Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) – a single father, raising a daughter and a son; a lawyer who takes on a high-profile case in which he protects a black man, which causes discontent among the residents of the town.
Scout (Mary Bedham) – daughter of Atticus, a lively, mobile, inquisitive boy
Jeremy (Phillip Alford) - son of Atticus, honest and responsive, responsible towards his sister
Tom (Brock Peters) is a black man accused of raping a white girl; quiet and calm, has a wife and children.
Colleen Wilcox - the girl who accused Tom of rape; beaten and intimidated, afraid of his father
Robert (James Anderson) – Miella’s father, a tough and sometimes cruel drunk, intolerant racist.
I read a book a long time ago that didn’t impress me. And after watching the movie, I thought: what did I not like in the book?
The film was really more emotional for me. More whole or something. More... In general, I did not think that I would ever say this, but in this case, for me personally, the film adaptation turned out to be better than the original.
As it seemed to me, the film paid a little less attention — details, to be more precise — the maturation of the main character, on behalf of which the narrative is conducted. That is, only the main milestones and events that influenced it are taken. That was enough for me to understand her character.
I’m probably older than when I read the book. I looked at the story from a completely different perspective. As a parent. Like an adult. As a person with a well-established view of life.
And, of course, it is impossible to exclude such a factor as the charming Gregory Peck, which - believe me? - I saw for the first time. For the role in this film, the actor received his only Oscar. Well, we will watch movies with him and spit in the direction of the Academy, deprived of this handsome this award in the future.
The release of the film was quite a notable event, because at the time of its creation, the topic of relations with blacks and the attitude of white people to them was quite acute at that time. All this has been repeated in literature and cinema. Yes, and continues to rise, because racism and intolerance towards others for completely different reasons are relevant at all times, and now, unfortunately, too.
I certainly recommend the film. I can’t say that he’s just shrill, it’s impossible to forget and so on. For adults, in principle, it may seem naive and not quite complete. But he's good.
First, I read the book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, I was afraid that the film would be distortions and free treatment of the plot. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this movie. Excellent camera and directorial work. It looks very modern. A good soulful film about human and family values. Despite the fact that the main character is a girl, as in the book, through the prism of children's perception, the film touches on important issues of life that torment adults.
The film removed all the unnecessary details, minor offshoots of the plot, and placed clearer accents. So the story looks more winning, more collected in the script than in the original novel. But for those who like a good syllable, I recommend reading the book.
Good acting. And the children and their father. Believe the actors, live with them.
A film about the importance of principles and injustice
The main character of the film is a man with deep principles of humanism, a man with a capital letter, ready to go against the whole society if he believes that injustice is being committed. Defending his client, an unjustly accused black man, he encounters all the cruelty and cynicism of people who are ready to kill an innocent person for the sake of protecting their ego.
The film contrasts the actions of two people, the lawyer Atticus and the farmer Yuen. They both face a choice: expose themselves to the blow of the public and commit a humane act or “kill a mockingbird” to substitute an innocent person who has never done anyone harm, but, on the contrary, has a kind and sympathetic heart. The main character did not compromise his principles, and Yuen was ready for any, even the lowest action, because of his hatred and desire to save face.
The film is brilliantly executed. Despite the black and white picture and heavy content, it looks easy, not letting go until the very last second. In the film, the roles of the first and second plan are beautiful, especially I liked the play of child actors, I have never seen this anywhere else. Also, I can’t help but mention the scenery and music. Especially the music, it sounds old enough, but it always sounds exactly as it should, and in conjunction with the camera work always allows you to feel the mood of the scene.
A person who intends to watch this film for the first time must think that he will witness some psychological court drama with court appearances, intricacies, investigations and other detective things, like “The Life of David Gale”. And this is indeed present, but by no means the main thing in this picture, just as, for all its brightness and apotheosity, the trial of Mitei Karamazov is not the main theme of the narrative of Dostoevsky’s novel. Despite the fact that the synopsis directly and frankly talks about this, still do not expect that the central nerve of the film will be the theme of childhood and growing up.
In the film, it seems that two plots develop simultaneously: in one, a principled lawyer fights for justice against public prejudice; and in another, his children learn to be people in the complex and not always fair world of adults. The world of childhood and the world of maturity seem to exist together, intersecting at key emotional points, and both of these worlds deserve to be considered separately.
First of all, it must be said that this is truly a great canonical film, which has had a noticeable impact on world cinema, which continues to this day. Take at least the picture of Steven Spielberg "Bridge of Spies", shot as if by the patterns of Mulligan's masterpiece. The same can be said for a long series of other paintings. In many ways, such a noticeable influence was made possible by the perfect performance of actors - this film is about that. It’s not that the actors of today are inferior to their 1960s counterparts. There are no actors like that these days. Today’s cinema has taken the path of maximum realism, focusing on achieving what is now fashionable to call “life.” Indeed, it can sometimes be very difficult to tell the difference between play and real life – the actors are really believed... but not always because they play well, but simply because the plot and the events of the film seem very close and realistic. You empathize with life, but not the actor. Classical cinema was not like that. Cinema of that era, of course, conveyed the essence of its time and did it realistically, naturally, organically, but there was always room for a little theatricality, a little exaggeration, a little magic. There is one very clear criterion for quality cinema: when you are happy that there was a time when they were shot in this way and in no other way.
Everything in this film is almost perfect. Each image is fundamental and verified even in the most subtle details. From the very first frame, it becomes clear that the hero of Gregory Peck is a man of high moral principles, not used to abandoning what he started and is a real father to his children, whom he wants to love and respect. At the same time, the figure of the mother is deliberately absent - the figure of Atticus is too mature, fundamental and self-sufficient to supplement it with anything. There is absolutely no double bottom in this personality - everything is clear and definite in the best sense of these words. Atticus Finch is a model of what a father should be. In this respect, the image is perfect.
But it is much more pleasing and surprising that the characters of children were presented no less vividly, professionally and convincingly (and where do they find such kinownderkinds?!). Most of all liked the girl — Scout — on behalf of which is the narrative. From the very first minutes she visited and no longer left the same impression that Anna Torrent makes in the films "The Spirit of the Hive" and "Fed the Raven". In general, the whole film is very reminiscent of the symbiosis "Bridge of Spies" with "The Spirit of the Hive". Penetration into the world of childhood here is maximum, quite comparable to the painting by Victor Erise. Even in the plot, they are a bit similar – here too, there is a meeting with the local “monster-Frankenstein”, which in the end is not at all what it seems. In general, everything that concerns episodes with children, sprinkles some indescribable magic and richness of the film language of the author.
As for the theme of racial prejudice, which forms the core of the plot line about the misadventures of Atticus Finch, despite the fact that the film takes place in the 1930s, the film itself was shot in 1962, when the policy of racial segregation was still applied, and before the landmark law Lyndon Johnson remained a good couple of years. In other words, the film was as relevant and topical as possible, and even today it does not look outdated.
