To Kill A Mockingbird / why regarded as a classic?

ATP said:

I would like to know why the Academy gave it and Peck an Oscar? Was it his performance? Was it the script? Was it a reflection of the times? Was it political, with an Academy (then predominantly a white, male middle-to-upper class enclave) nod to Civil Rights?

Click to expand...

Yes.

All that.

Oscars (and other awards) don't exist in a bubble. It's not just about achievement in a given discipline. It's about everything. It's about the script, the director, the actors, the social/political/cultural climate of the times. It's about where each individual voter is at that point in their life.

TKAM was a very timely film in a very significant period in US history. It was also a very fine film. That's an unstoppable combination, award-wise.




Also,I can't imagine how you could see TKAM as manipulative and forced, then bring up 'Crash' as a contrast to that manipulativeness and contrivance. I certainly won't argue that TKAM was cinema verite, but Crash was crass, contrived, and exploitative. The whole Matt-Dillon-rescues-Thandie-Newton-from-a-burning-car-after-finger-raping-her-the-night-before thing is, literally, the worst screenwriting moment of this decade so far*. Gag.


*And, while I liked it, the "Little Miss Sunshine"'s Steve-Carrell-runs-into-his-ex-lover-in-a-convenience-store-in-bumfudge-Arizona is right up there. But one had Steve Carrell and Alan Arkin; the other had Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillipe. You do the math.

It's kind of difficult to critique a work done so long ago by todays standards.

It's kind of like trying to judge the original Star Wars special effects by the last installments standards.

The story itself is a wonderful story, it speaks of courage and honor and resolve to do what is right even though it may not be popular. Those are admittedly ideals that have been lost from todays society.

I guess from the alleged "more sophisticated" view of today, it was childish.

TKAM was an important film because it provided the movie-going public with an example of a hero that wasn't a cowboy, soldier or private eye. Finch was an anti-hero - a loving, widowed father who wore a suit and fought his battles in court, under the auspices of law.

It's a bit forced, yes but that's to be expected considering the subject matter and the time in which it was made. The film focuses largely on Finch's psychological struggle while giving little focus to Tom and his plight, particularly post-verdict. I don't buy it all but for some reason it doesn't seem to affect my overall enjoyment of the film.

It also has one of the best lines ever spoken by a character in cinema history.

"Misser Finch! There's a mad dog comin' down the road apiece!"

You have to consider the era as well - remember, this film was made in the same year MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech". The content was very relevant to the time.

I hope it would still win an Oscar today, I think it's a wonderful film with a strong script and great acting.

It's relatively true to the book - the minor changes don't alter the tone or purpose in anyway - at least in my opinion.

It was a popular and critically acclaimed book. It was one of the first movies of that era to tackle racism, especially in the south and rural America. It was an important film. Was the film the best thing that ever came out of Hollywood? No, but it had almost everything, including Gregory Peck in a classic role. Someone mentioned Crash... much as I liked the film, I really didn't think it should have won the Oscar last year -- it was too much of a message film and much too contrived and trite.

It is a fine film because it has so many approaches. The Boo Radley sub-plot at once gives the film an eerie quality. It's a mystery. In narrating the story through the eyes of a child (Kim Stanley as the voice of Scout), myth and small town gossip come to the fore and we believe that Boo Radley is some kind of monster - whom we will never see - but we know will do something, to someone, before the film is concluded. Skilfully, the Radley narrative is then sidelined as the main plot (courtcase) involves all characters. Certainly, Atticus Finch's appeal is in his ordinariness. And the tragedy of the Depression (economically, socially, and with regards to culture and education) is never far from the surface throughout. Then it moves into the courtroom and becomes a classic courtroom drama. After that, for the climax, we return the to Radley sub-plot and its subsequent influence upon the main plot (Radley killing Ewell). So much in this story is subtlely entwined with other points of interest. It is a film with something for everyone, and appeals to a social conscience (justice for a Negro wrongly condemened), one's sense of history (the Depression), ideas of family and heroism (Atticus), and the vivid and rumour-filled imagination of the child (Scout, Jem, Dill and Boo Radley).

With so many winning angles, the film can't lose.

