MCN Blogs

By DP30

True Grit, actor Hailee Steinfeld

20 Responses to “True Grit, actor Hailee Steinfeld”

  1. Robert Hamer says:

    “You’re in virtually every scene, every frame…”

    Since you point out that obvious fact, I do wonder how she feels about being campaigned for Best Supporting Actress even though she plays – unquestionably – a lead role in True Grit. I’m sure that as a young newcomer, she doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds her (in this case, the studio campaigning her) and jeopardize her chances at major publicity.

    Nevertheless, does Steinfeld feel like she’s “cheating” her way to an Oscar, or does she think it’s perfectly fair of her to compete with actresses who had to develop their characters and make an impression with just a few scenes?

  2. JPK says:

    Well, she’s just adorable. I know that sounds ageist and sexist but I don’t care.

  3. David Poland says:

    Robert… if I thought for a second that she was conscious of such distinctions, I would have asked her about it.

    I left the opening sequence in, in part because it was the explanation of the first question of the formal part of the interview, but more so because it shows that this is, really, a 14-year-old girl, poised and precocious, but still silly and maturing and putting on a little bit of a show about her comfort with all this attention.

    At one point, off camera, a reference was made to an unpleasant piece of gossip history with another young actor… and she had no idea what we were referring to… and smartly (and kindly), her publicist felt no need to stick something ugly in her brain.

    She texts a lot and I am sure she will end up reading blogs and such that make an issue of her category. And I don’t disagree that it’s an issue. But for this young lady to be in serious contention for any acting award in any acting category for a role that was almost as verbally complex as Jesse Eisenberg’s in The Social Network (almost) is a real achievement and I can live with the categorization.

  4. Rob says:

    Guys, I don’t get True Grit. It’s fine but so minor. Is there subtext I’m missing?

  5. christian says:

    The Coens are the subtext.

  6. Rob says:

    As in, “If you don’t get the subtext, this movie could’ve been directed by Ron Howard?”

  7. You mean The Missing? It was a good/not great film back in 2003, but I imagine it would feel like a breath of fresh air by today’s standards. Ironically, and this isn’t a slam on True Grit (also good/not great), but the Coens made a somewhat more kid-friendly, almost innocent (up to a point of course) coming of age western, compared to Ron Howard, who’s own western was dark and brutal and quite cynical. Right or wrong, if you did a blind taste test-type thing, I imagine quite a few would tell you that the Coens directed The Missing and Ron Howard directed True Grit. Random thought for the moment…

  8. LexG says:

    She’s cute!

  9. hcat says:

    I would disagree with you on that Scott, Howard’s earnestness is evident in every scene of the Missing. Mattie is earnest but the movie is not. I agree Grit is innocent, and almost kid-friendly (I was watching it thinking I can’t wait to watch this with my daughter, then came the knife to the chest, and I revised the watch date back a few years), and while humorous it is not the usual Coen humor, but there is nothing in The Missing that would make someone expect the Coens. The Missing screamed IMPORTANT EPIC MOVIE in every frame, which is Far and Away a dead Howard giveaway.

  10. Tim says:

    While watching the movie, at first, I thought, “She’s like a really good high school musical actor.” But as the movie went along, she grew more and more credible and endearing. Loved the movie and loved this interview with her.

  11. LexG says:

    Hailee is the niece of ’80s fitness icon JAKE STEINFELD.

    Talk about burying the lead. That’s like finding out Chloe Moretz is related to Jacko the Energizer Guy or something.

  12. LexG says:

    Hey asshole, why didn’t you ask the most obvious of questions and find out if she actually watched the original TRUE GRIT?

  13. LexG says:

    hey THE REAL LEXG here who Poland knows and loves:

    I didn’t post the above comment.

    One of the flaws of Poland’s new software is you can log in as anybody.

    I didn’t post that and I wouldn’t call Poland an “asshole.” The IP or email log in will bear that out.

  14. Johnny Luckett says:

    “…Yes, I think that Hailee Steinfeld is just wonderful!­!! Her on-screen work will just blow you away. I think she is the Best Actress of the year.’True Grit’ is a great film and a must see. Also, I must note that Jeff Bridges & Matt Damon keep on showing us what great acting is all about.” – Johnny Luckett

  15. oil says:

    Good, she’s just beautyful. I know ageist.

  16. bluraymovies says:

    The Coens are the subtext.

  17. Sole F80 2011 says:

    I fall in love with her. So pretty

  18. Bird says:

    She is so pretty, nice smile. I become to be her fan club for now.

  19. psp says:

    Princess ^^

  20. Jerry Cook. says:

    Well, I am her fan as well. I really like her.. actually, I just watched her shows more than 2 times.


Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin