Teddy Pasternak at 2012-06-12 16:53:57:

Very interesting to watch these two scenes side by side. In my view, there are a few differences between them in the way the events unfold. Some minor, some major. I like the extra bit of suspense in the Coens' version after LeBoeuf fires his gun. However, there are choices that the Coens and composer Carter Burwell made that to me is truly baffling. The entire scene is scored with variations of the hymn Leaning on the Everlasting Arms which throughout the movie is Mattie's theme. They chose this hymn partly to underline her religious conviction and Scott wrote about it here in his True Grit analysis, pointing out the significance of this hymn and its connection to Mattie's journey. The Coens' version is told from Mattie's point of view and like Jeff said, the original is focused on Rooster Cogburn. No matter which point of view one chooses, this particular scene should belong to Cogburn. His life is on the line and the audience should experience the events through his eye (pun intended) to get the maximum effect. In the original version, composer Elmer Bernstein divides the scene up nicely in segments based on what the filmmakers want us to feel at each point in the story. After the “Fill your hands” line and the start of the shootout, we have no idea how this will end. The music doesn't take sides nor reveal the outcome of the fight. That makes total sense. Why would we want any spoilers as to what will happen? The music reflects that ambiguity to keep the suspense going. A few moments later there's a shift. A turning point, both literally with the horse and with Cogburn succeeding in shooting two of the Pepper Brothers and I'm guessing a third one off screen. The music shifts with the action and turns heroic, underscoring that Cogburn has the upper hand. Then the music shifts again as we see the wounded Ned Pepper take aim and fire at Cogburn. Like it or not, this is the point of most film music. To tell the audience how to interpret actions unfolding, to help them along so there won't be any misunderstandings, to tell people how to feel. When we hear that rousing theme there's no doubt that Cogburn's got this one in the bag. Therefore when the music turns sinister as Ned Pepper takes aim, we feel it much stronger. The music has successfully manipulated us into thinking that everything is okay and that the danger has disappeared. Now, compare that to the Coens' version with Carter Burwell's score. It starts out with a hint of the hymn – a mere outline of the melody played on the violins during the lead-up to the fight. Then, as the shootout starts, we get a couple of introductory chords and then the hymn again orchestrated with big heroic brass. Here we already know the outcome. Cogburn's the hero. We can hear it in the music. There's no ambiguity to what the outcome will be. No suspense. Note how in the original the cut to Mattie and LeBoeuf up on the hill (Shoot them... Too far...) occurs during the first part of the shootout, before Cogburn hits anyone, before the turn in the fight. In the remake, the cut happens after Cogburn hits the first guy and after we hear the heroic music thus diminishing the suspense. We already know the outcome. But the most confusing thing is the use of the hymn - the hymn that belongs to Mattie - as score for this particular scene. We hear the theme based on that same hymn a third time as Cogburn is stuck under his horse and Pepper pulls out his gun. If the purpose of having music at all in a film is to help guide the audience through actions and more importantly emotions, then this choice is truly mind-boggling. Why do we get Mattie's theme when the scene belongs to Cogburn? Whose POV are we suppose to experience? What are we supposed to feel? Now, most of this happens on a subconscious level. We're not supposed to notice the music. We don't want to be aware of it. We've all heard film music that is too manipulative, too melodramatic, too much. It ruins the drama and takes us out of the movie. Here, in this scene of the remake, the music choice only serves to confuse the audience. And even if most people won't notice it, it's there, and it seeps into our subconscious whether we want it or not. The result is the feeling of uncertainty (and not in a good, deliberate way) and the feeling of not enough guidance from a strong hand that should lead us through the story. The result is storytelling that is unclear because we're not sure which character to identify with.

