...They were taking him to Abbotsville for safekeeping. Tom broke loose and ran. The deputy called out to him to stop. Tom didn't stop. He shot at him to wound him and missed his aim. Killed him. The deputy says Tom just ran like a crazy man. The last thing I told him was not to lose heart, that we'd ask for an appeal. We had such a good chance. We had more than a good chance. I have to go out and tell his family. Would you look after the children, Maudie? (Three Screenplays. Horton Foote. Grove Weidenfeld, New York 1989. 71)
"They shot him, said Atticus. "He was running. It was during their exercise period. They said he just broke into a blind raving charge at the fence and started climbing over. Right in front of them—"
"Didn't they try to stop him? Didn't they gave him any warning?" Aunt Alexandra's voice shook.
"Oh yes, the guards called to him to stop. They fired a few shots in the air, then to kill. They got him just as he went over the fence. They said if he'd had two good arms he'd have made it, he was moving that fast. Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much. Cal, I want you to come with and help me tell Helen."
"Yes sir," she murmured, fumbling at her apron. Miss Maudie went to Calpurnia and untied it.
"This is the last straw, Atticus," Aunt Alexandra said.
"Depends on how you look at it," he said. "What was one Negro, more or less, among two hundred of 'em? He wasn't Tom to them, he was an escaping prisoner."
Atticus leaned against the refrigerator, pushed up his glasses, and rubbed his eyes. "We had such a good chance," he said. "I told him what I thought, but I couldn't in truth say that we'd had more than a good chance. I guess Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own. Ready, Cal?" (315)
How could this be so, I wondered as I read Mr. Underwood's editorial. Senseless killing—Tom had been given due process of law to the day of his death; he had been tried openly and convicted by twelve good men and true; my father had fought for him all the way. Then Mr. Underwood's meaning became clear: Atticus had used every tool available to free men to save Tom Robinson, but in the secret courts of men's hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell had opened her mouth and screamed. (323)
It is the failure of all Harper Lee's characters to imagine a larger, reformative social vision that haunts the Maycomb otherwise so lovingly evoked in its quaintness, gentility, and rural quietude. Believing in the transcendent power of law, Atticus is nevertheless forced to conclude that the law is no better than the individuals responsible for its functioning as an institution. The law, he sadly recognises, is thus no better than and no different from the community that accepts its guidance. Acknowledging the essential problem of 'community standards' and what we would term today 'jury nullification', he can imagine no solution [....] Does Atticus himself ever confront the the daily injustices he says are perpetrated against Maycomb's black citizens? On [this] important [question], the novel offers only silence. (Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockinbird: The Relationship Between Text and Film. R. Barton Palmer. Methuen Drama, London, 2008. 31-34)
Mockingbird [Peck] suggests,
...restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths. It doesn't hurt any of us, for instance, to be reminded that a clear conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions. And on the question of racial prejudice, it reminds us that we already gave the answer to all our racial problems in this country. The Golden Rule has been there all along. (Palmer 135)
 |
| Gbenga Akinnagbe as Tom |
 | ||
| Brock Peters as Tom |
 | |||
| To Kill A Mockingbird, Stratford Festival, Ontario, 2018 |
1. (For The Seniors Only) Where does the Mulligan film fail most as an adaptation of Harper Lee's novel? Write several sentences.
1. (For Juniors Only) Where does Mulligan's film succeed most as simply a Hollywood movie? Write several sentences.
2. Look at the first two quotes at the top of the page—the first from Horton Foote's screenplay and the second from Lee's novel. Several of you commented on how fast the movie moved (or, paradoxically, how slow it was). A screenplay is generally 100 pages long—one minute of screen time for each page. In adapting a novel, the scriptwriter generally tries to streamline the script to fit that magical 100-120 minute length (unless it's the new Avengers movie). So that what is on the page of the novel, an almost half page discussion between two characters, getting reduced to one speech can be seen as effective screenwriting. After all, we got to move the plot along. But sometimes—as several of you said in class—the details count. So what gets lost in Foote's adaptation of page 315 in the novel—and to what effect? Would the film be stronger, deeper—different in a good way—if more of Lee made it into what Atticus says? Quote from both the script and novel (what's at the top of the page) in your response.
3. The movie was a huge success—$108 million in today's currency (it would have been the 29th highest grossing film of 2018). Yet many of you found it okay—or just meh. So what do you think made it so popular in its time, given its serious themes of racism and injustice? In your answer, quote from one the quotes at the top of the page.
 |
| Celia Keenan-Bolger and LaTanya Richardson Jackson |
 | |
| Celia Keenan-Bolger and Jeff Daniels |
 |
| Gregory Peck and Mary Badham |
1. The film itself seemed to take out a lot of important elements that the story had. While this was not bad for some (or, in my opinion, most) of these points, scenes such as the children going to the First Purchase Church were lost, which took away a significant portion of the impact of the film. This scene, to me, was important because it actually allowed black characters in the book to have a chance to vocalize their opinions of the injustice that they face on a daily basis. In fact, the novel has Lula directly address how the Finch children should not be allowed in a black church because of their race. This stuck with me as a perfect learning experience for the Finch children to realize how injustice has benefitted them and how it has harmed African-Americans (such as those who attend Calpurnia's church). Without that scene, the audience loses a sense of immersion into the worldview of black people in America while Robert Mulligan simultaneously foregoes the chance to emphasize the humanization of African-Americans.
