I don't think she's embittered at all. She's rigid, to be sure. But, why embittered? She should be skipping through life? I don't get that. Why does a revenge film need to end happily?
Why does it have to be so grim? I mean she didn't need to be "happy skipping through life" but she didn't need to be a stone-faced old-maid either.
Revenge has a cost, I think it is simple as that. Having "true grit" has a cost.
I think the Coens should have gone for boldness and against the grain and had her a LeBouf hook-up. (Again, I've no idea what occurs in the book) It would've shocked and disturbed modern-day sensibilities but also mostly jived with some of the more subtle hints going on the whole movie (and with the marital ethics of the era.)
Honestly, I think that would be a lame attempt at boldness and shocking for shocking sake.
I think it was MORE bold for them (and disturbing) to have the ending that they did. Consider your OWN reaction. You're disturbed. You're upset. People are talking about the ending.
But she went from a precocious, world-wise, fast-talking teenage girl who made a grown man three times her age rue dealing with her to this sour-faced old woman with a fairly short sense of sense of etiquette?
You mean etiquette towards a killer and thief?
That precocious, world-wise, fasting talking teenager has an EXPERIENCE that forever changed her. Sorry it didn't change her into something you wanted. But that world wise girl killed a man, lost a father, lost an arm, lost a horse she dearly loved.
I think that's going to put a twist on your view of the world.
It doesn't flow to me. Hell, her being properly dressed in Victorian clothing at the end didn't seem to follow what we learned about her during the course of the movie.
It did follow. She wears clothes appropriate to what she's doing.
Losing an arm I'm sure is a tragic thing that's going to knock anyone off their game but she goes from a young girl a century beyond her years to just being a crazy old bat. Doesn't wash in my mind. It was too far to an extreme (and it may have just been how the actress portrayed her that it came across like this.) She didn't need to be in pretty pink clothes with a parasol talking with a sweet Southern Belle drawl, but she didn't need to be some batty old crone either.
Ok, you're gonna have to explain "crazy old bat" and "batty old crone." What do you mean? HOW was she batty?
Because she was stern? Because she was rude to Frank James?
How was she "batty?"
The way Mattie was played by the excellent young actress was a perfect balance of "sweet, naive, typical 19th century teenage girl" and "precocious bitch who needed a good woopin'." The actress at the end didn't have that balance.
That actress was also playing a character 25 years later AFTER a particular adventure that changed her life and who knows what else happened to her.
But, yeah, I think the Coens should've really fucked with people's minds and had Mattie and LaBeouf hook-up at the end.
What sense would THAT make, other than "fucking" with people's minds? If that had happened, wouldn't you be complaining about that? How that doesn't "follow?"
Not necessarily show Damon and the young girl together in any sense just show an aged-Damon together with the older version of Mattie with a kid in tow all going to meet-up again with Rooster and have Mattie V/O how her and LaBeouf fell in love, got married and he was a good husband to her as they found a home in Texas.
That would've been a gutsy ending.
No. It would have been just a Hollywood Romantic Happy Ending.
How would it have been "gutsy" to have her married off? That's been done again and again and again...