Parkinsonsd said:

It's kind of difficult to critique a work done so long ago by todays standards.

It's kind of like trying to judge the original Star Wars special effects by the last installments standards.

The story itself is a wonderful story, it speaks of courage and honor and resolve to do what is right even though it may not be popular. Those are admittedly ideals that have been lost from todays society.

I guess from the alleged "more sophisticated" view of today, it was childish.

Click to expand...

I don't see "To Kill A Mockingbird" as childish in any way, not the book nor the movie. It's a richly layered tale that smacks of realities in a past time period.

In fact, personally, I fail to understand why anyone would not recognize the work as a classic - and am left wondering how others here would define a classic.

One of the other things I like about To Kill a Mockingbird is the use of the child's perspective. The whole thing seen through the eyes of an innocent who doesn't understand the history or cultural influences - who sees it with an essentially unclouded viewpoint. It's a useful storytelling device for this subject.

As you can see from my username, I'm a big fan of the film. I've also read the book back in highschool, but I usually lean towards the film so I'll speak mostly about it.

I don't know what the world was like in 1962, when the film was released, aside from what I've seen in films and in history class. That was nine years before I was even born. What I do know is that watching the film, you're pulled into the drama and I think that, as someone pointed out, it was by viewing the proceedings through the eyes of a young girl that gives the story as much powers as it does.

I think what makes the film work is that its two key stories run parallel to one another. On one hand you have a black man being blamed of a rape he did not commit, based on the ignorant perceptions of a hostile racial tension. On the other you have three children who believe a mentally retarded young man to be the Boogey Man based solely on word of mouth. As the truths of one story are uncovered, so are the truths of the other. And I think the act which will ultimately come to bring these two threads together is when Scout's father Atticus shoots the rabid dog.

I think Scout saw similarities between the pitiful, innocent dog her father kills and the doomed black man he's defending. When the man is convicted, I think Scout sees the same fate in store for him as she saw with the dog, and it spurs in her the desire to protect the innocent, just like her father did, in the face of overwhelming odds and ignorant prejudice.

Could that be why she comes to stand up for Boo Radley at the end of the film?

I think it could.

Mockingbird

I'm not big on complicated critiques and esoteric reasoning. Mockingbird was one heck of a good film, with a great script, with a pertinent message, and with excellent performances. For me, it's as good today as it was when first released. I've probably seen it thirty times, and it never gets old.

But the telling point for me is that my teenagers have seen it, and loved it. This tells me it still stands up in every possible way.

I need to read this thread in further detail (Editing deadline. Argh!) I wrote an essay discussing To Kill A Mockingbird for my newspaper, and the article is posted on my website.

Go to http://jsnouff.com/kristin/essays06.php and scroll to "On Atticus, Jesus, and Frodo."

That should be the link!

Kristin

Just like Casablanca or Citizen Kane or The African Queen or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, there's a reason Mockingbird has never been re-made. Go watch it again.

caw

Oh, and not to mention one of the most effective musical scores (which also won Elmer Bernstein an Oscar) in film history.

caw

Trivia: Elmer Bernstein also wrote the music to the movie in which I had a role...

maestrowork said:

Trivia: Elmer Bernstein also wrote the music to the movie in which I had a role...

Click to expand...

Was it Chinese Coffee?


I would agree with To Kill A Mockingbird being a classic film and book. The book had a lot of charm and simplicity.

I am also extremely pleased that I am not alone in thinking the 2005 film Crash was supremely awful. I assume it won an Oscar because it resonated with the L.A. saccharine sweet crowd. Compare the films Magnolia to Crash. One worked. One didn't.

It also irks me that when people think of Crash they probably won't recall the J.G. Ballard novel and David Cronenberg film of the same name.

I was surprised by the spirited defense of "Crash" compared to "TKAM". ATP's summary was very interesting, especially the suggestion about "Crash" epitomizing the zeitgeist of the times.

