As a child, the most difficult thing is growing up, when you discover the world in a new way. If at an earlier age we saw the people around us and the world in general as ideal, filled with kindness and light, then over time we discovered human evil, injustice and other sins. In such moments, it is important not to lose the ability to see the brightest and warmest in everything dark, that is, it is important not to kill the very mockingbird that can live in the soul of any, even the most mysterious person. This is the idea laid down in the cult picture based on the novel of the stunning writer Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird”.
Synopsis 1930s USA, a small town in Alabama, where the full force of racial prejudice. The Great Depression is in full swing. Lawyer Atticus Finch, who lost his wife several years ago, raises two children in an atmosphere of kindness, instilling in them a sense of justice and universal equality. Meanwhile, he is appointed defense counsel in the trial of a black man accused of raping and beating a young white woman. The children of Atticus, who have nothing to do with this case, with the help of him will have to discover new boundaries of the world.
Game of actors The film involved just a stunning cast, which perfectly complemented the already kind and pretty atmosphere. Gregory Peck played the main protagonist of the film, embodying the image of the ideal father on the screen, who represents not just a wise man for children and the world around him, but a real mentor who will always be faithful and devoted to the principles of justice and equality. Especially impressed with the role of children Atticus Atticus and Jem, which were performed by Mary Badam and Philip Alford, whose characters in everything try to follow the advice of his father. Of course, there was an unforgettable tiny, but no less significant role of Scarecrow Radley, which was performed by the then young actor Robert Duvall.
"To Kill a Mockingbird" is a successful symbiosis of several genres at once - family drama, crime drama, detective and philosophical drama. Director Robert Mulligan, who shot this masterpiece, embodied on the screen a non-children’s movie about children’s life, i.e. this picture is clearly not for children, because they simply do not understand it. However, the film is ideal for an adult audience, as the director pays much attention to such problems as racial prejudice, hermitage, betrayal. Through children, the director shows us the world as it is, without any unnecessary masks and scenery. This is the main merit of the director.
Scenario The film also pleased me as an adaptation of the book, as screenwriter Horton Foot not only successfully conveyed the content of the book, but also its main meaning. Personally, I read the book a couple of years ago and was pleasantly surprised by the novel, immediately putting it on my list of my favorite books. According to the details of the plot of the film, I especially liked how the screenwriter embodied the image of children on the screen. If during reading, they appeared as stupid children, then in the film they were already forming personalities. In general, the picture conveyed the same deep philosophical meaning, leaving a pleasant impression.
Soundtrack Composer Elmer Bernstein wrote something masterpiece for the film, which undoubtedly creates a unique atmosphere that combines serious family drama and a children's adventure fairy tale. Music keeps you in suspense, but not as in a thriller, but as in just a good movie, in which you care about the fate of the main characters, their future fate.
Result From the very moment of the initial credits, which already inspired something unusual, it became clear that you are waiting for something profound, over which you will definitely think. To Kill a Mockingbird was such a picture. There is something else in the film, namely the sincerity and warmth that it will definitely give to the audience when watching.
10 out of 10
I saw this movie many years ago and it is not in my memory. Revisiting again, I understood why – it is sugary in the spirit of Soviet propaganda films and very superficial. A banal film story with a good story. There is nothing in it that I would like to remember that would excite. I looked at it and forgot it.
The subject of racism is poorly revealed, somehow smeared, especially in comparison with the movie Midnight Heat. The film is spatially limited. It felt like he was all in the pavilion. I didn’t like either the main character or the actor who played him (although I really appreciate Gregory Peck). Atticus Finch loses in all respects to his film predecessor Paul Bigler.
In summary, the film is not for all time and clearly does not deserve the place where it is in the history of cinema.
7 out of 10
USA, 30s of XX century. The small provincial town of Maycombe in the south in Alabama. Fictional, of course, but has a very real prototype in many parts of this country. It looks like Elizabeth Gaskell, the equally defunct English town of Cranford. While Maycombe may not be as stiff as Cranford, its residents are also very conservative and greedy for information, especially concerning the private lives of its inhabitants. Everyone knows each other, and although class differences are not so strong, any, even a minor incident in the life of one person, immediately becomes public.
