That’s a perfect breakdown of the Coen’s oevre, and indeed, it’s why I think they were drawn to No Country for Old Men and, now, True Grit. Their works never end with everything tied in a neat bow (the closest they got was O Brother Where Art Thou), but with the mess and chaos of life, and with the idea that, no matter how bleak the environment, someone’s building a fire in the darkness.

I really, really need to see this; based on how the week’s setting up, I’m guessing I will on Thursday.

**SPOILER**

I’ve seen this twice now and loved it more each time. I knew the main character was awesome (her negotiation scene is fucking brilliant) but it wasn’t until this review that I realized how feminist the movie really is.

I would also point out that two male characters, LaBoeuf being the first, also attack Mattie on her looks. It was very creepy/Nice Guy move of LaBoeuf to tell Mattie that he was thinking of stealing a kiss while she was asleep, but as soon as she mentally bests him he resorts to calling her ugly. Then, in the cabin, the bigger of the two outlaws, feeling insecure for being bested by a girl when he thought it was several men, calls her ugly as well, and this is after she’s said nothing to him and he never verbally attacks Rooster. In contrast, Rooster never says anything about her looks or intelligence. She just is, and when they’re riding on the trial it would seem he treats her just as he would any male partner.

While I was sad to see it wasn’t number one, I was happy it was doing better than Tron, which is the exact intellectual and feminist opposite of True Grit.

Dang editing. That second paragraph should say, “I would like to echo what you’ve said.” I thought it made the change before blaspheming.

This is a total quibble but at the time the story of True Grit takes place, it was routine for women to be married by age 16 and not unusual for them to marry at age 14, so 14-year-old Mattie could have been viewed as a sexual object by men.  I don’t know if it’s still true but when I was a child in the South a girl could still marry at age 14 with her parents’ conssent.  (I’m 55.)  (and no, I didn’t get married at 14.  But I was told I was an old maid because I hadn’t got engaged while I was in college.)

Anniecat45: My friend’s 14-year old son got his 15 year old girlfriend pregnant 15 years ago, and her parents took them to Oklahoma to get them married, which could be done with the consent of one parent.  The age has since been raised to 16, with exception in case of pregnancy with permission of parent and court.  My friend didn’t find out about the marriage until after, and very much didn’t approve, but too late.

Anniecat45, gretchen, my grandmother got married at the age of 16 in mid 1920s Texas, even Amanda had a classmate who was underage and married, AFAIR.

Um, I’m pretty sure that the age of marriage was latter rather than earlier even though marriage at sixteen was legally possible and still is. I think that the average age was somewhere in the later teens like eighteen. In the UK, the average age of marriage was around twenty-five to twenty-eight for centuries because most people needed to build a nest egg before marriage, it didn’t drop till after WWII. I think America was a bit younger but similar.

  I saw True Grit with my brother on Christmas eve. We both liked it but I did not necessarily see it from a feminist angle but from a black comedy angle. Now that its over, I hope that the Coen brothers can start working more on their adaptation of the Yiddish Policeman’s Union.

Actually, what I learned in my college history courses it that for the majority of our nation’s history the average age that people first get married is in their twenties (lower twenties for women, mid-twenties for men).  This is first marriages, of course.  During times of high maternal death men would have multiple wives and they’d keep getting older as their new wives tended to be the same age range.  At any rate, if True Grit takes place around the 1880’s or so then a fourteen year old girl would indeed be considered too young.

Oh boy, time for me to out-pedant the would-be pedants.  Yes, the legal age of marriage was low, and still is. Doesn’t mean a 14-year-old wouldn’t have been considered a child.  In fact, in the 19th century, the difference between women and children was considered negligible.  Often, male children could outrank older young women, depending on the circumstances.

But within the context of the movie, it’s clear that she’s considered below the sexualization line for most men, as a 14-year-old would be today.  If anything, young women developed later in life than they do now, and so while marrying young was legal, it was still considered somewhat deviant back then.  Original literature of the era confirms great unease over the topic of when someone was really, truly a woman because the legal limits were set way too low for most decent people’s comfort.  And, in fact, there was a huge legal movement to raise the age of consent, which our laws reflect still to this day in statutory rape laws.  Part of the reason is that child marriage then as now is horrific in its potential health care results.  The Waldorf-Astoria stands where used to be the American fistula hospital.

Point being, to accurately capture the era, yes, a man would speak of potential sexual attraction to a 14-year-old then.  But it also would have marked him as a creep.

Yes, the legal age of marriage was low, and still is.

Depends on what you call “low”.  In every state of the Union, the legal marriageable age without parental consent is 18.  With parental consent, in most states it’s 16.  In a few, it’s 17 with parental consent.  In a few, it’s 14 or 15 with “special circumstances”, (knocked up bride, usually), parental consent, AND a court order.

