Know-How Exchange : Advertising/PR

Dear Randall,

Know what I think? Screw brew-ha-ha.

And while I'm about it, nuts to the whining, talentless assholes who bitch, moan, and whine that the 2010 version of True Grit isn't as "good" as the "original" version.

What utter crap!

John Wayne's version was just that: "a version", (and
not a great one either), of the original novel. From what I've seen so far, the 2010 movie is a more faithful telling of the tale. So, I say again: screw brew-ha-ha!

I've a great deal of respect for the Coen Brothers—a GREAT deal. A good friend in Minnesota knows their mother and I'm here to tell y'all that they are fine, upstanding, and talented, talented guys.

PR-wise, the 2010 movie follows the novel.

Wayne's version followed it less.

The 2010 movie is wilder, more gruesome, and more authentic of that period in history. Wayne's version
was not.

End of discussion.

For those that have read the novel, John Wayne's version of the story ... when compared to the ORIGINAL STORY ... how shall I put this ... SUCKED! Yes, that'll do.

The original story is told from the point of view of the main female character: Mattie Ross and it's funnier, more personal, darker, and scarier than the version of the story that became the John Wayne version.

Hollywood tends to do that: screw up GREAT stories for the sake of "entertainment" (read "Memories of an Invisible Man" by H.F. Saint and then see the God awful movie version OF THE SAME STORY with Chevy Chase and you'll see what I mean).

John Wayne ... icon though he might be ... sadly, Wayne
only ever played one role and that was mostly himself. His best movie was "The Searchers" (1956), NOT True Grit.

No, this new True Grit is NOT "the original" (meaning,
the Wayne story), it's a grittier, bloodier, more dangerous tale.

Were I handling the PR for this movie, this is the story
I'd tell:

Before anyone moans about originality, as they invariably will, let's back up for a moment and consider the way Hollywood has glamorized the life of the cowboy, and of life in "the Wild West".

Let's cut the crap and let's tell the truth:

The West (and indeed, America) of the early 1800s was
a far, far cry from the West that the Hollywood of the 1950s and '60s would have us believe: it was dirtier, way more gruesome, far, far wilder, and fraught with way more dangers.

All of this BS about someone getting winged by a stray bullet and saying "Oh, it's just a flesh wound!"? UTTER NONSENSE. They'd have been dead within days of toxic shock and a good many other nasty ways to meet their maker.

I know this because another good friend is a military historian and a Hollywood re-enactment supervisor: he's the guy that taught Daniel Day Lewis how to be a Mohican. He also collects nineteenth century military memorabilia.

One of the objects in his collection is a medical text book that was used in a field hospital at the battle of Gettysburg.

The doctor who owned the book survived Gettysburg and returned to his family, but many of the young men he treated did not.

The book, when cracked open, opens at a page where a large, bloody palm has been used to keep the pages flat: the subject of that page? How to stop profuse bleeding of the femoral artery.

I don't know about you but that tale chills my blood. I can hear the zip and roar of musket fire. I can hear the roar of incoming artillery and the shaking of the ground as the shells hit. I can hear the screaming of the poor bugger on the operating table. I can see the terror in his eyes, and I can sense the panic in the face of a young doctor as both men realize that the man bleeding is not long for this world.

The Coen Brothers set out to tell a story, to tell THEIR version of a classic, brilliant tale of life and death in the West.

Of today's male actors few other leads could play Cogburn with the same amount of underplayed, aged wisdom, and zeal as Jeff Bridges. No, scratch that, NO ONE else could play that role: no one else has the cojones, the attitude, the presence to FILL the screen,
or the coolness.

He's the right age, the right build, and he has exactly
the right attitude. He's not trying to fill John Wayne's boots, he's carving his own character and from the scenes aired THUS FAR, he's doing it wonderfully.

It's NOT "the" original (meaning "Wayne's version). It's its OWN original: a different telling of the same tale as told in the original novel.

Wayne's version of this movie is over 40 years old and
it was tamed and cleaned up beyond description.

The Coen Brothers set out with something else in mind: to make a great movie about a great story by using the original story and by telling that story as faithfully as possible.

Instead of dismissing the movie out of hand, let's let audiences decide, let's let THEM have their say, and let's
give this movie a chance.

Then, let's give it, and its cast and crew, a combined due.

Not that I have any strong feelings on this you understand. I'm just telling it the way I always do: as I see it. Y'all (readers of this forum) can agree; y'all can disagree.

I care not one jot.

Randall? Never met you, don't know that much about you, except that I greatly respect your opinions on this forum because you tell it like it is (which I believe is the only way
to be, in life, and in business).

But I know this: if YOU are in this movie (and I know you are) then the Coen brothers picked you for a reason: maybe on the day they cast you they had a sheet of paper on which was written "find grizzly old bugger to play lawyer #2: beard optional. Must look kind of crusty!"

That sound like you? In the theatre of my mind, it sounds like you. And if we ever meet, I know this: I do believe that we'd get along like a house on fire!

Good luck with the movie Randall ... and to hell with the critics.

Gary Bloomer
The Direct Response Marketing Guy™
Wilmington, DE, USA

Gary, can you expand on your point of view. The recap above doesn't do it justice. ;)