Approximately in this situation, the heroine of the novel Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird” grows a little girl Gene Louise Finch, respectively, and the main character of the most famous film adaptation of the same name in 1962. She understands the world and looks at it with her in many ways naive childish look. Throughout the film, as well as the novel, she learns to live in this cruel world, to make moral choices, to confront the concept of social inequality, the strength and depth of social prejudice. Her brother Jim is older and more experienced, and therefore he is more painfully aware of the injustice and falsehood that he observes near him, he suffers from the sudden realization of how imperfect this world is.
The novel, like the film, is valuable for its multifaceted character. Children’s eyes show us the most important moral problems of human society, for, which is already an axiom, “truth speaks through the mouth of the infant.” And so the issue of racial discrimination is only a small part of the themes that are raised in the novel and the film, it's just what lies on the surface. For me, the story of the Finch family is, above all, the story of a beautiful father who, despite all the hardships of life, raises his children not with a rod and intimidation, but with love and personal example. Is it easy to raise heterosexual children 12 and 7 years old as a widower and having a public job as a lawyer? He does not respond with insult to insults (and is there dishonor worse than spitting in the face in front of witnesses?), he does not fear public condemnation when, contrary to the opinion of the majority, he undertakes to defend the accused, of whose innocence he is convinced. How could I look my children in the eye if I refused? he explains his position to his brother.
When I saw Atticus Finch playing Gregory Peck, I was a little confused. For me, the image of this actor was associated primarily with the charming journalist from W. Wyler’s masterpiece “Roman Holiday”. According to the novel "Atticus Finch" (as his children would say) a man of 50 years. But Gregory Peck is truly a global talent. Touchingly and very caringly, his hero communicated with his children (he really liked the moment when, tired after a hard day’s work, he carefully talked with his daughter sitting on his lap), steadfastly and without malice endured misfortune and injustice, libels and ill-willed attitude. The image was complete and very sincere!
Oh, if all children living today had such right parents, if modern society did not show prejudice to the appearance, material status and religious affiliation of a person! The problems posed by the novel and the film are still relevant and need to be addressed. And it would be just fine if someone, after reading the novel, watching the film, once again think about it. Is this not the creative power of art?
I wonder what’s in the movie, what’s in the book. How did the jury live after the innocent was convicted? Did you sleep well and have nightmares? Because they knew Tom was innocent. Everyone knew, but I don't care. Atticus has an iron grip. When this ghoul spit in his face... I wouldn’t have held back, very strong scene, very.
The film turned out no worse than the book, albeit smooth, in the spirit of the era of filming. Some fragments were cut, but it is a pity that the school scenes were strong and in their own way necessary to reveal the characters of the children. But in general, we managed to maintain the atmosphere and style of the book, which, of course, I really liked. Great movie. Still, there must be something that can teach good and eternal concepts, especially in an age when people like to gnaw at everyone for being different. On the other hand, it means that the story has not lost relevance. I'd show it to my kids when I was 10-11. The book would have been read by then, too.
Debt to others, if you realize it, is a thing you can't delegate to anyone else.
Small cities always seem to be outside of time and space. Whether it is the fictional Maycomb of the 30s of the twentieth century in a real Alabama, or the most that neither is a real Kurtamish, on the border of modern Russia with Kazakhstan, they all share a leisurely rhythm of life and a number of unwritten, but no less important rules, the most important of which is: live like everyone else. Everyone doesn’t like red, and don’t like red. You can’t even think of blue and pink, and don’t think about it. Well, if you're black, you're guilty anyway, just by birth. And tens or even hundreds of thousands of people live and raise children, because this is the order. But what if the rule is wrong? What if the order is dishonest? What are you going to do?
Atticus Finch, a respected lawyer in Maycombe, voluntarily takes on the case of Tom Robinson, a black American accused of raping a white girl. Rape did not and could not have happened (Tom Robinson is disabled), but society has already passed its verdict - a white girl and her father can't lie! The hero of Gregory Peck goes against public opinion, against established morality, he risks the lives of his two young children for the sake of such “stupid” for many things as “justice”. Atticus is not a superman, he does not know how to paralyze his eyes and throw lightning, but he knows that if he does not protect Tom Robinson, no one will do it. Just nobody. There are many memorable scenes in the film, but the episode when Finch sits with a rifle near the city prison building and waits for a dozen, generally good and honest citizens, to come kill his client. After all, we constantly meet in our lives people who do not hesitate to believe that public opinion can not be mistaken. But hardly a thousand of them is his Atticus Finch.
We can talk a lot about this movie. But it’s better to look and see for yourself that children can play better than adults, Gregory Peck fits perfectly into the image, and Robert Duvall plays perhaps the most unusual role in his life. Even better, read the book after watching the movie. Be sure it is worth it.
The novel by the American writer Harper Lee, who deservedly received the “Purice Prize”, I began to read from an early age. At the age of 13, I wasn’t particularly interested in the father-son relationship or the Aticus storyline, and I was more interested in the children’s story. At the age of 16, the story of children was no longer of interest to me, but the plot lines with Aticus I constantly read, especially when he was defending a black man. Having recently reread the novel, I realized how great, unusual, touching and warm it is. The film struck me as much as the novel. For me, this is not just a well-filmed movie. It is something personal, something reminiscent of childhood, of growing up, of the fact that childhood is not eternal and one day will have to grow up.
The image of Atikus Finch is conveyed very reliably. This is what every father should be: strong, courageous, patient and, above all, just. The character of Atikus is revealed as the plot unfolds. At first he appears before us as a very polite person, then I want to note the amazing scene where the children remember their mother, and Aticus, sitting on the veranda, hears and tries to hold back tears. This proves that Aticus is a strong man. Then comes the scene where he, despite the fact that he alone has to raise two children and even more to protect a black man, because in those days blacks had less rights and they were not considered human. But Aticus took up this “black” case because he was not afraid of difficulties and, probably, although he knew that he would fail, he believed in the innocence of this man.
It is also worth remembering the moment when Aticus agreed to guard the Negro. This was a real risk, because the embittered residents were ready to tear everyone who would interfere with them, but Aticus, knowing what he had to go through, still guarded and did not let anyone pass.
I won’t talk about the scene in court. It's very well shot, almost literally. In it, Aticus showed himself as a real specialist. Despite all his arguments, the case, alas, does not end as well as I wanted.
But the most important scene that proves once again that Aticus is the model of a real man is the spit in the face. Would you be able to restrain yourself after some idiot, knowing his guilt, spits in the face?
"You can't know a man without being in his shoes"
Acting work is just great. Gregory Peck - played the best role in his career. His Oscar is more than deserved.
The children, despite being children, played well. You can only see how they play.
Your father is right, Ms. Modi said. 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 is why killing a mockingbird is a sin.
If it weren’t for a couple of famous movies, To Kill a Mockingbird, I would probably call it the best movie of the 20th century. It has everything. It should be watched not only by children, but also by adults, especially adults. This film teaches you how to properly raise a child. I am very annoyed that this film is ranked 204th in the Top. It’s not as bad as the Dark Knight or something like that.
For me, this film is something special, something unlike the others.
This film holds a special place in my heart. This film makes me cry tears of joy and sadness. These films are no longer made.
Definitely a masterpiece
10 out of 10
PS:
The fear was our neighbor. He gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch with a chain, two pennies for good fortune, and he gave us life. But you give your neighbors a gift. And we only took from the hollow and never put anything there, we did not give him anything, and it is very sad.
I read Harper Lee in high school. I remember all the details of the novel. I was impressed by the fact that the main roles were children, their interaction with the outside world, the world of adults. It makes no sense to tell the plot, everyone knows it by heart, but I will write a couple of thoughts that arose when watching.
First, the film is completely based on the book, the same dialogues, situations. And that, at least, is not disappointing. Secondly, few people will read Mockingbird with children, discuss details, and create a home viewing of a film with opinions is easier and very important. A measured black-and-white picture (as if shot to enhance the contrast of the racial problem) will leave a mark on children’s hearts. It will show where, who is right / wrong, how to behave with your father, relates to your brother to your sister and vice versa, loving to tease your neighbor, lie, do good, etc.
The only thing that is embarrassing is that Atticus is the perfect man and father. Watching the picture with the children, can I be equal with him?
To begin with, every opinion has a right to exist. And I'll say I didn't like it. I think it's a weak adaptation. I love this book, and I wanted to see a movie based on its pages. I didn’t expect to be disappointed.
Only by the end of the movie at least a little rehabilitated for me.
Oh, by the way, did you know that on the AFI list of movie heroes, lawyer Finch takes the honorable first place? Cool if you knew. So the film, it seemed to me, was built around Atticus and the focus was on it. Reading the book, this hero seems to be just as good, but the matter does not dwell on him alone. The book is much more diverse and fascinating. Perhaps because the narrative is conducted on behalf of a little girl Glazastika, watching everything that happens around.
I probably didn’t like the choice of an actress for the role of this little girl. Well, not so sluggish, not bright and calm Jean Louise! In fact, this is a militant little tomboy girl who sticks her nose in all things, because of her interest and desire to know this world as soon as possible. The little actress is a very beautiful girl, but not for this role. But her brother, Josh, or rather the performer of this role, in my opinion, has done his job best.
Surprisingly, many interesting scenes were removed from the film or shown quickly. The scenes are inexpediently cut, and many are filmed a little clumsily. And the topics of the book are almost not disclosed, not even expanded.
At first I wanted to write a negative review, but still changed my mind. You can watch the movie, and for someone who hasn’t read it, it may seem quite interesting. But my advice is to read the book, it is worth it.
Filmed in 1962, it is black and white, which does not detract from its merits. In general, the film fully reflects the plot of the book, the main event canvas. But some episodes are missing, episodes that seem to me to be key in revealing characters (Glassic's first day at school - her conversation with her teacher, reading Jim's books with Mrs. Duboz, going to church with Calpurnia, a fire at Ms. Modi's house, a trip to the Wharf to Atticus' sister, scenes with costumes and live paintings at school, children's games in Scarecrow Radley). The scene with the arrival of Dill after the escape from the house is blurred, and if you do not know this from the book, then the plot of the film is unclear. But anyway, all the events of the book can not fit into one film. But, importantly, the film does not include Alexandra, Atticus’ sister. And her image is very important for understanding the character of children, it is important to know the role that she played in their lives. There are no tea-drinking scenes of the respected ladies of the city in Finch’s house, which is important, since at such moments the feminine nature awakens in Glazastika (a little bent, I mean that at such moments she understands that she is a girl and should wear dresses and she begins to like it).
Gregory Peck perfectly embodied the image of Atticus Finch - a whole strong-willed personality, unflappable, honest, kind and fair man. He knows how to explain any thing or situation in an accessible language, knows how to interest children in a subject that seems uninteresting or unimportant to them. Atticus speaks to children as equals, without discounting their age. He is a born lawyer and a caring father. Refusing to participate in children's fun, Atticus cites being too old and children used to treat him a little condescendingly. But their pride in their father soars to the skies after an episode with a mad dog when they learn that he was gaining fame as a sharp shooter. And how inspired his speech in defense of the black man.
The image of the Glacier performed by Mary Badham seemed to me somewhat blurred, much less vivid than in the book. The film incarnation lacks the energy, liveliness, excitement of the book Glacier. It resembles a shy whimpering girl, not a tomboy ready for dangerous adventures.
Philip Alford's role of Jim is not quite appropriate either.
Perhaps I am subjectively out of proportion and the whole thing is that I did not imagine them in the book.
Maela is even more disgusted than in the book. Her brazen and vile lodge is sewn with white threads, many understand this, but, alas, in this world the word black is an empty sound against the word white.
Brock Peters portrayed Tom Robinson amazingly. His facial expressions, movements, speech - all surprisingly accurately reproduces Tom from the book.
I want to note the realism of the scene of the trial of Tom Robinson and the scene of Ewell’s attack on Jim and Glazastika (shown exactly as Glazastika described it in the book).
Music sometimes does not quite correspond to the moment and is too simple (but this is for a sophisticated audience of the 21st century).
The voice of the narrator (adult Eyeball) pleased, he appears to the place, always on time.
The plot reveals the main problem of the 30s of the last century: the lack of rights of blacks, despite their liberation. Giving freedom to a person is not as difficult as freeing the mind from prejudice. In fact, if the Negro is accused of a crime, he will be convicted, even if everyone understands that the charges are far-fetched and frankly concocted. The trial is a clear example of this. But there is a hope that this order will change, because the jury conferred a long time, although it usually takes two minutes.
The film’s excellent basic idea makes it certainly interesting in our time, when most of us can’t even clearly imagine the realities of racial inequality in the United States. In fact, it is very difficult in our relatively democratic times to imagine such cruelty of people to their kind. Personally, I have always been interested in such films that highlight such problems, their possible solutions, a kind of confrontation between justice and racism, especially from the point of view of justice.
The film perfectly illuminates the relationship between white and black people, the basics of adherence to the professional principles of the lawyer and the judge in such cases, the principles of the sheriff, who finally admitted the innocence of Tom Robinson and departed from the principles inherent in his work.
There is also a slight gradual change in the categorical attitude towards blacks as exclusively slaves. This is especially clear in the actions of the judge who dissolved the jury, who made an unlawful and absolutely inadequate decision.
What is particularly striking is that in the film, justice is clearly linked to payback, which makes the storyline that is the main one in the film quite good. Yes, this moment lasts a couple of minutes, a few shots, but how welcome the behavior of the sheriff in this case (!). Yes, he did wrong by the standards of the profession, but by the standards of ordinary people it was the right, morally correct decision. Otherwise, the trial of that self-defense would lead to another ruined life, which is already ruined by a mental state.
However, I want to note some of the drawbacks of the film.
In my opinion, in general, the film is a bit confused in that there are some moments that drag it on, and those that lack development, which remain unsaid and undisclosed. Here we should note the storyline of the detective story, which could be more developed. It would be nice to intrigue the viewer at the beginning of the film with shots that would cover the crime, but preserve the unknown face of the perpetrator. In addition, in my opinion, the film lacks moments of investigation (at least a few), including the fact of medical examination of the victim. However, it either remained behind the scenes, or it really turned out only in the courtroom.
I absolutely did not like the hearing, as the witnesses were not asked all the key questions; all the witnesses were simultaneously in the courtroom and interrogated in the presence of each other (perhaps this was the case before, but in any case it excludes the veracity of the testimony). )
The lawyer’s final speech during the trial by the jury gives about 30% of the sentence, it should cause emotions, tears. I didn't. Yes, according to the plot, the verdict was supposed to be guilty, not because of the speech of the lawyer or the lack of proof of Tom Robinson's innocence, but because of the presence of racial prejudice. What can be expected of a white jury against a black defendant? Especially in this case, the speech of the lawyer had to be more emotional in order to clearly show these prejudices, to show why the jury was dissolved.
I didn't really like Gregory Peck's character: either he didn't finish it, or he wasn't quite conceived right. Yes, a lawyer must control his emotions and express complete calm in the courtroom and in resolving other issues in the case, but he was very phlegmatic. Well, there are no such lawyers in life.
Arthur Radley turned out to be too mysterious, although perhaps this is for the best - leaves the field for reflection on his image.
At the beginning of the film, I did not like the strong attention of children, however, it gave some liveliness to the film, in addition, with the help of such moments at the right time, the main storyline is partially illuminated, they are almost always timely and in the end not at all superfluous. But at the same time, perhaps it would be better to omit such moments a little and more detailed to show the plot detective line.
Nevertheless, despite such disadvantages, the film turned out to be very good and interesting, and in principle, looks in one breath. It is absolutely not boring and makes you think about the criticality of the problem of white and black, the problem of justice and retribution.
The film left a positive impression from the point of view of the idea and ambiguous from the point of view of its production.
In the end, for the love of the genre and the idea:
This is perhaps the best adaptation of a literary work I have ever seen. The film is a great addition to the book.
Yes, this film is largely about racism. Gregory Peck said in an interview that such a story is familiar to any American, no matter where he grew up - in a metropolis or in a small town. Yes, at first glance, this situation is not so close to us, but, on the other hand, the film concerns not only the infringement of the rights of blacks. You can look at it from the other side. How often people humiliate, turn away from other people just because they are different from them, something different from the majority. A similar story happened with Scarecrow Radley, and, accordingly, with the convicted Tom Robinson. To kill a mockingbird, that is, to kill or humiliate an innocent person, is one of the most terrible sins. This is what the movie is about.
This is a very good story about what is really important in a person - justice, lack of hypocrisy, honesty. All these qualities are embodied in Atticus Finch, and later developed in his children - Scout and Jim. Gregory Peck did a great job, so it’s no wonder he won an Oscar. The kids played great, too. In general, it is quite difficult to meet small actors who do not overplay, but there is no such thing. Everything is very sincere and harmonious. Great.
I think it's a masterpiece. And everyone needs to watch.
From the very beginning of the film, the atmosphere in which the Finch family lived, namely the children, is very accurately conveyed. Simple swings, uncomplicated ideas and amazing fantasies are all their world, in which we immerse ourselves for two hours. Glazastik and Jim learn for the first time about rich and poor people, about interracial conflicts. It is the first time they have seen human hatred and anger.
Atticus Finch is a lawyer appointed to defend an African-American man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Plays in this film the image of a teacher, designed to teach their children and the viewer of justice and honesty with their right actions.
We all know this and have been taught this. Between people with black skin and white skin there is no difference in the legal concept, etc. But this film makes you look at this problem again, thanks to the wonderful work of the cast. Undoubtedly, Gregory Peck’s best performance, which showed the most accurate role of a caring father and a fair lawyer.
10 out of 10
1926: Harper Lee is born. 1960: her bulletproof novel appears. 1962: The film of the same name is released. Subsequently: the book is considered one of the best in the twentieth century, the film is recognized as a magnificent adaptation, and its central character is a direct competitor of Jesus.
If you’ve read one Harper Lee book, you’ve read them all. Inscribed in the annals of world literature, Lee experienced a certain experience in her childhood, which influenced the choice of a student specialty and served as a motivational catalyst for her first and last novel. Instead of Harper herself, the six-year-old heroine Scout, she is Glazastik; instead of her lawyer father, Atticus Finch, also a lawyer, also with children; instead of her childhood friend, the same Truman Capote, the funny boy-friend Dill; instead of a trial on the case of group violence against white girls by black men, the trial of a Negro who raped a farm daughter. Of course, something lay at the heart of the story about the unsociable neighbor, who was afraid of children, as they know how to fear only at their age. It is written that such a person was in Capote's memories. One way or another, Scout, her brother Jim, their single parent Atticus, black working man Tom Robinson, a poor man, and at the same time a scoundrel Robert Ewell and Arthur “Fear” Radley – these are all the key figures in this story. If you don’t know or forget about it.
Framed by a voice-over narrative of an adult woman, a children's adventure that other people do not experience and for their entire long life can be divided into two parts, each of which seemingly exists in its own parallel plane of events. In the finale, there will be an intersection of these plots, and there will be an inevitable, piercing, stringing human morality. The circle will close, the young heroes will have an unforgettable experience.
The case takes place in the southern United States in the 1930s. Racial segregation is on the move, unlynched Negroes of proforma are put on trial for their sake. The father of two living children, Mr. Finch, undertakes to protect one of these poor. Apparently slandered, in a white-white jury trial, black Tom has no chance of anything but a guilty verdict. Atticus Finch presents the evidence to the court, appeals to the ratio in a soulful closing speech, but logic is logic, and prejudices are not treated so quickly. Scout and Jim are witnesses to the trial, as well as other very unpleasant incidents that precede and follow the trial. They grow up overnight, and together with the experience comes to them the awareness of all the complexity, with its deprivations and injustices, of the surrounding world.
The trial is the core of the story, but not the only part of it, and perhaps not even the main one. Pulitzer with Oscars novel and its adaptation just so, of course, would not give. The line of children's misadventures in the backyard of Radley's neighbors and Jim's further finds of mysterious trinkets in a tree hollow - all this is intertwined with episodes typical of the genre of court drama, leading to a culmination that is unexpectedly regular.
Children’s roles in the film are bright: there are many episodes with them, they are quite natural, their characters are not boring. The story is conducted on behalf of Scout, and at first, which is true for the book, everything is not taken too seriously: girlish and boy pranks, the naive curiosity of her daughter, a small alienation of her son - youthful reading, a movie about children. But here Atticus Finch kills a mad dog, here society wants to kill a harmless Negro, here an angry farmer attempts a saint. The focus shifts towards the hero Peck, who played here at all the film awards of the planet, the children become witnesses to the boundless humanity of their father, the unobstructedness of his moral principles. In the finale, from the shadows, as Wells did before him in The Third Man, and after him Brando in Apocalypse Now, Robert Duvall in the image of Arthur Radley, one of the mockingbirds of our society.