Race is traditional and almost religious in America. Much is explained by the scene of the shooting of a mad dog, with which they do not negotiate and do not try to rehabilitate it in any way - it is simply shot, deprived of being. It was difficult to choose a more suitable state for the events of the film than Alabama - this citadel of unwavering conservatism and militant intolerance. In general, the states of the United States are something like separate parts of a global personality, in which all the threads of the national American identity converge: there are states that are as liberal as possible, free, even corrupt; some are purely religious and deliberately prim; others are concerned only with the problem of money and the increase of material wealth; others are concerned with harmony with nature and with themselves - all of them are like parts of a single organism, each performing its function. Alabama seems to be a kind of clenched fist, which will not be fired forever, ready to crush everything that does not correspond to his ideas of being. Cave ignorance and stupid cruelty are the key characteristics of this provincial image. And exactly at the heart of this coarse structure there is an unusually human, intelligent and no less convinced figure of Atticus Finch, ready to defend the truth with the means at his disposal.
Atticus is impeccably honest. And everything he does, he does, first of all, for the benefit of his children, who, on the noble example of his father, comprehend the most complex and psychologically subtle aspects of the adult world, consisting mainly of halftones. This realization is the central theme of the whole picture, its key meaning. The whole film, especially those scenes in which children participate, looks extremely vivid and heartfelt, forcing you to listen to what is happening with an open mouth, not noticing the time. Every prank, every fleeting discovery, has enormous weight and is extremely important. Every character in this movie wants to be compassionate. But this would have to be done, even if you did not want to – the specifics of classical cinema is such that at such a level of acting, it is simply impossible not to empathize.
Undoubtedly, a beautiful, honest and very accurate film about America, presented through the eyes of a child of the 1930s; all the life and customs of that time in the palm of your hand; an unambiguous humanistic moral message; amazing vividness of the frame; impeccable play of actors, including children who are often smarter than adults; the difficulty of moral decisions and perception of them during the period of growing up; finally, the archetypal image of the father, immaculately embodied by Gregory Peck - all this makes the picture "Kill a mockingbird" simply mandatory for viewing.
The film is not forgotten. If you take the vector from America almost a hundred years ago to its present, you understand what grandiose changes have occurred in society and what will happen. Give them strength and intelligence. . .
Screening literary works is an attractive, but very dangerous business. The viewer always has a chance to be disappointed in images that do not correspond to their own fantasies about what they read.
I watched the film right after reading Harper Lee’s story, so my perception was extremely sharp and critical. As a result, I was pleasantly surprised.
The film almost completely corresponds to the narrative in the book. However, some understatement will only exacerbate the desire to read the book (if you watch the film earlier) - and this is a big plus.
The game of the actors of the 60s is clearly different from the modern game for the better - it does not cause rejection, a sense of unnaturalness, but on the contrary, it disposes to a complete immersion in the atmosphere of cinema.
Against the background of the trial, much deeper questions are raised than racism: whether it is possible to oppose the rules of society, as life according to secular law, religious law or conscience. As a result, I, unfamiliar with the topic of racism in reality, found myself rich food for thought!
9 out of 10
The production of the film is very similar to the performance. Very long. Lots of questions and inconsistencies. The image of Atticus performed by Gregory Peck throughout the picture is represented by a kind of spineless and completely emotionless. I don't know why a lawyer should be a prisoner's escort. What kind of bodyguard was he sitting with a newspaper in his hand? And very unconvincingly shows the moment when an angry crowd of residents came to the massacre with the criminal & #39': after a ridiculous dialogue of the girl with one of the crowd (a familiar man who gave them debts for some services), all guilty lowered the mane and dispersed. Why is that?
Finch's court appearance is not catchy. ' Victim' generally behaves as if she does not have all the houses or rabies of the uterus, or both.
A lot of confusion. Events begin, judging by the dialogue in early summer. At the same time, it was already known about the prisoner. Why then at the trial the prisoner is asked to tell about the events that occurred on August 31?
The supposedly scary neighbor is also presented as some kind of zombie without emotions. I do not believe in his good intentions. And why didn't the father see who brought the wounded boy home? And, for some reason, immediately show that his hand is plastered. And he's unconscious. Will he come to his senses?
In general, the movie is complete nonsense. Too naive and boring. Why are there so many positive reviews?
Unfortunately, I did not read the original literary source, only heard of it as an outstanding example of American literature; but I knew nothing more. Loaded with this information, I started watching the movie.
The story begins as an open page of the book, without a foreword, albeit with little behind-the-scenes commentary from the girl's main character... although is she the main character? She is rather a spectator and a student, empathizing and assimilating simple, sometimes kind, sometimes cruel truths.
And the main character here is the girl's father; of those people who are said to be worth ten. Although, I would say, such people are worth many thousands of people. A true noble knight, at the same time not sweet with his own correctness.
Around him, his family and the inner circle living in a provincial town, and unfolds the story. Ordinary and vital, a little idealized, but saturated with details, characters, experiences, saturated with the atmosphere of hot summer, permeated with sunlight. Children’s adventures and curiosity, the desire to know everything and stick your nose everywhere are combined with the story of an unjustly accused man, and with the story of a reclusive man, and with the story of a father who, in spite of society, tries to be honest – primarily to himself and his children. And the story is about history itself, about the history of America, about how she – through the efforts of people like the girl’s father – got rid of savage remnants and gained a civilized face.
And the film shows this story simply luxuriously - there is no other word. Shooting, characters, music, dialogue, reactions, pace of storytelling, details, surroundings - all create a sense of luxurious story that captures you everything. It’s as if the film is a time-reality machine that transports the viewer to where such stories live.
A beautiful film in the spirit of “Dandelion Wine”, only the main stories there are only two, but what!
I adore Ray Bradbury with his ability to immerse the reader in that hot summer, in that childhood life, a real special world, which, I think, today’s Moscow children do not have, only those living in small towns or villages. It's the sweet feeling of summer, the chirping of crickets at night, the rustling of trees. And not for nothing there are even collections combining Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Ray Bradbury “Dandelion Wine” and Jerome Selinger “The Catcher in the Rye” – they are all about the complex world of childhood, about good and evil in simple words.
All this was perfectly transferred by the director to this film, here a special, own, childish life is perfectly depicted, with its horror stories, with its villains and heroes.
I love it when watching a movie gives you life-giving insights, thoughts that go through your head a few days after watching it. And "To Kill a Mockingbird" is just that. It is about how we sometimes, succumbing to public opinion, can make mistakes in people, how we can strongly condemn the most innocent and fear defenseless people. How can we be wrong in haste to judge? How to prevent a person from being innocent. After all, sometimes it is only necessary to understand, look at the facts, listen to the “victims”, who in the end may turn out to be villains themselves, as well as listen to those pseudo-villains and understand that they are not villains.
It's probably also great when a movie hits a point where you're watching it at that point in your life, when you're experiencing something like that, when it touches the strings of your soul. If you have faced injustice, human cruelty, then this film is suitable for you.
I cried last night watching this movie twice. Do not let God condemn the innocent and help us to believe in the best in people. And the real villains to avoid.
And yes, another thought that the little heroine Scout broadcast in this film with her behavior in several cases: sometimes childish naive kindness to people, sincere disposition can even take the hand of the villain away from you and prevent evil from happening. And we adults, hardened people, sometimes see it as stupid and useless. However, when choosing what to be: skeltered in his anger at the world or kind and looking stupid for someone - perhaps you should choose the second.
As it turned out, I had already seen this film and did not even remember. . .
I finished the book last night and couldn’t stop until I finished it. I looked around, and it’s already lighting and 5 in the morning: ) I immediately went to Google to see if there was a film adaptation (in my heart I was sure that it was for sure).
