MovieChat Forums > True Grit (2010) Discussion > why is this a "revisionist western"?

why is this a "revisionist western"?

posted 8 years ago by mammamia1216
12 replies | jump to latest

researching the history of the genre for a project, and I noticed that Wiki (for what that's worth) categorizes TRUE GRIT as a revisionist western, but this seems inappropriate. This version actually seems more faithful to the classic genre tropes than the 1969 version and other films also known as "revisionist" westerns. Is it just because people have a bias against classic westerns and thus want all "good" westerns to be considered revisionist or neowesterns?

There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly west

[–] sampafelipe 8 years ago

Like you, I'm not sure why it would be classified as such. As a longtime Westerns buff/resident/avid reader, this version seems especially authentic, especially considering the dialects, clothing, filth, etc. Awesome film.

[–] sampafelipe 8 years ago

[–] Brocardi 8 years ago

There's a lot of revisionism in this, the anti-heros, cynicism, casual racism, no romance, the slow pace (Act 1 is extremely long), the non-events, and of course the less than idealized ending. This western presents a female lead who is considered unattractive, hints she may not be straight, finally dismisses Wild West legend Frank James as "trash" LOL The Coens have established what contempt they have for American mythologies, so it's all pretty much what you'd expect. Cogburn exhibited little growth, he went back to associating with Frank James and Quantrill's men. However his character revealed someone who has enough faith to try and redeem himself by saving Mattie, his soul is itself saved after death by his body being moved to Mattie's lot away from the damnation of Quantrill.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

At what point is Mattie hinted at as being a lesbian?

She calls James "Trash" for not removing his hat and standing up. It has nothing to do with him as a person.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I noticed that too, comparing this new one to the original. The 1969 Mattie had almost the exact same lines, and she had guts, but she was still portrayed as a relatively normal young woman. The 2010 Mattie was kind of a cold bitch, like some immature power fantasy. You can have a tough female character without her being an asshole.

[–] BourbonKing (5787) 4 years ago

a lot of viewers complained about the portrayal and mistreatment of native americans by the whites in this and other Coen Bros movies but I always point out that the racism towards them was very real and part of the culture back then, so even Rooster kicking indian children around like feral animals is on par with white attitudes towards natives at the time, and even today.

[–] joegerardi (384) 3 years ago

Rooster kicked the Indian children because they were abusing an animal not because he was racist. I'd bet he'd do the same thing to a white kid.

Horses, mules, donkeys, et al, were necessary for survival in the wilderness back then. They were cared after.

..Joe

[–] BourbonKing (5787) 3 years ago

And if it was a white kid a wouldn't have kicked them.

[–] joegerardi (384) 3 years ago

Only your opinion. He was a mean nasty SOB, and I doubt he cared about the color.

But you go on seeing racism in everything .it will help assuage your white guilt. Me? Well, my ex-wife is an American Indian, so I know how little I care about race.

..Joe

[–] BourbonKing (5787) 3 years ago

You saw racism in me pointing out that he wouldn't kick a white child like a dog.

Goes both ways but you'll never admit it.

[–] HurdyGurdyMan (28) 3 years ago

In the novel, there is one Caucasian and one Native American child who are mistreating the horse and Rooster kicks both of them in the mud. Don't know why Coens changed that to them both being Native American.

[–] TheArgentinian (7247) 4 months ago

This. Every western that challenges the black and white roles and themes of traditional westerns is a revisionist one.