True Grit

I really liked the movie.

And knowing a word and being able to spell it are totally different. Don't be so quick to assume that they all spoke like idiots.
 
Don't be so quick to assume that they all spoke like idiots.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't but with as many uneducated people as there were I didn't expect the whole cast to sound like English teachers.:D
 
Grammar has gotten worse, not better.

How often do you hear poor grammar such as in these examples in any given day?!

Incorrect / Correct

Where are you at? / Where are you?
Here's the keys. / Here are the keys.
Talking good English. / Speaking English well.
It's me. / It is I.
Me and Clara went to the store. / Clara and I went to the store.
Who did you give the present to? / To whom did you give the present?
No one hates garlic as much as me (which means, "No one hates garlic as much as they hate me."). / No one hates garlic as much as I.
He has a red sweater like me. / He has a red sweater like I (do).
What are you kicking me for? / Why are you kicking me?

Etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
model-p,

excellent point made on the grammar subject.

i believe hollywood is solely responsible for promoting folks from the 18th century as illiterates.

the school system of the 1800s, though short in years for many pupils, focused on the fundamentals of education......something our 20th-21st century school systems seem to have forgotten.

S.M.
 
If one of my English professors in college was correct...

... then the common lexicon had three times the number of words in Shakespeare's day as compared to modern English.

Commoners attending one of the plays at Stratford were actually expected to be able to follow the language, as well as the storylines.

So the question is, has the language become more streamlined and efficient, or just more boring?

To keep the thread on the subject of guns, though, I was actually surprised that Mattie fired even one successful shot, given that they never showed her reloading her cylinder after being immersed in the river. I would not think that would work so well with a cap and ball revolver....
 
MLeake, I figured that the ball on the one end and the cap on the other served to keep the water out, at least for the one chamber. For the sake of drama, I guess that she was that lucky.

Regarding language, I'm going to scan a few letters this week and post them in a new thread. Some of you may like to get a little flavor of the language (and topics) of the time.
 
She got the one shot off before the water got to the powder. I have writing examples from the family back to the late 1700's. Writing was eloquent Victorian script. Spelling for the most part was correct for the times(spelling has changed). Language was flowery. maybe I am somewhat influenced by Hollyweird but it still sounded funny.:D
 
I saw the movie. I liked it a lot. The movie made me think which is always a good thing in my book, and I think I need to see it again sometime to catch everything. Maybe it just brought back memories of the first version I saw as a child. I had been worried about Maddie's(spelling?) role as in the actress, but I thought she did a good job. Only difference in the movies I Can Remember was the very, very last part..........but who knows - maybe that was "Rooster Cogburn", the sequel with katherine hepburn I was thinking of....

ps- who knows, maybe jeff bridges demanded the eyepatch the way it was. It could happen that way, as in I believe it to be still realistic. Now can a 19th century revolver get soaking wet and still be fireable? Honestly I don't know, but the thought crossed my mind in the movie.

pps- some movies just have a special place in one's heart (this parentheses bit is my wife: :barf:). Lol! I know some people can't do 'reruns' because they are against the nature of it ( sort of like if 'jaws' was redone), but I recommend the movie!! Happy New Year
 
I figured the same thing about the Navy Colt -- she was able to get off at least one shot before the water leaked-in around the nipple. I used to have an 1851 Navy .36 cal (replica). Amazingly inaccurate! After charging, I filled the cylinders with Crisco, to keep from getting crossover ignition.

Just saw the movie today & thought it was much better filmed and acted than the original. Sets were very authentic, such as the black oaks in Texas. The Santa Fe settings also seemed to fit the original story pretty well. Seeing the movie from Maddie's perspective stayed much truer to the book.
 
As Hawg Haggen noted...

.... Mattie had a Dragoon.

Rooster had a pair of Navy Colts in his saddle holsters.

But I wasn't thinking about the scene where Mattie fires the Dragoon, as far as the chambers getting wet. I was thinking about her fording the river, earlier. All her chambers should have been soaked, no?
 
That was days earlier. A movie cant show everything altho it would have been a nice touch to see Rooster cleaning and reloading it for her.
 
I understand your point, Hawg, but since nobody had even taught her to cock the hammer, I find it unlikely anybody taught her about dry powder.
 
I understand your point, Hawg, but since nobody had even taught her to cock the hammer, I find it unlikely anybody taught her about dry powder.
Click to expand...

Read my post again.


it would have been a nice touch to see Rooster cleaning and reloading it for her.
Click to expand...
 
MIKECU

keep a bodycount(as in dead bodies), and keep tabs on the "Dr". you're not gonna see or hear from him much so I am not ruining anything for you but was the Dr the same dr or a different dr(you'll understand when you see it)
 
The same question about the doctor ran through my mind. The movie doesn't answer the question. Haven't read the book; so I can't say if the answer is there or not.
 
I finally got to see it and can understand some of the comments.

I did~not find the grammar unreasonable for the period, but the lack of contractions (as I~am purposely trying to mimic here in this post ~;)) really struck me from about the kidnapping scene onward. It goes over all right in writing, but seems a bit strained and awkward in speech. Did they actually talk that way then?

I~would see it again in a while, but do~not feel the desire to see it over and over. I think it~is a pretty good movie, but not great. $5 and a couple hours well spent on a rainy day. JMO.


I saw it before the "Dr" posts were made here. What is that all about? I don't....errr, I mean.....do~not get it.
 
I think what they're referring to with the Dr. is the guy that bought the dead body from the Indian claimed to be a Dr. Then after Mattie was snake bit Rooster set out to take her to a Dr. but it never showed him getting her there. Was it the same Dr. or a town Dr.? I think they were too far from any town so to my way of thinking it had to be him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top