The book deals with such important and serious topics as: racism, law and legality, the perception of women at that time, good and evil in general, simple humanity. Various types of psychological personality are described on the example of residents of the city of Maycomb; it is shown how you can easily and honestly raise your children.
All this is woven, I would even say, a thick thread in such a simple at first glance children's detective novel about attempts to pull the Scarecrow Radley into the white light. Atticus, as a teacher, explains everything to his children: the youngest daughter Jean-Louise Finch and her brother Jim. Well, Louise, a very small naive girl, but at the same time very intelligent and intelligent, tells us this story.
About the movie.
I'm quite happy with them. The actors were perfect and they played well too. The characters in my head looked and behaved like that. It was hard to imagine the city, the street, the house and the distance, because we live in a very different world. And the film helped to transfer to the era here and find yourself in that place, among the heroes.
It turned out that I had seen the film before and had set a 9 mark, but I don’t remember when or under what circumstances I watched it. Therefore, I strongly recommend reading the book before viewing, there are not many pages.
I changed the mark from 9 to 8 because the film didn’t fit many important points. And many key phrases have also been omitted or replaced with incorrect ones.
I think we should have put more emphasis on racism. In my opinion, this is the main idea of the novel. In the book, Harper Lee equates the attitude of Americans of that time to the Negroes (on the example of the Mecobians) with the persecution of Jews by Hitler, which began simultaneously.
And the meaning of the title ' To Kill a Mockingbird' is not associated with Scarecrow Radley, as shown in the film, but with the murder of a Negro Tom Robinson, in which 17 bullets hit (!), he did not just want to hurt ... Mr. Underwood, publisher of the local newspaper 'Maycombe Tribune' in addition to the usual obituary, wrote a short, but understandable even to a child, preface: ' to kill a cripple is a sin, regardless of whether they stand, sit or run. He compared Tom's death to the senseless killing of songbirds, which are exterminated by hunters and children.39
It was worth mentioning in the film - that's the whole point. . .
Radley's Scarecrow was also worth telling a little more, because he is also the main character. Why did a religious father lock an ordinary boy at home and not let him go? And that was before the knife story, which may be a fiction. Everyone talks about it, but it does not have to be true, because the gossip girls in Maykobe are still the same.
The poor boy who had spent his whole life locked up, whom most of the neighbors feared and despised at the same time, in fact he was afraid of people and did not know how to behave with them. At the same time, in his heart he remained an innocent timid child and it was impossible to drag him out to people, to make public his heroic merits. After all, he would most likely kill himself, unable to withstand the flood of publicity. This is exactly what Sheriff Huck Tate tried to convey to Atticus, and the young Jean-Louise Finch explained to her father in simple words that it would be like "#39; kill a mockingbird".
Some provincial town of Alabama Maycombe sample 1932. The slow pace of life of ordinary people, aggravated by the height of the Great Depression, as well as the mass of prejudice in the American South. Here, in the family of the local lawyer-widower Atticus Finch, two children grow up - 10-year-old boy Jem, as well as a brisk 6-year-old girl Jean, whom everyone calls Glazastik. In the summer, this group is joined by a slightly timid guy Dill, and the guys from time to time investigate the secret of the introverted neighbor Scarecrow. And the head of the Atticus family, meanwhile, takes on a notoriously losing case - Tom Robinson is accused of raping the daughter of an aggressive farmer Bob. And although from a legal point of view it is obvious to everyone that the Negro is completely innocent and the case is falling apart, the jury, consisting of only whites, has its own racial concepts.
In 1960, Harper Lee’s almost autobiographical novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” was released in the States, which immediately became a world bestseller. Interestingly, for the writer, this book remained the only one in her life, but the case for the film adaptation did not rust, and two years later the film of the same name was released by the then especially unknown director Robert Mulligan. The film, like the book, also became a kind of bestseller, still included in the various tops of the best paintings of the twentieth century. And although I personally would not greatly overestimate the artistic delights of this production, I still note that the movie turned out quite interesting.
First of all, this film became especially relevant for the early 60s, when the fight against racial segregation in the States was in full swing. However, if the production focused only on judicial injustice against a non-gross suspect, then this film certainly would not have survived the 60s. Race is only one, not the last, part of the problem. But still, this film is more about proper growing up, about true reference points in life, about justice and real people. This is not to say that the story itself is particularly fascinating or dynamic. Movies are more emotional. On the one hand, we see the world of the right adult – the lawyer Atticus (Gregory Peck), who lives not by tradition, but by conscience. And this is how he beats the crowd with its animal instincts, and wins the respect of the people around him. But first of all, Atticus is an amazing authority for his children. By the way, to say that Gregory Peck played this role at the Oscar, perhaps impossible. Something his character was similar to the head of the family from “Olenenka” 1946 Clarence Brown, for whom Peck was also nominated for “Oscar”. But on the whole and on the fifth attempt, the Academy still handed Gregory the statuette. It is noteworthy that more for his roles, this actor will not be nominated by the Academy for the Oscar.
But what the director managed to do especially successfully is to pick up child actors. All the children's characters were interesting and very colorful. This was true of John Majn, who played a slightly slow Dill, and Phillip Alford, who played the eldest son of the Finch family very qualitatively. But especially brightly played by ten-year-old actress Mary Badam, who got the role of an inquisitive girl-fighter with the nickname Eyeball. Outwardly, Mary was very similar to our Alice Selezneva / Natalia Murashkevich from "The Guest from the Future" - the same beautiful girl with black hair laid in a cara, with whom, I suspect, millions of boys fell in love in 1962. And the fates of the two actresses were similar – Mary Badam, like Murashkevich, never continued her career in film in adulthood. But a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his debut role still received.
Demons do not live in fearful neighbors, nor even in blacks, but in the veiled stereotypes and collective unconscious. This is a somewhat overrated, but still very strong film.
7 out of 10
I try to watch not only modern films, but also the so-called Hollywood classics. I enjoyed watching Frank Capra's wonderful film "It's a Wonderful Life", the adaptation of Charles Dickens's novel "Oliver Twist" of the 1940s and looking for another classic to watch. I didn’t know what to choose until I finally remembered Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird. I really liked the book, and the decision to watch the film adaptation is a logical and predictable step.
After watching To Kill a Mockingbird, I was very pleased. In my opinion, the director of the picture turned out to be quite strong and not sagging anywhere work with excellent actors and tense twists and turns of the plot. The creators meticulously transferred the literary material to the film soil, not missing almost nothing important from the original novel. But I’m really sorry for some of the characters that didn’t make the movie. As it is correctly said, the entire work cannot be accommodated in a movie with a total timekeeping of 02:10. And it is absolutely right that the film does not have storylines related to such characters as Cindy Crawford and Uncle Jack, but why did the writers “put under the knife” Aunt Alexander, with the participation of which the topic of family conflict arose? It's a small downside to the movie.
The problems raised in the novel were left to the same extent as in the book, and this can not but rejoice. Since To Kill a Mockingbird is the most complete adaptation of the book of the same name, I would like to thank Harper Lee and her novel for the exciting plot, not the film and its creators. But the problems of equality of all people, xenophobia, different views on life, the frequent unrighteousness of the court were clearly reflected in the picture, especially on the example of the confrontation between the noble lawyer Atticus Finch and his antipode, the drunkard and the ignorant Bob Ewell. You can immediately see that the director made an emphasis on this, increasing the number of scenes with two characters and playing on their visible and invisible contrasts.
