MovieChat Forums > True Grit (2010) Discussion > What's the Significance of Frank James (...

What's the Significance of Frank James (James Brolin) At the End?

posted 9 years ago by CalvinValjean
15 replies | jump to latest

SPOILER

At the end of the film, we see adult Mattie go to the Wild West show where she learns about Cogburn's death. James Brolin has a cameo as Frank James. She gives him a glare and says "Keep your seat, trash." The first time I saw this, I was completely confused by that and wondered who he was and if he had been a scene earlier in the movie. I had to go to the movie's Wikipedia page to find out who Frank James was. What's the significance of Frank James being there and her disapproving of him so much? Was he mentioned earlier in the movie at any point? It just seems random.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 9 years ago

Frank James was a notorious bank robber and murderer. Not surprising the outspoken Mattie would put him in place like that.

[–] SilverRocv2 9 years ago

The way I took the scene was that she thought it was rude that he didn't stand up.

[–] thatguy_78757 9 years ago

This

He didnt stand up in front of a "lady"

I doubt she even knew who he was

[–] beerguy55 9 years ago

The two men are Cole Younger and Frank James who did run a real Wild West show in the early 1900's. Cole Younger was a bandit, Frank James was by all accounts worse than his brother and a ruthless killer.

Younger did go to prison, more for association with the gang than any real crimes. Frank James never paid for his crimes, in her mind.

In the book some of the characters do talk about the James brothers and they explore Rooster's criminal past.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

It's all simply a case of manners. Younger stands for Mattie, whilst James stays seated. Mattie then proceeds to castigate him, when taking her leave. We learn during the film, that young or older she never holds her tongue.🐭

[–] dcoydcoy 9 years ago

Not only does he stay seated, but more important, he doesn't remove or even tip his hat. I also noticed that James is checking out Ms Ross. Which I'm sure she was keen to.

[–] LeeFredrickson 9 years ago

Cole Younger and Frank James (brother of Jesse James) were actually cousins and active members of the James Gang. Also, during the movie, Rooster talks about fighting in the Civil War under Captain Quantrill in Kansas and Missouri. Both James brothers, along with Younger, also were members of Quantrill's border raiders, so most likely Cole Younger and Frank James knew Rooster from the Civil War days and reunited for the Wild West show.

[–] sjm519 8 years ago

Lee I think you described their relationship best. But what do you think about Mattie's backhanded comment to Frank? Was it because he didn't stand? Was it because he never went to jail for the James Gang's crimes? Historically was Cole Younger more of a sympathetic person than Frank James? I'm going to have to read the book to see what Portis says.

[–] hammerbutt 8 years ago

Its strictly an issue of manners nothing to do with their backgrounds

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 8 years ago

It was rude of him not to stand, but she didn't have to be so nasty. Just another reminder why she never had a significant other

[–] Iconoclast321 (429) 7 years ago

Not having a husband was her choice - she was landed and quite capable. Nonetheless, many men of the wild west would have seen her strength, abilities and character as a huge asset.

[–] TerraFirma69 (2353) 8 years ago

I doubt Mattie could have cared less if a man stood for her or not, that's her nature. In my view she knew exactly who who he was and that's the reason for her comment.

[–] ltquinn (64) 6 years ago

Here's the deal with the ending. In the book, Mattie Ross went to either see Rooster at this wild west show or go pick up his body (I don't remember which). Anyway, she has an internal monologue about meeting Cole Younger and Frank James. She mentions that she respected Cole Younger because he had served time in prison for his crimes. However, she thought Frank James was white trash because he was a bank robber who evaded justice. I don't remember if she actually told him that in the book. I haven't read it since the 1990s. But the ending of the 2010 movie doesn't provide any context for her statement nor does it really have any place within the narrative of the film.

I'm planning on reading the book again in the near future, because there were quite a few things in the newer movie that seemed like they were changed.

[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

I saw this film when it was in theaters and it was so much better than I had anticipated, changed my perception of the western genre which I had been exposed to so much in my childhood I thought my interest had worn off. I went with my twin and we each had a blast, the only teenagers in the audience. Anyway, your info clears a lot of the confusion I had when enjoying this great film. The main characters are just so darn relatable.

~~/o/