‘True Grit’ teaser trailer

Posted by · 2:30 pm · September 27th, 2010

Well, they held out on us for long enough, but we have finally been afforded a glimpse of the year’s last major awards hopeful. It’s short, sweet and pleasingly oblique — but you only need watch the first few seconds to know we’re in for something a bit more substantial than the creaky 1969 oater that won John Wayne his gold-watch Oscar. At this teaser stage, they’re still keeping Jeff Bridges’s expectation-laden performance under wraps, showcasing newcomer Hailee Steinfeld instead — and she evidently has a lot to chew on. Meanwhile, whatever the fate of the film, it looks like we can write DP Roger Deakins’s umpteenth nom down in ink. Click on the image to check out the trailer via Apple, or watch the embed after the jump.

→ 79 Comments Tags: , , , , | Filed in: Daily

79 responses so far

  • 1 9-27-2010 at 8:59 pm

    MovieMan said...

    This looks glorious. Cannot wait.

  • 2 9-27-2010 at 9:10 pm

    Leone said...

    Give Deakins the Oscar right now. Yes, just based on this trailer.

  • 3 9-27-2010 at 9:38 pm

    Danny King said...

    I love how the big names are sidelined in favor of Steinfeld.

  • 4 9-27-2010 at 10:04 pm

    matsunaga said...

    The Oscar for cinematography last 2006 can go either way.. Though I was rooting for Seamus McGarvey for “Atonement” that year.. It was a tough call.. But there’s nothing to take away from deakins as he has proven to be one of the most talented lenser of his generation…

    He proves it again here at “True Grit”….

  • 5 9-27-2010 at 11:23 pm

    Glenn said...

    Jake, settle down.

    And Deakins lost in 2008 because of, ahem, “There Will Be Blood”. Hardly an undeserving winner. Besides, Deakins probably split some of his vote with the more traditional (and eventual Best Picture winner) “No Country for Old Men”. Not the best year to use as an example of him being robbed.

  • 6 9-27-2010 at 11:52 pm

    matsunaga said...

    Sorry it was year 2008… Though I’m rooting for Atonement…

  • 7 9-28-2010 at 12:52 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Can I make a confession? As much as I love Roger Deakins, I don’t think he’s once been the best in his nominee field.

  • 8 9-28-2010 at 4:59 am

    Dominik said...

    But Deakins should have been the winner for “Barton Fink” and wasn´t even nominated. So he´s kind of due, I think. Though I´m not convinced that he will win for this, just based on this 1 minute-trailer. Wonder how so many people so easy get so excited, well.

  • 9 9-28-2010 at 6:10 am

    Pete said...

    Glenn, in my opinion both ‘Jessie James’ and ‘No Country’ deserved the win over ‘There Will Be Blood’. Especially the former. We can argue about it but the point still stands.

    The only reason why I stopped worrying about Deakins’ snubs is because I feel that he will be rewarded eventually. He must be.

    And as for that ‘dissapering into’ comment. You really didn’t get the movie, did you? Meaning that you clearly missed the fact that it’s, above all, a comedy of a very particular kind. It was almost a science fiction comedy an very much intentionally so. That said, few people *really* did. Otherwise, any charges of pretentiousness would dissapear at once.

    Guy, maybe if Deakins was nominated for Hudsucker’s Proxy we wouldn’t even be having this conversation?

    As far as I see, there had been two real crimes this decades in the cinematography category:
    1. Munich not even getting a (winning!) nomination. It still amazes me considering it had everything going for it. It had better cinematography then “Saving Private Ryan”!(NOT at all a dig at SPR). But, heck, objectively speaking, just like with Coens, pretty much every Spielberg film belongs in the category. “A.I.” is amazingly pretty.

    2. “Children of Men” loosing to “Pan’s Labyrinth”. You want to talk traditional? I’ve got your traditional right here. Pan’s deserved to lose any year but THAT year it was a travesty.

  • 10 9-28-2010 at 7:03 am

    James said...

    Kind of hope Deakins will get his win, just so we can spread the wealth a little bit at these awards shows.

  • 11 9-28-2010 at 7:56 am

    Conor said...

    I have to disagree. I think the spread the wealth of awards shows is kinda silly. Instead of giving awards to people who haven’t gotten one, shouldn’t they give it to the best nominee, regardless of how many he/she has won?

  • 12 9-28-2010 at 8:00 am

    Joe said...

    Guy: I wouldn’t disagree. Half of his nominations have been of the Randy Newman “oh why not” variety (see: Kundun). The other half lost out to not-all-that-undeserving winners. (For example, O Brother is one of the best lensed movies ever, but… well, so is Crouching Tiger, to be honest.)
    Dan Seeger: I’ll admit I noticed that as well. (Kind of like the trailer for The Town: “from the acclaimed director of Gone Baby Gone”. I’m surprised they didn’t say “from the Academy Award winning director…”) But oh well, if you’re gonna say “Academy Award winner” after each cast member, might as well include all categories. An Oscar is an Oscar, after all. I actually have more of a problem when they mix Oscar nominees with non-nominees. “Academy Award winner Jack Nicholson! Academy Award winner Diane Keaton! And, uh, Keanu Reeves.” At least with this trailer, they could emphasize the “introducing” credit for Hailee. (Hint to the Academy, maybe?)

  • 13 9-28-2010 at 8:27 am

    Pete said...

    You are not looking at this from the right angle. It’s one thing to claim the guy never produced Oscarworthy work in absolute terms (which he has and I am yet to hear anyone say otherwise) and quite another to say that people Deakins lost to happened to be deserving also.