But even the most brilliant director would not be able to realize his dreams if on the set he was not surrounded by real Masters of his craft: cameramen, illuminators, producers, and, of course, actors. This filmmaker is very lucky. We all know what the brilliant actor Gregory Peck was capable of, known to the mass audience, primarily from the movie “Roman Holiday”, but here he simply surpassed himself. Thin, slouched, wearing glasses that somehow make him look like Tom Hanks, the hero, exhausted by his hard work, tries to reach the hearts of a cruel people, set against the unfortunate, accused of all the mortal sins of a Negro.
Bob Ewell, the main antagonist of To Kill a Mockingbird, also shines in the frame. Scenes of their conversations, which gradually become more tense and tense, simply cannot be looked indifferently. The worst thing about this situation is that Bob does not see anything terrible and bad in his slander: he considers it the norm of behavior for every person inhabiting their modest town, and the director well conveyed the incorrectness and injustice of this judgment.
A separate storyline of both the film and the novel is dedicated to the children of Atticus Finch, who are just beginning to get acquainted with this cruel world, being in search of friends and enemies. You know, I don't really like children's play in movies, because nowadays you rarely see tolerable actors of this age, but Mary Badam and Phillip Alford did great. In particular, I liked the play of the daughter of a lawyer - the guy is somewhat fussy at the beginning of the film, but all the hardships that fell on the son of a man who challenged the whole conservative society, he was able to portray without falsehood, and this is the main thing.
A separate plus of "To Kill a Mockingbird" was the ending, executed at the highest level, which can only be subject to cinema. Even I, knowing how the novel would end, was somewhat astonished. No kidding, the film, which began as a cute children's movie, overnight turns into a detective, then into a court drama, and at the end, in general, into a dizzying thriller. The speeches of Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson (the accused Negro), the final conversation of the lawyer with Ewell and the unexpected denouement keep the viewer in tone, not letting him get bored from the two-hour action. The most tasty cherry on the cake (for me personally) was the sudden appearance in the frame of Robert Duvall, a Hollywood veteran, winner of the Oscar, as that mysterious friend of the Finch children. All the storylines were completed, and the viewer got the opportunity to think about the problems, one way or another touched upon in the film. And we concluded that everyone, regardless of race, age and nation, has the right to recognition in society, freedom and inviolability.
As you may have guessed from the above, I was pleased with what I saw. Even such disadvantages as a bad dubbing and a slow start, did not prevent me as a viewer to enjoy. I believe that this film is rightfully included in the list of the most significant films of the XX century.
10 out of 10.
I highly recommend reading Harper Lee’s book (if you haven’t already) before watching the movie. The book is magnificent: at the same time childish, naive in its own way, and at the same time deep, sincere, even philosophical. Not surprisingly, it became the best-selling fiction book in the United States in the twentieth century.
Having received a real pleasure from the original source, I watched the film “To Kill a Mockingbird” with a degree of fear: since the bar set by the American writer was too high and the impressions of the disastrous, in my opinion, the film “East of Paradise”, also shot on the book, were too fresh.
I will say at once that none of my fears were confirmed. The creators of the film “To Kill a Mockingbird” managed to convey the atmosphere of a quiet American town of the 30s, and create a whole plot from a whole book, the events of which take place over several years.
Just phenomenal work of actors: Gregory Peck vividly and accurately conveyed the image of Atikus Finch. This is exactly how he appeared to me in the book: a calm man, with a sense of self-esteem and firm ideas about tolerance for other people.
The children played their roles perfectly: it was a pleasure to watch their dialogue and playful tricks. I liked Dill, who was phenomenally in the prison scene. The whole scene was shot at the highest level.
And, of course, the main idea of the whole book of Harper Lee is very accurately conveyed: the attitude towards a person should not be based on prejudices and stereotypes. "He's bad because he's black" - how many variations of this position that defines the whole human essence to this day.
It is a beautiful film that must be watched. But, again, it makes sense to read the book first. Although it contains many more examples of how people do not perceive other people's values and principles, simply because they are strangers.
From the moment I read Harper Lee's novel:' To Kill a Mockingbird & #39, I decided to immediately find out if there was a movie. The internet helped, and it was all there. However, with the classics of cinema is poorly known, but not against further acquaintance. Heard about Gregory Peck. The film itself was made qualitatively and pleasantly. But unfortunately, according to the laws of the genre, in the films, for the most part, there are disagreements with the book. Reading the book, I first missed the long description of the beginning of the novel, then there were other sensations: joy, surprise, a little sadness. In the film, only the actors played, the absence of important scenes, like some bright sides of Scarecrow Redley. Let's leave it. What the hell is Huck Tate wearing a suit? Why is Miss Modi so young? Where was Jim's upbringing from Madame Dubose? And why is Scout in Russian dubbing?! The novel, Eyeball! What scout? Dubbing, as usual at the top level... The film emphasizes the linearity of the plot - father, court, trial, children. Racism, a hard life in the Depression, is unconvincingly shown. And the subtleties of children's life - in the pages of the book. In conclusion, read books, gentlemen, for films are more subject to the distortion of literary creation than to its interpretation. Today, it is rare to find a movie that brings a book to life. Alas, but rarely. Books send us into a different reality where you feel very different. Negativity leaves us, we live by the emotions of the hero, and in the cinema you can infrequently understand the meaning of the plot. And in this film he is not very represented. Linearity, that's all.
I know that it is not customary to compare the original book and the film, it seems, because the film adaptation is an independent work, but I read the work of Harper Lee just a week ago, and therefore I simply cannot do otherwise.
Gregory Peck was a shock to me, otherwise you wouldn't say. For one simple reason: this is exactly the same Atticus Finch that my imagination drew while reading the book. I don't know how it happened, but everything - facial features, hairstyle, gait, manners, behavior, costume, glasses - coincided just to the smallest detail. It's as amazing as it is strange; it feels like someone has gotten into my head. This is exactly the Atticus that the writer described in her pages. And yes, he's amazing. Just as stunning is the scene in court and near prison. It is in them that the careful attitude to the original and scrupulousness of the filmmakers are felt.
But there are downsides.
The most important idea, the idea of prejudice against blacks, hypocrisy, prejudice, human cruelty on a large scale, and not on the example of a couple of specific people, is poorly disclosed. That is, the film does not talk about how in Maycombe, where the events unfold, whites are next to blacks, how they interact with each other - we are just immediately thrown into the thick of the events related to the Tom Robinson case, with virtually no exposure. The reason for this was that the film did not include quite a few dialogues, scenes and some other key moments:
- above all, I missed Alexandra, Atticus' sister. But the way she raises Jean Louise and Jim, instilling their dogmas in them, and how she confronts a brother whose views are diametrically opposed to her views, is quite important in the book.
What was missing was a small but also very important episode in which Dill rushed out of the courtroom in tears over the way the accuser had brutally questioned Tom Robinson and the subsequent dialogue with Mr. Raymond.
Missing episodes from Jean Louise's school life (in particular, the moment when the teacher spoke to the children about Hitler);
- well, the episode with Mrs. Dubose, when Jim came to read her as punishment for spoiled flowers (strangely, Mrs. Dubose herself appeared in the frame, but it did not go anywhere further).