While I would agree the semi-autobiographical "TKAM" says much about the 1930s Deep South, "Crash" did not represent the LA or Southern California that I know and love. It just was not complex enough. It overreached, seemingly stating that all citizens, all the time, are engaged and preoccupied with racist feelings and tensions. I think "Crash" was at heart as surface as "The O.C.", which might be fun, but isn't going to tell you a thing about life in Santa Ana, Westminister, or Marine life in San Clemente. (Speaking of Westminister, which is a primarily Asian-American neighborhood... "Crash" has justly been criticized for not developing the Asian American characters in its macro-view.)

The true zeitgeist in LA has much to do with your neighborhood, and not only on issues of race and ethnicity. There's a big difference between life in Van Nuys and life in Santa Monica, or in San Pedro. Race may play a part, but so does class, and so do values. Hey, if you want to take something unique to LA, it'd have to be the emphasis on "newness", youth, and rigid standards of beauty.

I don't doubt for a second that there are neighborhoods in which tensions are ever present, particularly those that are in flux between one group or another. That "group" need not be specifically ethnic -- maybe a neighborhood suddenly becomes popular with gay couples, or artists, or gets gentrified and rezoned for businesses. Or, maybe it's South Central, traditionally African American, but many of the middle class African Americans are moving out, with many working class Latinos moving in.

"Crash" could have been so much better if it had focused on a smaller, less overarching story. They could have focused on a smaller number of people living in Compton and dealing with tensions there. Or, they could have focused instead on telling a story like the LAPD Ramparts scandal, in which a number of white cops planted evidence, perjured themselves and sent innocent people to jail. And it was apparently racially motivated.

As far as the original post, asking what contemporary film critics think, "TKAM" made the top 100 AFI list years ago. Atticus Finch has also been credited as one of the best screen characters of all time.

BTW -- In my mind, "Lone Star" did everything "Crash" has been credited with, with a similarly stellar cast, better writing and more subtlety.

No, unfortunately, it was just nominated for an Oscar, for the screenplay. It did do pretty well, though - you can find it on Amazon, and in some of the larger box stores in the US more readily than say, "Baby it's You", "Brother from Another Planet," or "Matewan".

You might also find "Passion Fish" (deep south), and "Sunshine State" (Florida) a little more readily.

ShapeSphere said:

It also irks me that when people think of Crash they probably won't recall the J.G. Ballard novel and David Cronenberg film of the same name.

Click to expand...

That is actually the first thing I think of when I hear the title "Crash."

ATP, how is it that you think the other Crash "captures the zeitgeist"?

I could not believe Crash beat out Brokeback Mountain as Best Picture. To me, BM is a classic. In a year or two, nobody will talk about Crash. That just tells you how silly the Academy can be. This year they overlooked so many movies and performances (where is Edward Norton?) -- it's officially a crime.

Having grown up not far from where TKAM was written about and filmed, Monroeville, Alabama, I can tell you it did bring out the reality of the times and area. The round courthouse is still there too. This is Harper Lee's only novel and I think she felt compelled to raise a subject that many were not willing to bring up at the time and I applaud her for it and the company willing to publish it.

ATP said:

This is good to know-thanks.

When it comes to ordering dvds from Amazon, it appears that the company concentrates on selling those dvds which can only be played on 'Region 2' dvd players - within the US & Canada.

I confess some confusion. I am unsure of what you mean by 'box stores'? Is this a trade description of stores which sell dvds?

Click to expand...

Hi ATP -

Sometimes I get lucky when I check the IMDB page for a movie, and see in the corner whether it's carried in a British or American format by Amazon. (There are a lot of films I'd love to see again that just aren't carried in the US. I think after 10 years we can finally see "And a Nightingale Sang" on video.)

Box stores -- that's slang for the "big box" stores, also known as category killers. These are the mammoth stores that have become increasingly popular in the US. That can refer to a place like Best Buy, a place that competes on price for DVDs, computers, and electronics. Or it might be a more general spot like Target or Wal-Mart which might carry groceries as well as clothing, housewares, sporting goods, etc.

Anyway, the gist is that they either specialize in one item and carry a wide but not very deep selection (like say, Barnes and Noble and books), or they cater to a one-stop shopper, like Target, carrying thousands of items, but being even more shallow in choice. I'm pretty sure you could find a Sayles film at Best Buy, or a larger Barnes and Noble. Target might carry it for a few months after release - they even have an independent film section in our closest Super Target.