I don’t think it’s a great idea to get married at 18, but I don’t think the legal age of majority is especially “low”.  Not many parents - and that would be BOTH parents of the minor - consent to their child getting hitched.  We have at least come that far.

In Texas, legal age without consent is 16, and with, it’s 14. This is true in more states than you’re acknowledging. In many states, you can legally marry before you can legally consent to pre-marital sex.

But the pedantry has been exquisitely successful! No more forests will be seen while we examine those fascinating trees.

I’m sorry, Amanda, but you’re mistaken.  In no state of the Union can you marry without parental consent before the age of 18.  Two states are stricter - Massachusetts requires the age of 21 to marry without parental consent, Nebraska, 19.

This may not have been the case when you were in high school or college or wherever you were when you were first aware of the marriageable age in Texas, but it is the case now.  Aside from my day to day work (for an attorney) answering this very question (among others), this is easily verified.

Here, Cornell Law will give you a chart linking to state statutes for confirmation:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

But the pedantry has been exquisitely successful! No more forests will be seen while we examine those fascinating trees.

Alternatively, you could woman up and admit that you were mistaken.  If you’re going to make a claim, at least fact check first.

Let’s also not forget that, all technical “age of consent” ridiculousness aside, that the Mattie of the film is very obviously presented as a girl/child, not a woman.  One who has to take on the onus of family responsibility at a young age, but a girl nonetheless.  She dresses like a girl would, and she is treated (at least “in town”) as a girl. 

This was one of the problems with the original film - they cast a 22-year-old woman as a 14-year old girl.  Regardless of how good that performance was, it completely changes the dynamic of her relationships.

(and as I write this, another commercial just came on for the film…“or should I say, your eye!”).

I need to go see this again.  LOVED this film.

This was one of the problems with the original film - they cast a 22-year-old woman as a 14-year old girl.  Regardless of how good that performance was, it completely changes the dynamic of her relationships.

This was something that bothered me about the original film - much as I loved it and have cherished memories of watching this with my Opa.  As Opa explained it, it was considered “inappropriate” to cast a youngster in that sort of role.  (This was also the first time I ever heard “The book was better.”)  Darby was wonderful, but it was very hard to believe her as a 14 year-old girl, and that very much colored my perceptions of her.

It wasn’t until I read the book at Opa’s insistence that I realized that Mattie was a young teenager.  (In my defense, I was only 13 mydamnedself.)

Sure, okay, I’m mistaken.

Still completely irrelevant, but a wonderful distraction from the post! Pedantry success!  Real discussion, shut down! 

The point, of course, is regardless of the law, semantics, piddling, or pedantry, 14 years old is considered barely out of childhood but not really adulthood.  We call it “teenage” now, but it’s not like 14-year-old girls were seen as the same damn thing as full grown women in the 1870s, and the actual political movements to protect them from sexual predation demonstrate that extensively.

But thanks for the follow-up comments that were actually discussing the movie in non-marginal, non-pedantic terms.  I do think it’s fascinating the way that mid-20th century films would cast teenage roles by older women, precisely because they were trying to adapt to the unease people feel at seeing those barely out of childhood act the adult.  But that’s why it works in this movie, because her youth is touching.  Of course, unlike most filmmakers, the Coens don’t compulsively sexualize every woman onscreen, so there’s no sense of complicity in doing something not-right with this girl.  Onscreen, she is portrayed as strong-willed and smart, but not unduly sexualized in the slightest.  She really seems the child, which is why the Texas Ranger’s comments to her are unnerving.

I’ve not yet seen the current incarnation of the movie, so I can’t speak much to the Coen Bros. interpretation.  This is at the top of my “must see ASAP” list, because I loved the original and loved the book, the product of spending many a Saturday afternoon watching old movies with my Opa.  If you have not yet read Portis’ novel, you ought to - it’s a short 200+ pages, easily devoured in a sitting.  If you think the Rangers’ comments are unnerving in film, try them out in print.  Portis doesn’t sexualize her, either.  She’s not just shockingly tough, she’s believable as this tough girl.  Mattie Done Seen Some Shit, and you can’t help but feel drawn to her because of her reactions to it.

As regards marriage age: I’m not one to let a rather glaring piece of misinformation pass, especially a piece of information as important as marriage age.  In my day to day work, I deal with 13 and 14 year old children operating under the horrific assumption that if they just run off and get hitched, they will be Magically Adult and Life Will Be Perfect.  You might think it’s “piddling” or whatever word you’d like to use when someone insists on correct information, but I think it’s a grave disservice to girls to present the notion that they have the ability to run off and be stupid at the ripe old age of 14.  Too many girls are looking to marriage at a young age as an escape, not understanding that they’re being victimized by the older boyfriends encouraging the idea, and not wanting to hear what the law really says.  They come to me looking for some loophole, any loophole to wave about to cry “But this person says…”.  You’re awfully high-profile, Amanda.  Please don’t be the person saying something completely different from what the law is.  It’s not just filmmakers sexualizing young girls, after all.