    By that logic, Deakins was deserving too. So, why not him? He is probably in the top 5 DPs in Hollywood anyway.

    Resent the Randy Newman analogy too. Listen to the songs he got nominated for last year and tell me he didn’t deserve it (heck, it was certainly better than “Enchanted” and I love Menken’s work). Just because someone is consistent doesn’t mean he should be taken for granted.

  • 14 9-28-2010 at 9:24 am

    Brian said...

    Perhaps I am being too pedantic but I find it irksome the way in which Damon’s Academy win, for screenplay, is being promoted in his past few films misleadingly (IMO) as an acting win.

  • 15 9-28-2010 at 9:42 am

    Brian said...

    Oops sorry Dan Seeger got there before me :-)

  • 16 9-28-2010 at 10:14 am

    Alex said...

    If I was a member of the general moviegoing public, I wouldn’t think Matt Damon’s Oscar win was being touted either way.

  • 17 9-28-2010 at 10:20 am

    Alex said...

    *Being touted either way by its inclusion above Damon’s credit in the trailer I mean.

    I think anyone who visits In Contention or most other film awards websites would most happily agree to seeing the new film by the Coen brothers any day of the week, trailer or not.

    Because, like it or not, trailers are there to get asses in seats just as much as to be able to give those in-the-know like us a heads up for who and what to look out for in an upcoming awards season.

  • 18 9-28-2010 at 11:38 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    “Guy, maybe if Deakins was nominated for Hudsucker’s Proxy we wouldn’t even be having this conversation?”

    Hudsucker over Three Colours Red? Nuh-uh.

  • 19 9-28-2010 at 1:07 pm

    Dan Seeger said...

    Glenn: The example you give always just makes me a little sad for whoever doesn’t get to have some sort of Oscar related adjective attached to their name, especially when it’s a really big cast of people who’ve received some amount of Academy recognition.

    On the other hand, I would really enjoy it if every time Keanu Reeves was credited in a trailer it was as “uh, Keanu Reeves.”

  • 20 9-28-2010 at 1:32 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    You mean Blockbuster Entertainment Award Winner Keanu Reeves?

  • 21 9-28-2010 at 2:33 pm

    matsunaga said...

    I beg to disagree with Pete regarding Pan’s Labyrinth’s win over Children of Men… I think the Academy preferred Guillermo Navarro over Emmanuel Lubezki that year because the former’s work in Pan’s Labyrinth added palatability to the film… The color palette was so much defined that that it added to substance to the storytelling of the film…

    On the other hand, Lubezki’s work in Children of Men, being a great cinematographer that he is, just happened to be up against a film which had a beautiful production values which the Academy usually prefers… Not that Children of Men didn’t have good production values…
    You can call it a traditional pick but definitely Pan’s Labyrinth deserved the win for Best cinematography that year…

  • 22 9-28-2010 at 5:46 pm

    Pete said...

    Matsunaga, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. In my mind, Lubezki’s work was stunning, innovative, beautiful. Production values (with which his work was a perfect pairing), had nothing to do with it with the skill he brought to the film. The timing, the camera movement, the lighting, the enviroments were all captured superbly.

    To me it is several orders of magnitude ahead of Pan’s. So much so, in fact, that I feel silly arguing for it. As I realize that you have your own opinion and preference, I will respectfully disagree.

    In many ways, though, it is irrelivant for me why Pan’s won. The Academy has a history of recognizing a certain type of films in this category.
    In my opinion, it wasn’t one of their brightest moments.

    I will agree on one thing though, Pan’s Labyrinth’s lensing probably the best thing about the movie. For full disclouse, I am on record for thinking the film vastly overrated on the whole.

  • 23 9-28-2010 at 5:46 pm

    Jake G. said...

    No i dont have to calm down Glenn!!! I think this is the Best Picture Winner for this year so dont tell me to calm down!!!

  • 24 9-28-2010 at 6:00 pm

    Pete said...

    I support this man’s right to get excited about the movie he wants to see on a movie website.

  • 25 9-28-2010 at 8:11 pm

    matsunaga said...

    Pete, you’re right about that, maybe because we have our different taste…

    I guess it’s safe to say that in 2007 ceremonies, they opted for fantasy which was Pan’s Labyrinth than Sci-Fi that was Children of Men..

    Just like what you’ve said, Lubezki’s work is stunning, innovative and beautiful, and I must admit that I’m a fan… Time will come that he will be recognize by the Academy and I hope it’s for The Tree of Life…

  • 26 9-29-2010 at 12:44 pm

    Pete said...

    Agreed, matsunaga :) .

    And for those interested in making predictions: unless she is forcefully presented that way to avoid competition with other actresses, there is practically no way Steinfeld
    will be going the supporting route. The biggest change in this version is that it is now her story (she’s the central element) and she’s got more presence in the screenplay, too. If anything, it’s Bridges who’s the supporting player in this or a co-lead, at most.

    Obviously, this will be more clear once the movie is actually seen.

  • 27 9-29-2010 at 2:22 pm

    Mike_M said...

    I think we may have heard the PG rumors (was the word used “family friendly” maybe?) on one of the early summer podcasts. I think Kris may have said it, but I don’t recall 100%. Kris, do you remember?

  • 28 10-01-2010 at 1:16 am

    Simon Warrasch said...

    Oscar Nominees for:

    Picture (!)
    Director (?)
    Lead Actor (Jeff should be)
    Supporting Actress (?)
    Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin ?) (Matt Damon = NO!)
    Screenplay (!)
    Cinematography (! = Winner, or Wally Pfister)
    Editing (?)