Peace through the eyes of a child. Unplugged with surprise, indignation, fear and... endless pride for his father. Whatever your gender, race, and social status, live like Atticus Finch, raise your children like him, and then you are in harmony with yourself. And the rest will come.
And I mean not only the film, but also, of course, the book by the writer Harper Lee "To Kill a Mockingbird ...". This work, I will not be afraid of this word, is one of the best created for all time. An incredibly touching story of growing up children in conditions of racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, where there is still a place for mercy and kindness to each other. “To Kill a Mockingbird” – everyone should read and see, especially children, who should bring up only noble qualities promoted in the book and film.
The narrative is conducted on behalf of a small 8-year-old girl Jean-Louise, nicknamed Glazastika (in the original Scout). She has an older brother, Jim, with whom she spends the most time. Their father Atticus Finch is a lawyer, a widower. He loves his children very much and tries to make them grow up to be healthy citizens. It is interesting just to watch the measured life of Finch, the carefree games of children, their fun. But in the small town of Maycombe, where few events occurred, a tragedy occurred - a black man raped a young white girl, the case was entrusted to Atticus. There was a reason for gossip and Finch began to be called “defenders of niggers”. Life has come to an end.
There are many plot twists in the film, all the most important things were saved. There was almost no difference with the book. Almost all the main characters from the novel appeared on the screen. Glacier, Jim, Atticus, Dill, Calpurnia, Miss Modi, Scarecrow Radley - all these characters you have time to love and treat them as real people. Of course, I would recommend reading the book first, but only after you start watching the movie. But "To kill a mockingbird" wonderfully filmed, so the reading can be missed.
The actors are very well selected, the appearance and play I was very pleased. Of course, the main role still belongs to Gregory Peck, who embodied for us Atticus Finch. Stately, always impeccably polite, with a slight gray hair and with a tired smile - this is what Atticus appeared before us. Peck was not in vain given an Oscar for his work, he did not better play a caring parent and a faithful mentor. Mary Badham and Phillip Alford, as children, perfectly coped with their task and created true images of Glazastika and Jim.
Naturally, the most important symbol of the work is, judging by the name, the mockingbird. Killing a mockingbird is the worst sin, says Atticus. And in fact it is so – the bird does not touch anyone, does not spoil plants, does not harm people. There are two mockingbirds, Tom Robinson and Scarecrow Radley. Tom paid for his kindness - trying to help what he thought was a poor girl, he ran into trouble. He, an innocent man, was accused of rape. Scarecrow Radley considered the whole city a maniac, he was feared like fire. He did not leave his house, which made him even more mysterious. But as we can see, Radley was one of the kindest residents of Maycomb. He took care of Jim with the Glazastika, even if it was invisible to them. If Robinson was killed, the Scarecrow was left alone.
"To kill a mockingbird" teaches us to love our neighbor and to treat all people noblely and mercifully.
Conclusion: "To Kill a Mockingbird" is not for nothing considered one of the best films for the entire history of cinema. This is a movie that everyone should see. There's nothing more to say.
Thank you very much.
10 out of 10
P.S. And yet, read the book. I sincerely recommend it.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” is a film about a lawyer who adequately bears his burden of responsibility to family and society, since he manages to successfully combine the role of a single father for his minor children, and the role of a public defender in “resonant” cases, in fairness, without looking at the social stereotypes and prejudices prevailing in the white part of American society of the 60s.