Just got back from watching it, and I loved it. I am also a fan of the original film, but they are not really the same film. The Coen one is way darker, especially at the end.

Although Mattie ends up needing rescue at the end of the film, she gets in that position as a result of the fact that she is a strong-willed badass, who’s major flaw is inexperience (not knowing to cock a gun before firing, and not bracing herself for the kick). And the 2nd need for rescue is as a direct result of her having accomplished her mission. By the middle of the movie she has earned the complete respect of both Rooster and LaBouef.

More pedantry… the spanking scene was a repeat of the one in the original “True Grit”. It may have happened in McLintock! also, but it actually was a part of the original movie.

I’ve watched the original True Grit twice in the past month, and I don’t remember a spanking scene.  Are you sure, Bruce?

As for the new one, I agree with the OP, it’s really great and quite feminist.  Jeff Bridges is a hoot, and I love the deliberately affected manner of everyone’s dialogue.

Dustin, it’s there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vXfV50-5-Y

I love this scene.  Particularly when Rooster pulls his gun.

There was a movement in the first decades of the 20th Century against ‘Child Marriage’, and what was legal back in the time period we’re ignorantly opining about is eye opening, regardless of the fact that 14 yr olds getting married was pretty damn rare, at the time of the 1880 Census, and I presume later on as well:

Mary Richmond and Fred S. Hall argued that individuals judged too “immature,
reckless, or unfit” should be prohibited to marry by state statute. All states prohibited the marriage of siblings, half-siblings, and first cousins. Twelve states outlawed marriage on grounds of miscegenation, the presence of mental defects, venereal disease, and addiction or drunkenness; and eighteen states included restrictions on the ability of divorced persons to remarry. Richmond and Hall also claimed that all adolescents were too immature to marry and called for a general rise in the minimum-age-of-marriage requirement to eighteen for both males and females. It seemed to be the last bastion of risk—-as late as 1925 the allowable age at marriage was twelve (or as low as seven by judicial order) for females in fourteen states. Others set the minimum between fifteen and seventeen with only one state at eighteen and twenty-one for males.

Dustin, you have to remember that if you are watching a movie on TV, that there is a good chance that it has been chopped to shit, often missing entire scenes. That may well be why Amanda didn’t realize it. Some people at the TV stations might consider that scene a lot more shocking now than it was then.

My bad, MaggieB.  It’s a good thing you’re here to fact check this thread.

Bruce, my memory may be bad at times, but I avoid watching anything on television for precisely the reason you mention, and as a film student I find your patient explanation a little condescending.

Sorry… no offense meant. True Grit is on constant rotation on TV, and that’s where most people have seen it. It seemed like a reasonable assumption at the time.

Actually, now that I think of it, I’m not that sorry. I find your reply every bit as snotty as you found mine condescending. It’s not like I had any reason to know that you were a film student, and not like everyone else who has ever watched that movie over the last 30 years that it has been in heavy rotation on TV. A lot of people don’t know that TV stations chop movies all to shit.

Yeah, it’s a good thing that MaggieB was here to fact-check that my non-film-school memory was right. Try starting your next comment with “My bad, Bruce From Missouri”, since I was the one you were questioning, not MaggieB. If I don’t know that it’s true, I’m not going to say it.

Though the Coens’ True Grit has an obvious feminist theme,  its also a man’s story - a variety on the ancient Knight Errant tale.

Carter Burwell’s soundtrack is a real breath of fresh air -instead of going for sappy overblown Hollywood, or sappy Ken Burns underblown, he mines a truly poignant middle ground, arranging old American hymns for piano and orchestra.  Almost made me long for the America that never was.

Yes, that goddam liar Ken Burns fooling people with his sappy underblown music

Viewers of The Civil War frequently and erroneously believe the melody(Ashokan Farewell-ed)  is a traditional tune that was played at the time of the Civil War. In fact, it is the only modern composition on the Burns documentary’s soundtrack; all other music is authentic 19th century music.

Almost made me long for the America that never was.

“The past is another country, they do things differently there.”

L. P. Hartley

My, Dustin, aren’t we a little Mister Crankypants?

There was nothing wrong or condescending with my response or with Bruce’s.  Christ.  The spanking scene in True Grit is rather famous, so one might expect that as a ~*film student*~, you’d have seen it at least once.

If I don’t know that it’s true, I’m not going to say it.

Me either, Bruce.  It’s not hard.

It was condescending not because you should have known I’m a film student, but because, seriously, who doesn’t know that they cut up movies for TV?  You explain it like it’s news, when it’s something we’ve all known since we were eleven and wondered why everyone in The Breakfast Club suddenly started acting stoned.  I remember now why I so rarely comment.  Wasn’t there a discussion about a movie going on at some point?