If I hadn’t read the book, I’d have the impression that the only villain in the story, the only one standing up to Atticus, is Bob Ewell, who had a grudge against Robinson, and through some unknown influence managed to attract a handful of like-minded people. In other words, the scale of history has been lost. After all, Ewell and his “gang” are not all antagonists. In fact, there are so many of them that it is easier to count the protagonists - and then enough fingers of one hand.
All of this, of course, does not make the film bad. But without the missing elements that I have noted, he has lost hopelessly the idea that he had in him the source. It was just a story about an honest lawyer, three children, and a black man's trial - just that, nothing more - and something much more significant, profound, was lost. This is not a story about a few people, but about a whole city. About a city whose way of life characterizes a chapter in the history of the whole country. To add an extra 40 minutes of timekeeping, which would easily accommodate the missing key scenes, characters and replicas, elements of everyday life of citizens, which would help the viewer to feel the atmosphere of Maycomb and the whole story, would be ideal. Well, for Gregory Peck and amazing episodes with his participation
7 out of 10
If you don’t feel guilty, there’s no need to apologize.
Top 250
#212*
- You never really understand a man before you look at things from his point of view. Until you get into his skin and walk in it.
Unlike many movies in the Top 250, this one is really underrated. At least he deserves to be in the top hundred, or even ten. This is one of the most famous films of the middle of the last century, based on the novel by Harper Lee. I am not familiar with the original source, so when evaluating I will start only from the film adaptation.
The story is told on behalf of Scout, a girl who, along with her brother, is raised by a young lawyer Atticus Finch. It is not without his help that children learn the world, with all its shortcomings and imperfections. Atticus is charged with defending an African-American man accused of raping a white woman.
On first viewing, I prepared for the worst, given the age of the picture. I was so wrong. This is one of the strongest films I’ve seen. Everything about him is amazing. The story itself, stuffed with small microstories. Acting jobs. Morality and hidden subtexts. Images and unique characters. And all together it forms an incredible mixture.
The character of Atticus Finch deserves a separate analysis. I don’t know if Harper Lee wrote this character off or if it’s a collective image, but the fact is that it’s one of the most moral and human characters in history. And the simplicity with which it is presented to the reader/viewer is simply incredible. Such images are worthy examples for imitation.
Speaking of characters, it is worth noting the actors who performed these roles. Of course, this is primarily Gregory Peck, who played the main role. Atticus Finch in his performance turned out to be so “live” and real that Peck deservedly received an Oscar. As for the small actors, there were no complaints about them during the film.
This film is on my shelf my favorite and is often revised. Be sure to check out Harper Lee's print original to compare it to the film adaptation. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the few times a movie has been book-level (if not better). It is a must-see!
If you don’t feel guilty, there’s no need to apologize.
Top 250
#213*
- You never really understand a man before you look at things from his point of view. Until you get into his skin and walk in it.
Unlike many movies in the Top 250, this one is really underrated. At least he deserves to be in the top hundred, or even ten. This is one of the most famous films of the middle of the last century, based on the novel by Harper Lee. I am not familiar with the original source, so when evaluating I will start only from the film adaptation.
The story is told on behalf of Scout, a girl who, along with her brother, is raised by a young lawyer Atticus Finch. It is not without his help that children learn the world, with all its shortcomings and imperfections. Atticus is charged with defending an African-American man accused of raping a white woman.
On first viewing, I prepared for the worst, given the age of the picture. I was so wrong. This is one of the strongest films I’ve seen. Everything about him is amazing. The story itself, stuffed with small microstories. Acting jobs. Morality and hidden subtexts. Images and unique characters. And all together it forms an incredible mixture.
The character of Atticus Finch deserves a separate analysis. I don’t know if Harper Lee wrote this character off or if it’s a collective image, but the fact is that it’s one of the most moral and human characters in history. And the simplicity with which it is presented to the reader/viewer is simply incredible. Such images are worthy examples for imitation.
Speaking of characters, it is worth noting the actors who performed these roles. Of course, this is primarily Gregory Peck, who played the main role. Atticus Finch in his performance turned out to be so “live” and real that Peck deservedly received an Oscar. As for the small actors, there were no complaints about them during the film.
This film is on my shelf my favorite and is often revised. Be sure to check out Harper Lee's print original to compare it to the film adaptation. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the few times a movie has been book-level (if not better). It is a must-see!
- There is something in our lives that makes people lose their human form – they would like to be just, but they cannot.
Attorney Atticus Finch, raising two children without a mother. He is assigned to defend an African-American man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Meanwhile, his children learn about the world, with all its imperfections and inequalities.
I’ve seen this movie for the first time, and honestly, I’m a little confused. I'm not familiar with Harper Lee's novel, so there's nothing to compare it to. Therefore, when assessing, I will start only from this screen adaptation.
After watching, I had a double feeling. On the one hand, the film has a deep meaning, which is fully revealed only towards the end. On the other hand, it looks like a wild hodgepodge of different storylines, and to get at least a bit of the ideology of the film, you need to look quite thoughtful.
My assessment is neutral, although probably leaning more towards the negative. I saw too much in this movie. Many events do not affect the main storyline, and they can be easily cut - the meaning of the film will not change. This can also include long monotonous dialogues. And superfluous characters, such as the boy Dill, always bragging about his father.
I may be unobjective, so I'll give you an average grade. The film raises a lot of topical issues of the time (and some to this day are relevant), but all this is drowning in porridge of stupid fuss and absolutely unnecessary microscenes.
Having taken on Harper Lee’s second book, I finally got the courage to watch the first film. It was read a couple of years ago, but before the film all the time did not reach the hand – it is always scary to watch the adaptation of your favorite work. It is not known how he was perceived and interpreted by the director.
I can say that the film is set exactly on the text of the book of the same name. However, if in the latter we see the world through the eyes of little Jean Louise Finch, whose thoughts are still simple-minded, and all the actions of people are perceived at face value. In the film, this effect disappears, and we look at the events with our own eyes.
I admire Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. Restrained, wise, strict, but surprisingly kind. His character is not emotional, but all the feelings are read in Atticus’ gaze.
The film, like many movies of the time, is slow. He's unusual to the current eye. Events are measured and nowhere in a hurry, but it plays into the hands and creates an amazing effect of quiet provincial life in a small town. Life when summer is a whole chapter for little Jean Louise Finch, for whom every day brings new discoveries.
For those of you who have read, you will see the Maycombe that Harper Lee paints. For those who are not familiar with the original, I recommend starting with a book. The film does not present events and conclusions on a plate like modern cinema. It makes you cling to every word and action to understand the depth of the plot.
The film is an adaptation of Haper Lee’s book “To Kill a Mockingbird” and it turned out to be significantly good. There is a well-balanced presentation of black discrimination and childish ease. The film for that time became a cult, in the era of racism, he just broke the stamps.
This is a young lawyer Atticus Finch, who has to raise his two children alone. Atticus is the best character, it is closed many features that make him such a diverse hero. He is noble, he is kind, he is reasonable. Atticus demonstrates remarkable firmness of character, but at the same time significant restraint. Power and at the same time kindness. He throws all his strength into the battle for the seemingly basic virtues that he holds dear. He represents a black man accused of beating a young girl, and although all the evidence shows his innocence, it comes at a time of bad race and it is not easy to convince a jury to take such arguments into account. Atticus not only undertakes to represent him, but also does so with pride, while defending the defendant by all means, with all honor, elegance and dignity. He does all this despite the fact that many of the citizens do not support him, and some openly despise and directly threaten his life.
