Two movies and one novel. To prep for watching the new movie version, I first watched the older movie. I had heard the new one was more accurate in some way, but after watching both I decided to read the book as well to make my own determination.

The short version is that the movies are closer to each other than either is to the book, though both are faithful to the source. While the Coens may have intended to make theirs more accurate, I don’t think they accomplished that goal and the critics who credit them for doing so are pandering. The promise of improved accuracy implied that the first movie was in some way inaccurate, which is not the case at all. After watching both versions, it was immediately clear that if one movie is accurate, then they both must be. Nearly all of the dialogue is even word for word identical. It is only a slight exaggeration to count the fact that John Wayne wears his patch on the left and Jeff Bridges wears it on the right as one of the more noticeable differences.

The Differences

Both movies abridge or elide a certain amount of material, generally the same material. The book is written in the first person, and Mattie’s commentary about political figures of the time is left out. The movies also whitewashed some of her more strident Presbyterian views and Bible references. Some of the longer conversations are trimmed down. On the whole, these changes are minor and part of adapting a written work into a film.

The character of Rooster Cogburn is supposed to be only about forty, much younger than either Wayne or Bridges portrays him. Brendan Gleeson’s appearance as Madeye Moody in Harry Potter (minus the madeye of course) is perhaps a closer fit, though still a little old. Mattie’s age in the first movie is somewhat difficult to gauge, though she’s clearly young and inexperienced. In the second movie, Josh Brolin is a little closer in age to Tom Chancey, but he’s still not twenty-five.

The original movie drops the prologue and epilogue, as narrated by Mattie a quarter century later. The importance of including the epilogue will determine this movie’s accuracy score, but the critical scene where Cogburn is buried in the Ross plot was pulled back into the movie. Just about every other scene was done literally by the book.

The new movie includes the epilogue, but makes a number of other bizarre edits. As a minor point, during the hanging scene, this movie included the dying men’s final words, but shoved the hood over the Indian before he spoke (he was able to finish in the book). The scene doesn’t add anything to the story, and it seems the only reason to include it is to say, “See, we read the book.” But if so, why change it?

Much stranger, and on the whole considerably less accurate, are the revisions to LaBoeuf and Cogburn’s interactions and the battle at the hideout. In the book and first movie, the two men work together despite their differences, and the party does not separate. There’s no need to add more tension. LaBeouf doesn’t show up on his own at the hideout, doesn’t get lassoed, doesn’t get shot by Cogburn, doesn’t bite his tongue off. Where did all that come from?

In order to earn its PG-13 rating, the new movie adds some more blood splattering to gunshot wounds.

Conclusion

In my estimation, the first movie is quite a bit more accurate in presenting the same story as the novel. (Judged in terms of relative inaccuracy. Both movies are very good, especially when compared to the average screen adapation.) There was some mention that the Coens did a better job of capturing the feel or tone of the novel. I didn’t get that. The story is not titled “How Mattie Lost Her Arm,” so I remain unconvinced that seeing her armless in the epilogue is essential to the story.

I enjoyed both movies. And the novel, of course. I wrote this post primarily because I think describing the second movie as more accurate does a disservice to the first. Watch both. Read the book, even, it’s not that long.