I’m sorry, Bruce.  I got defensive for no good reason, because of other things on my mind, really.  The “here’s what you should know about watching movies on television” comment made me feel like you were insulting my intelligence, which I realize you weren’t meaning to do.  And I’m sure you don’t say things without knowing they’re true, but keep in mind that I don’t know you, and people say mistaken things on the internet ALL THE TIME (look, I did it upthread).  So, my apologies.

And MaggieB, I didn’t take offense to your comment at all.  I was just amused by how much of this thread was you correcting people’s wrong information.  Good for you for being on top of it.  I will add, though, that my being in film school has no bearing on my having seen True Grit (I just rented it because the new one was coming out).  It’s a popular classic, but not one that gets much academic respect.  If people are talking about John Wayne, it’s almost certainly for something he did with John Ford.  True Grit is fun, though (although I probably forgot the spanking scene because I looked away- it’s rather unpleasant, no?). 

I think I prefer the new version, though.  Mattie being cast age-appropriately makes a huge difference, and Jeff Bridges throws himself into the role of Rooster in a way that Wayne hadn’t thrown himself into anything since The Searchers.

Not trying to derail the thread, but I’ve heard a lot more good things about Tangled than Little Fockers (would have seen the former by now if I lived in the states instead of the u.k.), and I saw Megamind and that was a really good movie, did people just ignore them or had most interested people seen them already?  I didn’t even know True Grit is a Coen Brothers movie, I will definitely try to see it now.

anniecat-

Are you sure it was “routine” for women to marry at 16?  If you spend time with genealogists and look at marriage records from the late 19th century, most people married in their mid twenties.  But as I understand it, you had to get married at that time or be a priest or nun or be considered a weirdo spinster or “confirmed bachelor”. That was acutally “routine” until the 1930’s when the marriage rate dipped (depression) and then the marriage age actually went down (late teens, early twenties) in the 1950’s and early 60’s.  As Amanda mentioned, the age of menstration was actually around 16.

The comment about family appropriate movie viewing during the holidays makes me sad and nostalgic, though.  I would have gone to this movie with my dad and brother and sister, and it sounds like my dad would have totally loved it.

I will always have a fondness for the Coen brothers for giving us Marge Gunderson, a female (and pregnant!) police chief who isn’t turned into a cartoonish superhero but who does her job and genuinely cares.  What a great character.  I can’t wait to see this remake.  It may actually draw me into the theater for the first time in years.

I’m at a loss for what I’m supposed to be writing about here. I’d like to build upon the original post and observe that the film plays not only with gender archetypes, but also contains subtle racial commentary while further confounding the Western myths of rugged individualism and regeneration through violence.

But I can’t go into detail about that, judging from the red herring tilt of the commenting thus far. What can I complain about that doesn’t matter? Let’s see…it seems to me that the cornbread used for target practice was of a shape and consistency clearly impossible until the strides made in baking technology during the 1920s.

The Coen Brothers are obviously dishonest hacks and nothing else they do should be taken seriously until this discrepancy is resolved.

Outlander - HA!

Nice one. 

Spot on, Amanda! I’m completely baffled by all the reviews (including even Flick Filosopher) that claim this film is a “straight western.” Well, yeah, it doesn’t fuck with genre conventions as much as other Coen films. It is more subtle than some of their other films, but True Grit is disrupting the traditional western genre conceptions of masculinity and is absolutely a feminist film. I think it’ll take a few more viewings for many critics to realize just how good True Grit is.

And while we are being pedantic, it has to be pointed out that True Grit had the best opening ever for the Coens. So even with most Christmas movie-goers looking for light, unchallenging fare, it was obviously recognized by a hell of a lot of people as something worth seeing.

Now that you mention it, Outlander, I had an issue with how Rooster kicking those Native American children off the porch multiple times was supposed to be hi-fucking-larious.  At least, everyone in the theater cracked up.

There are two films that made me a lifelong hater of John Wayne:  McLintock and The Quiet Man.  As a child, I found the violence against Maureen O’Hara in both of those films to be so revolting, I’ve never been able to look at a John Wayne movie without thinking what a creep he was.  The Quiet Man is such a textbook example of domestic violence that I can’t see how it has remained so popular over the years.  Hell, it’s so freaking anti-Irish with its stereotypes (apparently, all the real Irish people do is drink, fight, gamble, and stick their noses in everyone’s business…there’s an image to inspire pride), that I don’t get how it hasn’t been driven off the air in the US.

I’m looking forward to seeing a remake of True Grit starring one of my favorite actors, Jeff Bridges.  The Dude is the best.

