Why Selma should have won.

For those of you who are aware, the Oscars weren't that long ago. I was unfortunately not able to view the show until yesterday. I remember scrolling through my Twitter and Facebook the night of and the morning after the ceremony and reading the usual Oscar comments; who wore it best, the funny jokes Neil Patrick Harris made, and the joy and sorrows of who won. The performance at the Oscars that I enjoyed the most was Common and John Legend performing "Glory", the best original song nominee from the film Selma. When I saw the posts saying it won best song, I was overjoyed. I thought Selma was an amazing film and was excited to see that it earned some recognition. What I failed to realize was that it was only nominated for two categories: Best film and best original song. Where were the other nominations? Surely there would be more. Best director? Best actor? Nothing else?

The Oscars always have been somewhat bias. After all, the academy decides, not the people. I don't want to delve too far into this topic for now, however, I will share this video and article from The Huffington Post about diversity at the Oscars and ask everyone to think about the time we live in and the impact this win could've had.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/20/oscars-diversity-problem_n_6709334.html

Old vs.New

Today in Hollywood, there seems to be a trend of fixing things that aren't broken. In a desperate search for something fresh, filmmakers are remaking films that did not need to be remade in the first place. Today we're going to take a look at two films; the original and the remake. Let's begin, shall we?

True Grit (1969) Directed by Henry Hathaway

Photo credit: talkiegazette.com

VS

True Grit (2010) Directed by Ethan and Joel Cohen

Photo credit: silverscreeningreviews.com

The story in the two films remained the same; a young girl, Maddie Ross, hires a U.S Marshall to search for the man who killed her father. So let's look at the contrast in characters.

Maddie Ross

In the original version, Maddie (played by Kim Darby) seems much younger, she's just a teenage girl after all. She's still fiery and independent, but we know the entire time that she's still just a child. She makes decisions like a child would and we don't see malice or a longing for vengeance in her. In the newer version however, Maddie (played by Hailee Steinfeld) seems much older and more vengeful. She still has that spark of independence, but she also has more wit and what seems like a downright bloodlust. The original Maddie just wants to find her fathers killer, the new Maddie wants to find him and kill him with her own bare hands. The difference the era they were made could attribute to this grittier interpretation, but it makes Steinfeld's performance more compelling. 

Rooster Cogburn

This is where the comparisons get, for lack of a better term, sticky. In the original, Rooster is played by the legend, John Wayne. John Wayne is usually the first person anyone thinks of when they think western and for good reason, the guy was a modern cowboy at the time. In the newer version however, we have Jeff Bridges, who happens to be a personal favorite of mine. Bridges's performance keeps the rough exterior, but still is able to convey the side of Rooster who really cares for Maddie over the course of their journey. John Wayne does a good job of being, well, John Wayne playing rough and tough Rooster Cogburn. Bridges's performance adds a certain element to Steinfeld's performance while Darby's performance falls a little flat.

The Winner... The New!!

Photo credit: webmasteruj.pl

There's more to be debated, but since the film's main focus is the relationship between Rooster and Maddie, I decided to focus on their characters only. I encourage you to watch both versions and decide for yourself!