Ebert’s Review of “To Kill a Mockingbird“.
I usually find Roger Ebert overly generous in his appraisals of new films, so I have to tip my hat to him for his brave review of “To Kill a Mockingbird”– he gives it a very modest (for him) 2.5 stars out of 4.0, after noting that it is rated as the 29th greatest film of all time by the users of the IMBD.
I’ve always liked the film, but I’ve always been conscious of the fact that I liked the film more than I admired it. I totally respected the liberal sentiment behind it. I just didn’t respect the contrived plot developments, the squeamishly overwrought emotions (of the scenes with Boo Radley at the end, for example), or the generally weak performance of Mary Badham as “Scout”.
Aside from being way too old for the part (a problem with the book is that her perceptions and actions seem beyond her age as given) her big scenes look as if they were hacked together from short snippets of adequacy, rather than from a single decent shot. This is especially evident in the scene with Walter and the molasses. But she is affected and deliberate in all of her scenes. I’ve always suspected that she did great at the auditions but once filming started– too late to try someone else–didn’t live up to expectations. I cannot believe that a director was happy with her performance.
You really can’t blame TKAMB for the “white savior” syndrome: it practically invented it. But you can blame the weak characterizations of the black characters, especially Calpurnia, on the source material and the movie.
2019-03-15
Incidentally– here’s a piece of heresy for you: “To Kill a Mockingbird” really is kind of a mediocre book, and Harper Lee never wrote another novel in her life (I don’t count the sequel as a genuine second book) because she didn’t have it in her. She knew that if she did sit down and write a completely new book that her inadequacies as a writer would be laid naked. So she never did.
This is complex because I do like the book. It is indeed likeable, and the era, and the setting are intriguing. But it’s actually quite contrived and psychologically trivial. There’s no depth to most of the major characters.
Similar contemporary film: “Blind Side”.
Hollywood does scads of deplorable remakes of films that were perfectly fine the first time out (“The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3” being the latest travesty). Why not wise up– “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a film that should be remade.
Firstly, the contrived plot twists should be improved upon– can’t there be a better way for the kids to realize that Boo Radley is a human being than to have him save their lives?– and, secondly, the tone could be changed so that, as Ebert observes, the blacks in the film don’t serve as props for the virtue of Atticus Finch. (Calpurnia could be shown to have an actual personality and life, for example.)
I didn’t know this– Jimmy Stewart apparently turned down the role because he thought the story was “too liberal”. How about that.
What is the least respected profession in the United States? Right. And who is the most admired fictional character? That’s right– Atticus Finch, a lawyer.
Best things about the film? Gregory Peck’s Hollywoodized dream dad. Scouts funky haircut. Elmer Bernstein’s exquisite theme. The lovely opening credits, with the cigar box full of collected items that breathe nostalgia. A skinny misfit named “Dill” standing in for the real Truman Capote.
Worst, most unconvincing moment in the film? Scout cozily sitting on the porch swing snuggling up to the Boogey Man himself, Boo Radley (Robert Duvall, in his debut), shortly after he saved her life from the evil Mr. Euell.
This scene reeks of the adult picturing it as it ought to have been. But Scout does not behave like a child who probably would not even have fully comprehended what happened, even with Atticus’ explanations, and certainly would not have warmed up to a creepy adult male neighbor that quickly, no matter how marvelous, as an adult, we think he really is.
In the remake, have Boo disappear as quickly as he appeared. Leave us with Scout’s face, wondering.