I'm having a hard time with coming up with a title for this, so I guess this one will have to do.
Now, as all y'all know, I love a good western and think that John Wayne is one of our greatest heroes. That being said, I'd like to offer my thoughts on a movie I saw last night which some are calling a "remake" of a classic. I am going to have to disagree on that point for several reasons. Now, before y'all get all up in arms; this is not a critique, only a comparison.
- In the John Wayne version, the central character is Rooster Cogburn; whereas in this version, Maddie is the main character. This allows Rooster to be Rooster if you get my drift.
- I think the casting in the Coen Brothers version is more appropriate than the Henry Hathaway version. Be honest here, except for Duke and some of the minor characters, it wasn't that good. Kim Darby was too old to play Maddie and Glenn Campbell was at best, terrible as La Beouf. However, Robert Duvall was outstanding as Lucky Ned Pepper.
- There is a more developed relationship between Maddie and Rooster in the Coen version. There are several scenes that allow this to come through. In the original, this relationship never seemed to quite click. Maybe it was because of the fact Kim Darby and Duke never quite hit it off on a personal basis.
- The backdrops in both movies are outstanding in their own way. In the original, the scenery is crisp and pristine. In the new version, it's much grittier which is in line with where this movie takes us.
Those are just a few of the points that might be up for conjecture. I'm sure there are more, but to be honest, I quit trying to compare them and settled in to watch what in my opinion, is a really good movie. One final thought here; There is nothing wrong with someone remaking something. How many times have we seen different versions of the same story? Should we have stopped with the originals of Shakespeare's? How about the remakes on the stage as well? Each version should be judged on its own merits and not compared to the other versions. But then, if we did that, what would we have to talk about?