Who was Better in 'True Grit?' John Wayne Versus Jeff Bridges

Ashley Mott
John Wayne has a pair of boot-prints that would be difficult for any actor to follow in, even a dedicated actor like Oscar winner Jeff Bridges. Of all of John Wayne's rolls, the actual character name most directly relate to him is Rooster Cogburn. John Wayne portrayed Rooster Cogburn both in a 1975 film named for the character and in a 1969 film named "True Grit." The 2010 release "True Grit" is a Coen brothers adaptation of the same book the previous film was based on.

Many critics such as Roger Ebert in the Sun Times have already commented on the stark realism presented in the 2010 release versus the slightly dramatized version offered in 1969, and joint fans of the western genre as depicted in both films and books have found that the Coen brothers more faithfully brought the author's original book to life.

So far though, direct comparisons of the performance of Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn versus John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn have not been as widely discussed outside of an overall film review. Again, it is hard to directly compare a contemporary actor like Jeff Bridges to an American icon like John Wayne, but it is possible to discuss each actor's portrayal of a character.

Jeff Bridges portrayed Rooster Cogburn very well. He managed to portray the character of a rough, disheveled and largely uncaring peace officer - a peace officer completely uninterested in peace. Everything about his appearance from his helter skelter hairstyle and unruly beard to his shabby bedstead and his dingy long johns helped add to his characterization. However, one can never truly get past the fact that Jeff Bridges is acting.

Conversely, John Wayne was so closely related to the character of Rooster Cogburn personality wise that he did not have to act too far outside of himself or his previous characters to embody the part. This makes a western so much more believable.

John Wayne's portrayal was alternatively condescending, friendly or gruff when dealing with Mattie and would snap from one emotion to the other in the space of sentence. His dealings with LeBoeuf featured the same temperamental back and forth. Notable examples of this are seen when Mattie confronts a drunk Rooster Cogburn the day after her initial payment and when LeBoeuf feels the need to spank Mattie.

When Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn is angry, it seems less intimidating and more like a plot necessity versus the actual snap to anger one could honestly see a hulking man like John Wayne demonstrating. Since so much of the movie is built around this personality contradiction of Rooster's, it is a bit off-putting.

However, since the Coen brothers could not leave "True Grit" as a 1969 western classic, they likely picked the best man for the job in Jeff Bridges. No other popular actor of his age would have been as suited to the role. Even though Jeff Bridges is not John Wayne, a fact acknowledged more than once by Jeff Bridges himself, his performance is still solid within a film that is engaging to watch despite the recycled story.

Published by Ashley Mott - Featured Contributor in Lifestyle

Ashley Mott is a freelance writer and entertainment reviewer. In addition to her Associated Content portfolio, she has also contributed content to Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo! Movies, omg! from Yahoo!...  View profile

4 Comments

Post a Comment
  • bill1/24/2011

    However I was just as impressed with the way Bridges performs the same task. Having said all that I did enjoy your article. It was very well thought out and I look forward to reading more from you. Sorry my comments had to be divided into three entries.

  • bill continued1/24/2011

    almost nasally tones. When Bridges was "drunk" on screen the transformation from sober was unnoticed. For Wayne a couple of swigs of whiskey and he is almost caricature. I will admit he was not helped with the filmaking limitations of the 1960s. There is absolutely no comparison between the two films from a strict cinematic standpoint. This whole "Dude vs Duke" argument (which I understand you didn't subscribe to) is laughable. Jeff Bridges has been one of the most versatile actors of the last 40 years. John Wayne, good or bad will always be John Wayne. You do make a very good point about his relationship with Mattie and how he deals with her. The Duke is incredibally watchable and smooth on screen. It feels to me (and this is just an opinion) that Wayne was given considerable leeway in his line delivery and verbage. It would be interesting to see how the final product of Waynes portrayal matched the original screenplay. However I was just as impressed with

  • bill1/24/2011

    Hello Ashley,
    Having recently viewed both the 1969 version and the Coen brothers far superior adaptation, I have to, respectfully, disagree. In the case of John Wayne I concur that he was very natural in his approach and his line delivery was classic "Duke." And, although I enjoyed the performance I never once felt lost in it. I always knew that that was John Wayne on screen. He was, is, and will always be JOHN WAYNE. That is the curse, for me, of his being an icon. I will digress and say that Glen Campbells absurdly amateurish line readings didn't help. But that is another topic all together. I was very familiar with the older version before seeing the new one. Having said that I never once thought of Wayne while seeing Jeff Bridges. He inhabited the role, disappearing behind the patch, the beard, and the dirt that he appeared to be chewing on with every sentence. The gravelly low baritone he uses fits the role much better than Wayne, whose voice,at times, employs alm

  • Davida Chazan1/14/2011

    Oh, I can think of a few actors who might have been better suited to the part than Bridges - especially ones that are closer in age to the character as it was written - 40!

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.