As for the Coen Brothers and Frances McDormand, after I moved to Minnesota I gained an appreciation for Fargo that you can only get by living here.

“Oh for Pete’s sake, he’s fleeing the interview! He’s fleeing the interview! “

#41, blondie.  You have good taste.

Also, another personal favorite (from a different film):  I told that kraut a fucking thousand times that I don’t roll on Shabbos!

I always thought Glen Campbell was in the original True Grit because he was a big name at the time and not because he was a particularly good choice for an acting role of any kind.  He always seemed out of place in the original film.

If you like “fleeing the interview”, I’m standing by my statement about your taste.  Never refuse a compliment; it may be the last one you ever get.

When civilization breaks down, you (women) return to your proper state of being chattel unless you got a woman loving mangina to protect you from other men.

Still can’t get laid, Sticky?

@Human, #39

I watched this film (and loved it, by the way) in an Arkansas cinema while visiting my extended family for the holidays. I was uncomfortable to hear the gales of laughter in the cinema during the kicking-the-children scene, as well as the opening hanging scene where the Native American man was hanged w/o getting to say his closing words. I didn’t think I’d hear that laughter in any of my “Yankee” cinemas at home, but maybe I’m wrong about that? I had a lot of trouble understanding what was funny about the gruesomely casual racism during those scenes; I thought they were interesting scenes for sure, but not FUNNY ones. I didn’t mention my feelings about this to my family, of course, as they would’ve told me I was being “oversensitive.” (Trust me, there’s no sense in starting a discussion about race with them. Been there, done that.)
Anyway, I’d be interested to hear how other audiences in other regions reacted to these scenes. I suppose it could be an “I’m laughing because I’m uncomfortable” type of moment, rather than people seeing it as “okay” to laugh at people getting hurt as long as they’re not white people? I don’t even find slapstick that funny in general, which is why I have trouble going to most Ben Stiller movies or things of that nature, so I’m probably not the best person to ask since I’m unlikely to laugh at that no matter what race is getting kicked around.

Also, my (native Arkansan) mother hated the film because of the inconsistent accents, particularly the improper/inconsistent use of various colloquialisms (“ain’t,” etc). She said it bothered her so much that she was completely incapable of enjoying the film, but she is a huge fan of the original True Grit film. I’ve grown up in Yankee towns despite my family’s heritage, so I didn’t notice the “incorrect” accents at all. I was really hoping Amanda would give this a Bamboo review, and she’s from Texas so I thought she might not like the accents, but I guess they were up to snuff for her. I’m glad she enjoyed the film so much; I definitely liked it. Again, I really didn’t notice the bad accents, but it’s something that might bother other people about the film since many of these actors are not from the South.

My Mom was also asking me what I could possibly like about the film because she had interpreted it as being played completely straight and she thought it was “corny”. I saw it as more a parody of masculinity, particular with the Texas Ranger character, and I told her so (my opinions were pretty much in line with Amanda’s, which I thought would happen, so it was fun to read this review—she says it better than I could, as usual). I think some audience members may have interpreted it as my Mom did, and felt like they were supposed to see the men as the heroes and not Mattie ... but some audience members aren’t as literal-minded as my Mom is and would still pick up on the fact that the classic Western is being gently lampooned. Or at least, that’s my interpretation.

I’m pretty sure my more conservative family members who attended with us did NOT pick up on the feminist aspects of this film, nor the lampooning of Westerns in general, however, and instead they probably saw it as a classic misogynist Western. After all, everybody said they enjoyed it, and knowing my family ... well, anyway. This seems like a film where you can see what you want to see. I sort of wish the Coens had gone a little further with their interpretation so it would be more obvious that they weren’t just playing it straight.

More proof that even liberals know that women have nothing to offer stupid men besides sex.

Samus @ 49: I find it amazing that people could sincerely interpret Mattie’s character as *not* being the central hero, but there you go! 

I read the novel for the first time right before the film came out, and it seemed pretty obvious to me to whom Portis thought the title was referring.  And the Coens picked that up and ran all the way with it - I mean, the horse trading scene alone!

Up here in northern Delaware, which is sort of the North—technically, east of the Mason-Dixon Line—there were guffaws for the hanging scene and the kick-off-the-porch scene.  The first one may have been laughter at, “hey, we are at a Coen brothers’ movie and stuff like this is supposed to be funny,” but the second one was more of uncomfortably laughing at Cogburn’s being a racist asshole.  I thought that Mattie reacted to the porch stuff with distaste, but maybe I am misremembering.

I disagree with the troll (#46), in that Mattie was not completely reliant on men to bail her out.  Yes, they did do it, but they didn’t help her across the river.  And she was clearly the toughest person in the movie.  So there.

People in DC definitely laughed. As a jew, I know all too well that laughter and discomfort or outrage can go together quite well.