DJ Holloway at 2012-06-12 17:15:45:

I think the Coen's version is far superior. I remember recoiling when the guy falls off the horse and hits the rock. Still do. So rad. Teddy, I appreciate your comments, and re-watched the scene with the music especially in mind. I felt the music underscored the scene perfectly. First, when the charge starts and you suggest 'heroic music...diminish[es] the suspense.' I love it because it is a nice reminder that, maybe in the past but definitely at some point, Rooster is/was a badass. When the music comes up and he goes at four guys, it's not so much "who's gonna win?" it's "He's gonna pull this off!" Which then makes the moment when he gets shot even more striking. It's not so much confusing as a punch to the gut - we should feel, perhaps as Maddie does, that shock. If it's uncertain before that moment, his getting shot isn't a surprise. That it comes at the moment of triumphant music makes it all the more powerful. The suspense is layered much earlier (as it is in most Coen stuff, and also Tarantino) by establishing that, at any point, stuff might go bad. A gunshot and BOOM - dead. The scene itself doesn't need to necessarily reinforce that suspense, it's the payoff. Too, the use of Maddie's theme when there is true uncertainty (when Rooster's trapped and Ned pulls his gun) because it's meant not to suggest suspense, but sympathy from Maddie herself. Their connection is solidified through music; his (possible) death isn't a "movie moment" with suspenseful music, but a shared moment between them. The photography (I LOVE LOVE LOVE Deakins) helps too, the perspective you get from up high with Maddie and Matty creates a real distance from the action. There's the suspense, in knowing how intertwined the two are (by the music) yet showing their literal separation. Anyway, good points to Jeff and Teddy. Just wanted to throw my two cents in.

DJ Holloway at 2012-06-12 19:33:36:

I try to visualize my action and montage stuff to music, and often "see" scenes when I'm listening to a specific piece of music. Exact hits and crescendos and pacing all come from that, which I try to capture in words when I sit to write it down. Those moments mostly come from my directing and editing background. Since I often directed what I wrote, I could build the outline of a perfect shot-by-shot pace in the writing. My first instinct when I started writing "to sell" was to curb that, because I realized that directors would probably follow whatever visualizations they had. But now I just embrace it, until told otherwise, as I try to create a "readable movie" instead of a sparse shooting script. Sometimes, music works to fill or induce an emotional moment for me, though most of the time I have to be "in character" to write effective and emotional dialog. Gotta say it. Gotta hear it. Mostly, music serves two functions in my writing: 1) to drown out the outside world so I can hammer out some pages, and 2) to connect to a tone or thematic resonance that for whatever reason I respond while listening. Makes it easy to get back in that frame of mind.

Teddy Pasternak at 2012-06-12 22:07:30:

The other week you posted a question to the GITS community asking what music we listen to while we write. I didn't comment because I need total silence! Maybe because I work with music all day and perhaps because I have music running in my head 24/7. I spent more than 25 years being a musician before getting into writing so I'm certain that has influenced how I write. I couldn't tell you exactly how, though. I tend to think of structuring a story similarly to how I structure a piece of music. Each part must have a purpose. No dead time. Nothing should stand still. Always moving. Each segment should have a beginning, middle and an end and "go" somewhere. Tension. Release. Each instrument should be chosen to best represent a theme, motif or a melody. I tend to think of characters in a story the same way. They should be chosen to best represent an idea or a point of view. Often I sketch out the form on one or two instruments and then I arrange and orchestrate. Similar to writing and then rewriting. I need to get that skeleton down first and then flesh it out. That's the idea, anyway. Doesn't always happen :) To clarify what I was saying earlier about the True Grit remake - I like the use of the hymn as a theme in this movie. It works very well with Mattie's journey. I have an issue with this particular scene because I don't think the use of the hymn is appropriate in a scene that is about the Pepper Gang vs. Cogburn. There are many other spots in the film where the connection between Rooster and Mattie is explored and to use that theme here I felt was overkill and out of place. It could have worked without any music at all, or at least very little. My personal view on leitmotifs and themes is that they should be used sparingly so they have a real impact when they do appear.