Posts
Therefore the number of western films that have had remakes
is relatively low. Consider, then, the number of western remakes of movies
already assigned classic status. A smaller number still, right?
Look at this in another manner – how many western films have
been based on books whose remakes have been produced during the original
author's lifetime?
Can you count 'em on one hand? I can, if I don't take time
to gargle the Internet for further research (other than to double-check some
dates) . . .
1. Destry Rides Again
by Max Brand (Frederick Faust): three film versions, including the famous JamesStewart/Marlene Dietrich film (1939); less famous is the Audie Murphy version
titled Destry (1954 – granted, Faust had died in World War 2 by then); and a
still-less-known version with Tom Mix was made in 1932. That's two versions
during Faust's lifetime. (Just for kicks, let's throw in a 1959 Broadway
musical version starring Andy Griffith.)
2. 3:10 to Yuma by
Elmore Leonard: two versions, one with Glenn Ford and Van Heflin (1957), and
the other with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale (2007).
3. Stagecoach, based
on Ernest Haycox’s story “The Stage to Lordsburg,” has been filmed multiple
times--most famously by John Ford and starring John Wayne, but only once during the author’s life. Another Haycox story, “Stage
Station,” was the basis for two films: Apache Trail (1942) starring Lloyd Nolan
and Donna Reed, and Apache War Smoke (1952) starring Gilbert Roland and Glenda
Farrell. Only the former was released during the author’s lifetime.
4. The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett. Yes, I'm willing
to consider this a western: It occurs in a western city, San Francisco; it has
been well-argued that Sam Spade's occupation, private operative, is a literary
updating of the popular culture fashioning of the romanticized loner cowboy;
the time and setting are not so distant from the Wild West era; the story's
tropes and the play of the characters in their fringe-culture environment
certainly displays similarities to activities in a semi-lawless boomtown during
the western-expansion golden age. Besides the famous John Huston/HumphreyBogart adaptation (1941), there was a 1931 version with Ricardo Cortez.
5. And then there's
True Grit by Charles Portis: first filmed by Henry Hathaway in 1969 with JohnWayne, and remade in 2011 by Ethan and Joel Coen.
True Grit is now a member of a very select club. (If I've
forgotten other members of the club, please let me know.)
There are a number of surprises that some people express
about this fact. Indeed, both surprise and dismay were expressed by many folks
when the plans for the remake were first announced:
At a time when so few westerns are filmed, why shoot a new
version of an existing film?
Why remake a movie already declared a classic?
Or, considered another way, Why remake John Wayne's greatest
film?
Why remake this film?
Who do these Coens think they are, anyway?
I'll make an effort to respond to these questions from my
own highly subjective perspective.
At a time when so few westerns are filmed, why shoot a new
version of an existing film? That's a
pretty good question. I'm sure the Coens have addressed this somewhere, but
without reading any of that, I know Hollywood is all about successful box
office draws. Just as mainstream (or, if you prefer J.A. Konrath's term,
Legacy) publishers are looking for bestsellers, Hollywood is looking for
blockbusters. So, if a movie has performed well in the past, why won't it
perform well now? And if someone wants to make a western, which Hollywood apparently hasn't
so sure about these days, why wouldn't you make one that's already considered a
success? Why spend money on something untested, on something that might not be
a Sure Thing? (And what, after all, might be a Sure Thing in this
sketchy genre called Westerns? There are no fast cars, no CGI monsters or rocket
ships, no cosmic explosions – heck, there are NO ZOMBIES!) Therefore, following
the Algebra of Money, it makes sense to produce a new version of an existing film.
Why remake a movie already declared a classic? Again, another good question. The gist of my
response would be to say, “See previous response.” I'll throw in a few more
details: Hollywood money men seem to like gambling on a Sure Thing. It was a
classic once, why can't it be a classic again? The original hung its hook on
John Wayne; we don't have Wayne, but we have those off-kilter Coen Brothers who
seem to have a following, and they made Money with some of their other movies,
so let's roll the dice that are somewhat loaded with Coens and Their History Of
Making Money.
Or, considered another way, Why remake John Wayne's greatest
film? First, I'll argue that True Grit
is not John Wayne's greatest film. It may be his best-known movie because of an
awareness that exists beyond the typical audience for western movies, thanks in
part to its ubiquitous existence on cable channels. It's true he won his only
Oscar for his performance as Rooster Cogburn, and I enjoy him in that role. But
I'll argue that he acted as well or better in other movies. Stagecoach, another
John Wayne film (perhaps the one that most got his star rising), has been remade
multiple times. And one might argue that Wayne remade one of his own films when
he performed in Rio Bravo. (Or was that El Dorado?) Anyway, while this point
may have value in discussions of other topics, it has no more weight in this discussion
than “You shouldn't remake a movie that didn't win an Oscar.”
Why remake this film?
See my first and second responses, above. And, to borrow from my third
response, I'll say that True Grit may be John Wayne's most famous film, and
people who know it or are at least aware of it might have been willing to pay
money (see references to Algebra of Money, above) to satisfy their curiosity
about a remake.
Who do these Coens think they are, anyway? I haven't met these boys. But from the
evidence, I'd say they are solid storytellers with a fine sense of Hollywood
history and filmmaking under their hats. They understand genre and how to use, expand, and step
outside of its tropes. Apparently they know how to nurture fine performances
from actors. They understand how to play off-kilter in a way that is endearing
and strengthening for a film (just watch Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, TheHudsucker Proxy, and O Brother, Where Art Thou?), and True Grit is a story with
some off-kilter moments; go read the book. One can argue they had proven their
facility in filming a western when they made a successful movie from the dreary
story of No Country For Old Men. (Really, it's a western.) So, altogether I'd
say they were actually a good choice for heading up a remake of True Grit. Audiences
really wouldn't have appreciated Hollywood's turning over the history of a
beloved movie to a couple of hacks.
