True Grit Film Analysis

Scene Analysis The film True Grit was directed in 1969 by Henry Hathaway, and was later recreated in 2010 by Ethan and Joel Coen. Both films are based on the same plot which is a fourteen-year-old girl named Mattie Ross and two men named LaBoeuf and Rooster. In both the film and the book, the characters travel to seek revenge on the man who killed Mattie's father. Along their journey they happened to run into many obstacles that affect the outcome. However, both the film and book have slight differences. The 1969 film seems like the director is trying to play it safe by not showing violent scenes. Compared to the 2010 film they show more graphic detail in their scenes. It feels that in the Coen Brother’s film they are showing realistic events and consequences of one's actions compared to the 1969 film they skip over parts to keep it more family friendly in a way. It is important that the scenes in these films are different because overall the outcomes are different. Mattie Ross gets her arm amputated in the 2010 version, that is showing based off of one's actions there can be a punishment and a life lesson. In the 1969 version MAttie gets

In the Coen Brother’s film, they go more in depth and show the men and their final words. One of the mans final words are “ Well, I killed the wrong man is the which-of-why i’m here. Had I killed the man I meant to I don’t believe I would a been convicted. I see men out there in the crowd is worse than me.”(Coen Brother’s) They might do this because speeches are long and can take up a lot of time compared to just making a shortened version like the 2010 film did. Even Though, the Coens brother’s adaptation is 1 hour and 51 minutes long compared to Hathaway’s version that ended up being 2 hours and 12 minutes. Because of how long Hathaway’s version already is they might of cut out the speeches so it would not be as long and to keep viewres