DA@50, sometimes you irritate the snot out of me, but let me be the first to present you with shiny internets et cetera. That was beautiful.

kristin, it was Mother Avenger who gave me the following advice that Sticky may yet profit from unless he’s superannuated in matters of l’amour:

“It’s not enough to fuck them, Dark, you have to be able to talk to them afterwards.”

Please, for the love of all that’s holy, don’t feed trolls.  I was immobilized today and unable to clean up the shit being spewed just to spew it. But assume that the asshole doesn’t mean a word he says.  Everything he says should be translated as, “I have no life and no friends, and I take my revenge out by pissing people off as punishment for not being losers like me.”  And ignore.

One exception to the pattern of twin revelations in Coen films that Amanda lays out is “A Serious Man,” which swaps out her #2 for: “Oh, and it always can (and probably will) get worse.”

http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2010/03/25/not-doing-anything-not-doing-anything-further-thoughts-on-the-theology-of-a-serious-man/

(Are comments being moderated? My post didn’t seem to go through so I’m trying again, sorry if its a double post).

Just saw the movie, partly because of this post. Liked it for the most part, but the ending really annoyed me. They showed Mattie as a sad old maid, overly prim and proper and with no particular purpose or friends. Very surprising and didn’t seem plausible at all, given what we’d seen of her. I’d have liked it to be spun more as “Mattie never got married because she was busy being principal of a school, mayor of a town, having cowboy adventures, or whatever” than “Mattie never got married because a man would never love a woman who is plain and missing an arm, and so she’s a sad lonely old maid now when she was so smart and full of spunk before”. Really irritating, and didn’t ring true for me at all. (Also, the actress at the end looked a lot older than 40, and if they were trying to show she’d lived a hard life I’d like some details as to how or why).

My other complaint may or may not be accurate, but was it really the best thing at the end to spend long hours riding towards a dubious doctor? Wouldn’t men like that know as much as there was to know at the time about recovering from snakebites? And did they really need to shoot the horse if they were leaving it behind anyway?

And my last complaint was really just about the rating. I liked the movie, but cutting off fingers like that should have made it R-rated. It didn’t seem like a PG-13 movie at all to me.

I had an issue with how Rooster kicking those Native American children off the porch multiple times was supposed to be hi-fucking-larious.

I didn’t really know what to make of that. It seemed they were torturing a horse for fun, so he wasn’t that out of line to stop them and kick them off the porch the first time. But since it was practically the only time Native Americans were shown, it seemed like an odd choice for the movie.

geogami:

The Coens can be a bit sticky when it comes to race.  For my money, the only off-key part of No Country (which would otherwise be a perfect film) is the mariachi band.  I mean, I know it was supposed to be played for humor—those wacky Mexicans, busking for a man that’s bleeding to death!—and is probably a commentary on the absurdism of border country tourism, but I just found it silly and a little uncomfortable.  Then again, I’m not a Texan.

Geogami:
I didn’t get the impression that she was a *sad* old maid, but that she was an old maid mostly by choice. I think she was satisfied with her life. Mattie never got married because she was running the family farm and taking care of her family. Also, missing an arm probably limited a woman’s romantic options back then even more than it does now.

Mattie was always overly prim and proper. She was very religious and well-versed in the bible. My recollection from the book (some 20 years ago) is that she is both morally and religiously very rigid. In many ways she is a kind of judgemental asshole, which she needed to be to make Rooster straighten up and fly right.

Or, in the words of Ethan Coen: Mattie Ross “is a pill,” said Ethan Coen in a December 2010 interview, “but there is something deeply admirable about her in the book that we were drawn to,” including the Presbyterian-Protestant ethic so strongly imbued in a 14-year-old girl.

I liked this movie, didn’t love it though. I thought the pacing was off, esp. at the end where things seemed to get tied up a little too quickly. I do think that Hailee Steinfeld and Jeff Bridges were fantastic in their roles and both deserve oscar nominations. Of course it was a feminist movie, with Mattie as its central character!
Still a bit floored by the campy brilliance of Black Swan, my favorite film of the year, and I really need to see Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere as I hear its fantastic. And soon a new film is coming out by one of our greatest living directors, Terrence Malick: Tree of Life (Speaking of which if you haven’t seen Days of Heaven, run out and see it NOW. One of the most beautiful movies ever made)

@58 - I didn’t read the book, so I’m going solely off the movie. I don’t remember a ton of religiosity, although I’d assume people of that time were more likely to be religious. She does wear very high necked dresses, but there are no other girls of her age in the movie so I can’t tell if its because she’s unusually proper and repressed, or just because that’s what they wore then. I guess she is rather prim and proper, but it strikes me as totally different to show a 14 year old girl trying to act proper while pushing dangerous men to let her do dangerous, completely un-proper things, and a 40 year old woman who is so uptight that she gets angry when a rough cowboy doesn’t stand in her presence.

