper is when speaking with Mattie about Rooster. Yet the good badguys choose bad, and the bad goodguys choose good. Rooster fights them head-on unlike the slinking he did at the shanty, and Debeouf protects Rooster from behind rather than steal the show himself as he did earlier accidentally. Mattie of course is the interesting one with the character arc made in the above point. What I love about this is that Rooster carries Mattie from the snake-bite when earlier he would only put the rope around himself. So the Coen brothers & author Charles Portis show us that final choices we make matter.
Jubilation 