But when he speaks in court, you can see that he does not doubt every word he said and with all his heart shows the seriousness of his intentions.
Atticus firmly believes that life is the same for all and urges all to reason wisely. He is forced to talk to adults as children and to children as adults.
The film is very informative, I advise you to watch it.
To Kill a Mockingbird made an impression on me, I think, the very thing that should have been produced on the audience in the opinion of the director. A film about honor and bravery, about strength without violence and cruelty, about a modern (even now) form of true nobility. The hero of Gregory Peck (who very much reminded me of Vyacheslav Tikhonov with his stately figure, facial features and, I will not be afraid to repeat this word again, noble presentation) is a single father who is an example for his son and a protector for his daughter, a lawyer who believes in justice, uncompromising and responsible for his work. As a lawyer, you can find fault with him as a human rights defender, but I’m not a lawyer, and the film is not about that.
The film is just about childhood, told and shown on behalf of a little girl who, years later, tells this story, immersing herself in memories and taking out childishly naive scenes and images, and, as if, rethinks everything. It tells the audience the story of a small town in Alabama, the story of racism, inequality, prejudice against blacks and feeble-minded people, human kindness, naivety and, most importantly, his father, a fair and compassionate man who, no matter what, remained true to his own ideals. And a brother who wants to grow up to be a real man. In my opinion, the director managed to convey the child’s view and children’s worldview.
I think this work would not be bad to pass in Russian schools, and not in elementary school, when they read about the adventures of Tom Sawyer, but at an age when a child is already beginning to understand what responsible work and parenthood are.
10 out of 10
When it comes to the cult adaptation of an equally iconic book by the American writer Harper Lee, it is difficult to remain impartial. After all, public opinion already influences the potential viewer and me, including before watching, and such epithets as “one of the best”, “classic” sound confidently. In any case, we are really a classic of world cinema, which for half a century insisted in the public consciousness like wine. Indeed, the film is difficult to compare with modern dramatic films - it feels like it is separate.
While the film tops the AFI's authoritative list of "best court dramas," specifically the litigation between Alabama state and black worker Tom Robinson, here, as in the original book, is given secondary importance. This is a family drama about the children of one street in the American South. It is 1935 and the local society is still overshadowing the theme of the long past Civil War, disparaging those who are different from the environment, and adjusting to the consequences of the Great Depression. We can assume that the film preaches old, no longer relevant, manners, but this is only partly true. While your eyes will perceive what is happening as a retro narrative, the brain will not be able to successfully overcome the brewing parallels with the modern world. There are issues and themes that are authentic for any era, such as class, race, gender and other inequalities, the relationship of growing children with their parents, professional ethics, upbringing and its absence. In fact, "To Kill a Mockingbird" postulates the idea that each person is a product of his environment, but this does not necessarily shape society according to one pattern.
There will always be white crows, which, with varying degrees of disapproval, will be met in any team. The story gives us several such examples at once, and among them, of course, the main male character named Atticus Finch. If in the novel Harper Lee we spend most of the time together with the girl Jean Louise (after all, the story is being told on her behalf), then in the cult adaptation, the father of the family confidently came to the fore. He is a model of decent behavior of a real man, father, man, after all. In relation to this film, it is easy to form a famous question about what it can teach us. I will not hesitate to use such an adjective as "high-moral cinema". This, rest assured, will provide the project with a long and memorable life on screens around the world. Gregory Peck in the cult role really came out very convincing and disposed to himself. He is incredibly restrained, patient and ready to help the weak - a modern version of the knight from children's prose.
If we talk about the visual part of the film, then it produces, as I said, a feeling of retro style. Of course, in 1962, color video has long been used, and the decision to convey the story in a gray tone, from the height of the past tense, was successful. It is as if we take brushes of our own emotions from what we see, and apply bright strokes to this colorless canvas. Someone will call the film boring and protracted – it all depends on your perseverance and, of course, preferences. Indeed, the story is told very slowly and meticulously, without particularly bright turns. “To Kill a Mockingbird” will be interesting to fans of thoughtful cinema, fans of classics of the twentieth century and those who read the book. As for me, this is one of the best adaptations of literature of the last century, marked, as you know, by a number of prestigious awards, including the Academy.
Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, I didn’t read To Kill a Mockingbird as a kid, much less see the movie. And I got to them only now, determined to fill the gaps in education. Admittedly, the effect is amazing. It is clear that a great book only gets better over the years. But I did not expect that the film, made more than half a century ago, can so capture and so amaze – to the heart!
The film is, of course, the brilliant output of Gregory Peck, whom everyone knows from the legendary “Roman Holiday”. There he remains in the shadow of young Audrey Hepburn, but here he has no competition. And while I thought of Atticus Finch as very different, at least not as beautiful, Gregory Peck is absolutely amazing. He manages to convey on the screen the very essence of his hero - his sense of justice, his sense of dignity, his convictions. No wonder that Gregory Peck won the Oscar for this picture. I wish I could have given him two or three!
The plot of To Kill a Mockingbird is probably not very close to a foreign audience like me, but the story of the fight for the truth is always impressive if talentedly made. In addition, there are a number of other stories in the book and in the film - for example, about childhood, which everyone has in common, whether you live in Russia or in the States. And I want to say a big thank you to the actors-children who brought to the black and white, very simple filmed atmosphere of childhood.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a very vital, important, tender and sad story that will be clear to everyone, I think. No wonder this film became a classic across the ocean, and it’s a pity that few of us know him – as well as the book. It seems to me that both the novel itself and its adaptation would not interfere with the school curriculum. The ideals of Atticus Finch will never be out of date.
The painting is well known, as is the novel. This film is included in a large number of lists of the best and most interesting films. So I finally got to see it.
I didn’t read the book, so I think it was easier for me to read the movie than it was for those who read the book and then watched the movie. After all, when you read a book, the images of the characters (visual, for example) are already compiled in your head and, after that, it is quite difficult to perceive the images that are shown on the screen.
This movie is black and white. You watch these movies with a special feeling. Black and white paintings look very different today. You feel a special unique style, which is now (although sometimes they try) impossible to reproduce.
This film is an opportunity to look at life through the eyes of a child at a time when horses with wagons were still on the roads, and racial prejudices were still burning in the minds of many Americans. Perhaps this story is interesting precisely because such complex issues as morality and morality are transmitted to the viewer through the understanding of a little girl.
It's an interesting picture. And I must say that it is easy to watch, despite the very difficult problems that arise in it. The actors play very well. I especially liked the professionalism of the young actors. Yes, both the Oscar and the Golden Globe for Best Actor, which was awarded to Gregory Peck, for his role in this film, I also consider quite deserved.
Mockingbird is the most harmless bird, it only sings to our delight. Mockingbirds do not peck berries in the garden, do not nest in ovines, they only sing their songs for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird. - Harper Lee
USA, Alabama, the town of Maycombe, 1930s. The giant octopus of the Great Depression does not seem to disturb in any way the sluggish tranquility of the townspeople of this small district, who have drowned in a sea of suffocating heat and refreshing gossip: where everyone knows each other and knows everything about each other, every personal secret must grow into a bunch of false grotesqueness, which inevitably passes from word of mouth, each time changing and improving in its absurd brightness. People do not have to rush anywhere, and the day seems a few hours longer. They had nothing to fear: “Shortly before that Maycomb County was told that he had nothing to fear but fear.”