I will not hide, my main motive for viewing this film was read enthusiastic reviews on the Kinopoisk like “ageless, eternal classics ...”, “makes an indelible impression ...”, “just brilliant!”, “Everyone should see this!” and so on, but the three Oscars are not a joke. So, I’m under-charged to get an intellectual, emotional, aesthetic pleasure out of a film that, as a great film lover, usually delivers intelligent, inspiring and profound cinema, regardless of its year of release. Looking ahead, I got it, but unfortunately only partially, not as much as I expected. You can talk for a long time about the reasons why this did not happen, but in my opinion, the main thing is not quite clear what the film is about. If it is about overcoming racial prejudices, then the role and place in this line of the main characters of the film - children - is not clear, since they do not directly participate in the judicial vicissitudes of the film and the struggle for the dignity and freedom of the black population. That's definitely not what the movie is about. Then what? Maybe prejudice at all? “You can’t know a person until you get into their skin” – perhaps, but then who in the movie “get into” someone’s skin? For me, that remained a question. A film about growing up, about changing the consciousness of a growing person, who is influenced by both surrounding events and the personal example of loving people. It’s all right, and it’s a good, bright, right idea, but in that case, why does the film show the trial of a black guy almost completely, in such detail?
The image of Atticus Finch raises even more questions for me. As far as I know, he is recognized as the most positive hero in cinema ever created. This is the most embarrassing thing, Atticus is an ideal person, but there are no such things! Perhaps it serves as a worthy role model, but in my opinion, it is too refined, sterile so that it becomes unrealistic. I understand perfectly well that Hollywood cinema of the 60s was built somewhat according to different laws than today, it was designed to provide a cultural and moral basis for the American nation, and at one time “To Kill a Mockingbird” coped with this lofty mission brilliantly, but I perceive it from the point of view of the modern audience, and I cannot help feeling that before me the product of social agitation, such as those abounded in Soviet cinema.
Having watched this film, which is undoubtedly a classic of world cinema, and having made up my own idea about it, I would not now share the enthusiastic and pathosy epithets expressed in his address. The film is interesting, worthy of attention, but in my opinion, it does not reach the depth that would elevate it to the rank of masterpieces.
Harper Lee’s best-selling book “To Kill a Mockingbird” is included in the list of books that any person must read throughout his life. This book is very interesting and read in one breath, and there is an endless number of wise phrases and quotes about the correct representation of the world around us, about human feelings, about human morality, about how lies take precedence over justice, about racial discrimination of blacks and about many other events and situations that are very often encountered in everyday life. Hollywood could not ignore this interesting novel and made the film in 1962. The one who read the book must necessarily watch a film that would compare two masterpieces - literary and cinematic.
The events in the film unfold during the great depression in the small town of Maycomb (Alabama), people here live a monotonous and ordinary life, every new day is almost like the past, even time here passes more slowly than it really is. Everyone knows where they live and what they do for a living. The main character of the film Atticus Finch is a lawyer and a single father who raises a son Jim and a daughter whom everyone in the family calls Glazastik. Mr. Finch is a well-educated and intelligent and well-mannered person and always strives to do his actions according to high moral canons. One day, the sheriff asked Atticus to defend the interests of black man Tom Robins in the trial of the rape of a young girl and Finch to agree. Tom's innocence can't be acquitted in court because of the color of the defendant's skin, but Atticus knows that his client is innocent, knowing he can't acquit Tom Robins of his innocence and the black man is executed. This is the real courage when you go to the end against everything, even knowing that you will lose.
The film also shows how Mr. Finch's children - Jim and the Eyeball - spend time. They play between themselves and Dill, who comes to Maycombe for the summer, goes to school, watches the neighbor's house in which the "Fear Radley" lives, which for years has hardly left the house. In the film, children’s eyes show the experiences and fears, joys and disappointments of children, relationships with their father, a nanny who lives with them after the death of their mother, with neighbors, situations that help them grow up and look at the world in a different way.
A bit about the actors:
Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) is a brilliant role of a high-moral and courageous person who always acts according to conscience. Peck managed to transfer the character from the book to the film without any changes in the character and actions of the lawyer. A very strong actor's performance.
Eyeballer Louise Finch (Mary Badham) and Jim Finch (Phillip Alford) – the children did not let down and played the role at a high level.
Scarecrow Radley (Robert Duvall) is one of the debut roles of the future famous actor, in the film there are a couple of minutes, but was able to recreate a man who was disappointed in life and closed in his own world.
Other actors were able to recreate the residents and the atmosphere of Maycomb in which you read in a book.
A bit about directing:
Robert Mulligan made his best film, and most importantly managed to recreate a small city with their inhabitants, the experiences that you will experience while reading the book, transfer the main aspects and events into the film.
Operating robot, script, music for the film all at the highest level.
A masterpiece of world cinema.