Anyway, to be clear, my main complaint is not about her acting proper as an adult, but about the implication that she didn’t fulfill any of the promise of her younger self. I’d have liked to see her doing something like running the family business (they said she kept the books for her father), or running a school (since she was so well educated and literate), or ... really, anything, other than just walking down a street looking alone and old and tired beyond her years.

I think she was satisfied with her life. Mattie never got married because she was running the family farm and taking care of her family.

All of that is possible—it wasn’t explicitly contradicted—but I don’t think they showed any of that. On the other hand, her voiceover did say that people around her thought she was a weird old maid, and there was no particular mention of her doing something worthwhile with her time like raising her younger siblings, running a family farm/business, teaching (since she seemed very well educated and women could do that at the time), or anything else. And she was just so quiet and passive, not at all like the pushy and extremely quick-witted young girl who was able, at 14, to outtalk and out-intimidate dangerous older men; businessmen, marshalls, rangers, and outlaws alike.

Any one remember the book By the Shores of Silver Lake? (Laura Ingalls Wilder) Laura and her cousin Lena find out the washer womans 13 year old daughter married over the weekend. Washerwoman: “Her pa says 13 is too young, but I was married young myself” (something like that) There seems to be a sexual undertone in the book with young girls/ older men that I find creepy rereading it as an adult. (Not to mention Ma’s racism and Pa’s hypocrisy regarding Native Americans.)

Just finished watching the original with John Wayne. Pretty fine movie, loved some of the dialogue in there. Can’t wait to see the Coen brothers’ take on it. And yeah, definitely feels like a pretty feminist story to be based on.

#61: But Laura and Lena clearly think the whole 13-year-old bride thing is completely nuts. (I’m reading that book to my daughter right now.)

Laura did marry a man who was 10 years older than her, but by the time the book was published, they apparently felt there would be issues with that, and fudged the age of Almanzo’s character some.

As a slight aside, one thing I have noticed over and over in those books is the sense that how Charles Ingalls treated Caroline and Laura’s own good relationship with her Pa deeply influenced the treatment Laura expected from a man, and she married someone who seemed to be altruistic, softhearted and treated her like a person and a friend (for that time period). Apparently Caroline’s stepfather was much the same kind of person, from the very little I gather of the subject, so it’s kind of an encouraging note about loving and relatively respectful relationships being something that can be learned/taught in our families.

kittie parade at 34, did the marriage rate drip during the Great Depression? The historian Howard P. Chudacoff in his book, The Age of the Bachelor, argues that the first “golden age” in American bachelordom ended because of the Great Depression, since the bachelor life style because less economically viable for many men, with some rather convincing statistics. Basically, the number of unmarried men in America was at a high point between the 1890s and 1929 and was at a low point till the 1970s.

I just finished watching this. Firstly, I thought that LeBeef and Maddie were the names of two of the characters. At least Maddie is short for Madison. What is Mattie short for, Matthew?

I figured Amanda would like the spinster twist. While having a missing arm probably made it much more difficult for Mattie to find a partner, her content and proud 39 year old, 19 th century spinster self is just as revolutionary as anything else she did in this movie.

The racist stuff just falls into line with the realistic portrayal of how things were. It starts with Mattie and her slavish servant. Oh right, here is our sympathetic heroine, a cute little girl, but she also accepts this blatantly racist world without a second thought. Right off the bat. The Coen brothers are looking reality in the eye as they see it and they are asking the audience to come along. Same with the hanging scene. You are supposed to laugh at how racist they were back then.

Kicking the Indians off the fence is like that too, but it’s also part of Cogburn’s character development. You’re supposed to root for Cogburn for a lot of things he does that you know are wrong. I feel this development was handled brilliantly from the very beginning. In the courtroom scene, Cogburn is witty and funny, and you are on his side right away. But at the end, the lawyer brings out a discrepancy in Cogburn’s story about backing up seven or eight steps before shooting a man, and you get the first inkling that maybe Cogburn’s not all as righteous as your average hero. This is the first clue. Eventually it builds up to where you realize he’s not an honorable guy and he doesn’t value life as highly as your average narrative hero. It’s like John Wayne but in a different way. In a normal film, this kind of descent into darkness would be accompanied by a gradual loss of audience sympathy. Here, you sort of get the descent into darkness (especially when the shooting starts) but the Coen brothers hold back from telling the audience to stop sympathizing with him. In the end, you’re brought along for the ride of these imperfect characters. It’s very subtle and goes to the heart of the film.

One more comment—whether this is a ‘feminist’ film. The mere fact that there is a non-romantic comedy, non-horror film with a female protagonist doing #2 at the box office makes it more ‘feminist’ than most other films out there, regardless of what else is happening. I mean, this is the industry where they had to change the title of Rapunzel to Tangled at the last minute, and it still bombed. Sad but true!