Atticus Finch is a middle-aged widower, exemplary father of two, local lawyer, gallant and fair. Jem and Scout are children of Atticus, restless tomboys and brawlers. Jam is a brave 10-year-old boy, a leader. Scout is a 6-year-old “boy” with big and curious eyes. Dill is the same age as Scout, a fervent daredevil who comes with his mother to Maycomb for the summer holidays. Boo Radley is a monster living across two houses, eating raw cats and squirrels, chewing them with yellow, rotten teeth, and at night with his bulging eyes peeks through the windows of sleeping children (but, unfortunately, none of them have yet seen him). Tom Robinson is a young black man accused of rape.
The courtroom is full of motley common people: there is not so much entertainment in Maycombe to miss the odious trial of a black villain who allowed himself to encroach on the honor of a poor white girl. Was it really as the victim claimed? None of the white men doubt this except Atticus Finch, the defender of the accused African-American. The lawyer's arguments about Mr. Robinson's innocence are weighty and concrete. Tom wouldn't be able to grab a healthy woman and abuse her in any way because he's half disabled and can only move one hand. There was no medical examination to confirm the rape. The only witness to the “crime” was the girl’s father, Bob Ewell, who liked to get drunk and did not seem to be a decent person. In addition, the testimony of the father and daughter is slightly different. Atticus logically and consistently tries to convince the jury that the incident was not caused by Tom, but just the opposite, Miss Ewell, who filed a lawsuit to get rid of who caused her shame. But the power of the social stereotype is not easy to overcome, and most remain deaf to the language of all arguments except the skin color argument.
The court scene is justifiably long and interesting, especially for the children of Atticus, who were lucky enough to slip onto a balcony reserved for dark-skinned spectators. The model of the then American society appears in all its glory and power. In order to be sentenced to death or to many years of imprisonment, it was enough to be born with a dark pigmentation of the epithelium. Becoming an African-American lawyer meant condemning the public. Although slavery was abolished a half-century ago, racial segregation often resulted in violent massacres of blacks without trial; lynching was a common and common practice. Atticus explains to the children why he protects a man who is hated by all the people of Maycomb: otherwise he "couldn't hold his head high and forbid them (Jem and Scout) to do anything." The integral and idealized image of Atticus Finch gradually reaches the level of personalized justice, which is designed to resolve conflicts between law and morality, duty and responsibility, truth and stereotype.
Another personification develops in line with the second storyline, the windings of which run around the Radley house and surround it with a mystically mysterious haze. In the spirit of the best Tomsoyer traditions, Jem, Scout and Dill are amused by trying to lure the mysterious Boo out of the house in various ways (the name, apparently, is not accidentally associated with an exclamation in English, which is used to unexpectedly frighten someone). The rich and vulnerable imagination of children paints a variety of versions of what a crazy recluse should look like, which was terrifying even to adults. The allegorical figure of Boo Radley crystallizes in the scene of a children’s journey through the woods and finally in the sheriff’s refusal to open a trial on the fact of murder, because the attacker “fell on his own knife.”
The shy eccentric Boo Radley, like the African-American Tom Robinson, is a victim of universal bullying, which inevitably spreads where a talisman appears in the icy monolith of social prejudice. And every Atticus Finch who dares to melt the ice by talking about justice or something like that will pay dearly. It takes a lot of courage to be able to warn people not to kill mockingbirds.
The film “To Kill a Mockingbird” is included in all sorts of charts and lists according to American critics and viewers, this is the “Hundred Best Pictures in the History of U.S. Cinema”, this is the “Best Ten Pictures by Genres”, and the main character – lawyer Atticus Finch performed by Gregory Peck is generally called the most positive character in history, and the actor himself said that Atticus Finch is his best role. Well, despite the "age" of the film, he should have seen what he did.
The film tells about the family of a widower-lawyer, single-handedly raising two children. They live in a small provincial town, but it is there that an unprecedented crime occurs - a poor African-American man is accused of raping a young white woman. The resonance is catastrophic, the guy is threatened almost by the court of Lynch, but Atticus Finch decides to defend the African American in court. Through misunderstanding and aggression from neighbors, Finch continues to work painstakingly on the case, while finding support from his children, Glazastika and Jem. This will not be the last thing to do.
Atticus Finch, indeed, from all sides is a positive, kind, responsive, purposeful, wise and intelligent person, he loves all of humanity, shows special touching care to children, teaching them how to be human, he loves his craft and is ready to work on it, despite the color of his skin. The time shown in the film was still filled with the spirit of racism, so for the residents of the town, the African-American Tom Robinson is undoubtedly to blame. But on the other hand, we are provided with the obverse of the medal – with confidence in the infallibility of the white race, its representatives can be much worse, angrier and more cruel. Atticus Finch does not make a career in a high-profile case, he protects someone he believes is innocent, but this defense exposes the actions of white people that they become ashamed of.
Assuming Gregory Peck played really well, I would like to mention the young actors who played his children - Mary Badam (Glasastick) and Phillip Alford (Jam). Mischievous (and what other children are there?), who, while Atticus (they call him by his name) is engaged in litigation, find themselves engaged, they are very nice to each other, support and swear, but they have so bravo turned out a realistic duo of brother and sister that even look at them to the touch, and Glazvastic is generally a dream to have such a wonderful sister (not for nothing Mary Badam received a nomination in the category “Best Supporting Actress”, at such a young age it costs a lot!). Brock Peters played the accused Tom Robinson. Such a performance, emotional, expressive, frank, sensual, which can bring to tears, I have never seen, this guy wanted to help so much that his hands in fists were gathering from impotence – that’s how you believe Peters’ game.
The mockingbird is a metaphor, and Atticus Finch tells his children why his father forbade him to kill him, because it is a sin, this bird carries joy and sincerity, it helps a person. Killing a mockingbird means in the picture the fall of all moral foundations, the destruction of all the rules of society, when even scoundrels are recognized as right because of their skin color. In this film, there is one character who everyone fears for his ugliness and unsociableness - Scarecrow (Robert Duvall), so even he is much better than some of the residents of the town, so to speak, who have power in him.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” is one of the best films about the mystery of “one-story America”, about his inner cruel world, despite the outward pacification and openness. The film makes you think about your moral behavior, and as the ideal of a good person you can take Atticus Finch, but how many of us like him? . .
The first was a book. A wonderful book, giving not only a pleasantly spent hours, but also a new thought in my developing consciousness. Harper Lee managed to raise the problem of racial prejudice, not acting as a fierce and harsh accuser of conservative laws of society, but simply telling a life story as it is.
In court, more than anywhere else, a man must be treated with justice, whatever the color of his skin, but men manage to bring with them to the jury all their prejudices. As you get older, you’ll see more and more white people cheating on black people every day. But I'll tell you this, son, and remember this: if a white man does this to a black man, whoever that white man is, however rich he is, whatever good family he comes from, he's still a scumbag.
It’s hard to say what I expected from the movie. There was a fear that the pictures that had already formed in my mind after reading, would not coincide with the visions of the director. But I was wrong. The atmosphere, the heroes, the town itself and even the courthouse – everything is exactly as I imagined. And, I must say, it is a great merit of the filmmaker. For not to spoil the work of the writer, but to fill it up and present it correctly is a real art!
Only positive impressions remained from the picture. It is unobtrusive, interesting in its own way and, most importantly, instructive. The image of Atticus is central; it seems to contain all the most positive qualities that can be found. Gregory Pack perfectly coped with the role, embodying a loving father, and an excellent lawyer, and just a person who is head ahead of his time. Separately, I want to highlight the soundtrack. The music of Elmer Bernstein perfectly emphasizes all the most exciting moments in the lives of the characters. The melody and events unfolding in front of the viewer are a single inseparable whole.
I didn't get the highest grade. Embarrassed too long scenes, which, in my opinion, can be significantly reduced and give the film dynamism, as well as a dubious image. She was the only character I didn’t like. Not convinced by the game or maybe the actress herself - I can not say for sure. But in my subjective perception, it's a spoonful of tar in a barrel of honey.
I recommend the film to all lovers of quality cinema, with a good plot and important issues. Two hours of painting will not be wasted.
Based on the novel by American writer Harper Lee, director Robert Mulligan shot an amazing film in every sense and relationship “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Performed in a black and white palette, to the phenomenal play of not only Gregory Peck, but also Brock Peters, the movie is not something that cannot go unnoticed, it reliably settles in the soul and in the corners of memory. Such a movie is not forgotten as a medicine for the soul, the most suitable remedy!
Lawyer Atticus Finch alone raises two children, a boy Jim and a girl whom he calls Glazastika. She may not have as big eyes as her father calls her, but it wasn't that I wasn't annoyed by the name, it was that I was very tender. Moreover, it is something very Russian, understandable and close to us. Soft and intelligent Atticus shows how to raise children. Not many women can boast of such education, frankly. This is despite the fact that he is a man with a strong inner core. I was not at all confused by the slow narration of the picture, not confused or bowed to sleep. Watching the actions of the father of the family and these lovely and wonderful children was a pleasure for me. Well, then, when the main event began to spin, when Atticus began to defend in court a negro who was accused of raping one woman, I just stuck to the screen.
Race was a pressing issue for Americans at the time. And they protested with these paintings, in which they put their soul. And the urge of the soul from one heart to another will surely come. When you watch Gregory Peck's hero speak in court, when he interrogates the person he's protecting, namely Tom, a black man, you experience strong emotions that border on shock. In my purely amateurish view, this is one of the strongest scenes in the history of cinema.
I definitely recommend and recommend this picture. I think she'll make you feel like mine. And if this happens, then it is not for nothing that cinema exists as an art form and therefore people write reviews about films and share their innermost thoughts.
Back in 1962, the authors of the film managed what modern filmmakers can not do today, having multi-million budgets and computer technology.
Firstly, the film is staged according to all the rules of dramaturgy. There is a clear premise in the story: social prejudice leads to injustice. The story begins with a carefully selected starting point - a turning point in the lives of almost all the characters - accusing a Negro of raping a white girl. And this is not just an accusation of crime, this is a landmark process of white civilization over the stripped and so & #39; easy & #39; freed from the hands of Lincoln Negroes. For a lawyer it is a matter of honor and faith in justice, for prosecutors it is a matter of reputation and self-justification, for the accused it is a matter of life and death, for the children of lawyer Finch - but this must be said separately. We are introduced to the heroes of history, and we are already from the first minutes of viewing deeply immersed in the exposition of their lives. Three-dimensional motivated characters and beautiful orchestration of characters capture the viewer, and the convincing unity of opposites of characters woven into the conflict suggest that the confrontation will be acute, because for each hero something really very important is at stake, and there can be no reconciliation.
The story is told from the mouth of the little girl Scout, who remained with her brother Jim after the death of her mother in the care of her father - the respected gentleman Atikus Finch. Because of his intelligence, Mr. Finch does not accept violence and rudeness, he is deeply convinced that the law and the truthful word can do more. However, the intellect and universal adoration for his father do not inspire Jim, who wants to see Aticus as a role model - strong courageous and tough. Scout, on the other hand, admires his father, but resists turning from a pugnacious kid into a lady, as demanded by the social order and Aticus himself. In this cunning plexus of the eternal theme ' fathers and children, personality and society' the author laid another no less exciting, but, I assure you, not the last conflict.
The second storyline in the film is the story of the Scarecrow. Turned for most of the townspeople in ' psychopathic monster' he, becoming an outcast for society, is forced to hide in his house. He secretly leaves for the guys ' valuable ' trinkets in the hollow of a tree and thus communicates with them. We begin to understand that the fearsome is not as terrible as the imagination of the children painted him, rather he is a victim of mental illness and general bullying. Only through acquaintance with his final feat comes the realization that in fact the Scarecrow is as unjustly convicted as the Negro Tom, and that he should not count on the understanding and impartiality of the majority.
The narrative is not overloaded with dialogue, the characters say and do exactly what their characters, motives and circumstances dictate to them, and not the whim of the writer. Actions and words naturally grow out of personalities, they are closely related to the main conflict and form a single whole with the plot. Individual scenes give rise to their own mini-conflict - crisis - climax and denouement. These background conflicts vividly reveal the images of the characters, and raise the narrative to a new higher stage of development. We observe living people, feel the atmosphere of that difficult time, breathe with the heroes, empathize, rejoice and sad with them.
Thanks to competent transitions, the conflict develops gradually, without leaps. Without letting go of the viewer’s attention for a long time, the director subtly feels the need of the audience, he gives us a little rest before the new round of events, and when the time comes for a new turning point, we are fully involved in what is happening on the screen. The growth of conflict and the inseparability of opposite characters leads the narrative to an acute crisis (the hearing of the case and the murder of the accused), an unexpected culmination (the attack on the children of Atikus) and a logical solution (the cover-up of the crime committed by the Scarecrow), confidently and effortlessly proving the premise of the work: racial and social prejudice inevitably lead to injustice, turning society into a crowd, making it blind, heartless and intolerant.
The story of the film is still relevant today. The problem of racial, national and social inequality in the light of modern events is no less acute than in the early twentieth century. The society is divided into 'whites ' and those who have to do all the dirty work for them. Wars break out in countries over the impunity of oligarchs, the failure of the judicial system to protect the rights of the common man, and the world watches with shudder as Nazism and fascism, financed in the interests of individuals (countries), rise up under the cover of just protest.
The deep meaning of social inequality, good and evil, truth and lies, we understand through the eyes of a child. Isn’t that why the problems raised by the author seem so big and heartwarming?
Will Aticus Finch confront public opinion, and will he overcome the bias of the jury; how will his conflict with the prosecutor end; will he retain faith in justice; will he be able to gain authority from his son and become an example for him; what is more important than justice or law; and in the end, what does it really mean ' to kill a mockingbird' ?
You’ll find out if you watch this wonderful movie!
I watched the movie almost immediately after reading the book. Very often disappointed in films made from books, as directors often moved away from the plot or brought their storylines into the picture. I was pleasantly surprised that this film was made very well. The truth of the action was a bit crumpled at first, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying the film.
Most of all, I liked the selection of actors, I can’t even imagine anyone else in the place of these characters. Atticus . . . is exactly how he appeared, a kind, decent man. And the actor who played Bob Ewell, colorfully shows the essence of the hero.
I really like the relationship with Atticus, the way he raises his children. This is what a real father should be like.
10 out of 10