TonyWu, there is also a high chance that Tangled bomb because its simply not a very good movie but simply a typical Disney fairy tale with some “edgy” humor and Shriek like parody of fairy tales.

Lee, I haven’t seen it, but the reviews are very good. Also, studio execs have explicitly said they’re not making movies with female heads before. Also, on reading an article about why this movie did poorly, it was mentioned that the studio felt young boys would have trouble relating to a female character. There’s more background to my comments than I let on… but it’s been a long running issue in the animated world that female protagonists don’t tend to do well and thus are very rare. Moreso with Pixar than Disney, but affecting all of them.

canon battery and charger ,ROHS international standards, green battery, no pollution. Rigorously tested for capacity, voltage, compatibility and safety to exceed original equipment manufacturer specifications. Li-ion cell, no memory. Overcharge protection and overheat switch, safe used. Perfect blend of functionality, portability and style, powerful for both work and amusement.
panasonic hdc-tm55 battery
panasonic hdc-tm55k battery
panasonic hdc-tm60 battery
panasonic hdc-tm60k battery
panasonic sdr-h85 battery
panasonic sdr-h95 battery

BRTGHGDHYTEHTYHYTherve legerherve leger
herve leger saleherve leger sale
herve leger dressherve leger dress
bandage dressbandage dress
herve leger bandage dressherve leger bandage dress
HGTJHYTRJTRJ
Tulle Wedding DressTulle Wedding Dress
Chiffon Wedding Dress Chiffon Wedding Dress
Organza Wedding Dress Organza Wedding Dress
Taffeta Wedding Dress Taffeta Wedding Dress

herve legerherve leger
herve leger saleherve leger bandage dress
herve leger dressherve leger dress
bandage dressbandage dress
herve leger bandage dressherve leger bandage dress

zowey

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
Why American men should boycott American women

http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

Little Mermaid
Mulan
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Cinderella
Sleeping Beauty
Alice in Wonderland

I don’t see why female leads in animated films are considered death at the box office.  They did all right in the films I mentioned.

DBK, this is why I’m kind of skeptical at the failure of Tangled being because of sexism. Its a standard Disney princess movie with some off humor and CGI. These movies were very succesful in the past for Disney and their was no reason for Tangled to be a bomb if what was something that people wanted to see. Apparently people don’t. The movie looks entertaining enough but nothing special.

Being childless, I never go to Disney films anyway.

By the way, if we’re talking animation, one of my all-time favorite animated (well, half animated) films remains Allegro non Troppo.  Mind you, I’ve never analyzed the sexual politics of it and I would suggest that it comes off poorly in that regard since it is certainly male-dominated, but it’s a fun film.  Mentioning Disney reminded me of it.  You can rent it via netflix if you have an interest.

“Little Mermaid
Mulan
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Cinderella
Sleeping Beauty
Alice in Wonderland

I don’t see why female leads in animated films are considered death at the box office.  They did all right in the films I mentioned.”

That’s an extremely common logical fallacy- trying to refute a point about a general tendency by referring to selective anecdotal evidence. Picking and choosing six films over literally six *decades* doesn’t prove your point. Of course, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was one of the highest grossing films of all time when it was released… in 1937.

How many of those films were out in the last 10 years? Only one. So that’s one film in the last 10 years with a female lead that did well (it had a boost from 3-D). I can think of a few more, but it doesn’t refute the point. Take an objective list (at least a list that uses some objective metric), like this one
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm
How many of the films on that list from the past 10 years have male leads vs. female leads?

Lee, a movie doing poorly because male audiences are not socialized to identify with female main characters as easily as female audiences are to identify with male, which is a form of cultural sexism; and a movie doing poorly because people ‘don’t want to see’ it are not mutually exclusive. You’re making it sounds like I’m saying people aren’t seeing these movies out of spite or hatred, or a conscious desire to be sexist, hence making the American moviegoing public ‘bad people’. On the contrary, I’m saying that male audiences are socialized to have a harder time identifying with a female character, or any movie/story perceived to be too feminine.

I think it’s safe to assume that people want to see good movies. DBK’s list shows, if not what DBK intended it to show, at least that it’s possible to make good animated movies from a female POV. So then what explains the overwhelming predominance lately in Hollwyood of movies with male main characters? What explains that it took Pixar 11 movies before making a movie with a female main character? It’s not chance; they’ve admitted this as much.

Dear Boycott:

Speaking for All American Women: we’re happy to see you go.

Buh bye. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Spam much?

Dear TonyWu,
How lovely that you can’t look any deeper than the nose on your face.  Since we’re doing a statistical analysis, how many movies have come out with male leads versus female leads in the past ten years?

When you’re done,  please feel free to go refute yourself.