ReplyDelete2. Foote’s adaptation seemed to focus more on the loss of hope that Tom experienced after losing the trial. In the novel, Atticus says that “Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own” (315). This was a moment that broke my heart, but it also stayed with me more than many other scenes. As a reader, I read this line as a tragic truth that the characters have to face: the restrictive nature of Maycomb (and America’s) law system that has promised to protect all people is what drove Tom to court death in a prison yard. Conversely, the movie seemed to only get the bare minimum of Lee’s quote, completely ignoring Tom’s motivation to run. He did not do it on a whim or because he was acting as, as Atticus described it in Foote’s screenplay, “a crazy man.” Instead, the novel makes it abundantly clear that Tom had lost hope, which made for a more impactful message.
3. While the movie seemed to convey the messages behind racism in a weaker way than the book did, both versions of the story did utilize the idea of decency and the Golden Rule. In other words, as noted by Palmer in the quote above, both works attempt to illustrate how “a clear conscience and self respect are our most valuable possessions.” As for the popularity of the film, I think that it can be accredited to the focus being placed on the Finch children. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a unique story in the regard that it takes the evils of racism and leaves it to young elementary schoolers to decide what it all means. This is also why I believe that the book was as popular as it was. They both show that not all people are inherently evil beings; this point is made evident with Atticus, but it is even more impactful when the audience sees that racism and discrimination is something that is taught and spread as opposed to being part of our own general mindsets.
I think one of the classic Hollywood successes in the movie is the scene where Jem and Scout walk back to the house. As mentioned in class, this moment seems straight from a horror movie. The way it’s shot, the music, and the sequence of events all add to the horror aspect. Another way the movie appeals to the Hollywood genre is by using Bob Ewell the way it does. That is, he’s obviously the evil character, and in the movie he’s so evil that he actually doesn’t have any redeemable qualities. With other antagonistic characters there might be a way to sympathize for them, or at least understand their reasoning. With Bob Ewell in the movie, we don’t have this. There’s a fairly clean cut good vs. bad.
ReplyDeleteOne of the obvious aspects the movie misses is the part where Tom is actually at the prison. It also switches the, “put seventeen bullet holes in him” part to simply saying, “He shot at him...Killed him”. I think the movie version cut down most of the racist implications of Tom's escape scene and instead changed it into a simple death scene. In the movie the deputy warns Tom and tries to wound him before killing him. Whether his missed shot was an accident, we don’t know. However we do know that in the book, the guards never tried to wound Tom. They simply shot in the air, then went straight to shoot to kill. The way they killed him and the line, “What was one negro...among two hundred” further emphasize the racial difference between the two explanations. His death is over all more powerful and meaningful in the book.
I think R. Barton Palmer’s quote, “Atticus is nevertheless forced to conclude that the law is no better than the individuals responsible for its functioning as an institution. The law, he sadly recognises, is thus no better than and no different from the community that accepts its guidance” points to the sense of reality the book evokes. Atticus’ realization about the community is something that the reader can also realize, can connect to, and can even think about. I think this also applies to the movie. Very human experiences that aren’t boring attract an enormous audience. Atticus, a great but not outrageously fake hero is someone the viewers can aspire to be, they can reminisce on memories while watching Scout and Jem, and they can empathize with many parts of the movie.
1, I think that the Mulligan film fails most as an adaptation of the novel in that it does not have the minutes available to it to do justice to several important characters and relies on the fact that most viewers will have read the book prior to viewing. For instance, while I loved the character of Calpurnia in the film and thought that the actress did a wonderful job portraying the nuance of the part, I felt as if we were not given enough background regarding her character as she may have deserved. The other major flaw I saw with the film was the pacing towards the end. While this may be due to the inescapable challenge of converting literature to film, I thought that the end of the book felt much more measured and allowed the reader to breathe in between the more significant weighty events. In the film, however, I thought that it moved right along from the trial and kept the focus on Bob Ewell until he attacked the children. There was no pause, no rest, no sense of time passing between the trial and the books end with Boo being revealed and Bob Ewell dying.
ReplyDelete2, I agree that this scene felt lacking after having read the book, they minimized a key moment that gave us a lot of insight into Atticus’ character and also into just how terrible what they did was. I think that the omission of the “seventeen bullet holes in him” that we see in the novel really shows us the gravitas of what has just happened. It makes the act almost cruel and vindictive, while in the movie in almost seems to be reduced to “he shot at him to wound him and missed his aim”. I think that of all places, this is one where they could have made the decision to allow Atticus to monologue a little bit here, especially to add to this seemingly distant and unceremonious end to Tom’s life after all we have been through with him.
3, I think that there is a multitude of reasons for which the film was a tremendous success, however, chiefly I think it comes down to how well received the book was. Just as we discussed how the trailer rested on the sentiment that they were putting one of your favorite books to the screen, I think that people were eager to see that, and I also think that the adaptation is faithful enough that people truly saw the characters they loved so much come to life. Even more so than that, however, the message of the film and novel just resonates with people in a way that few others do. As Peck states, the book “restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths” and does so through a plethora of interesting, deep and internally motivated characters. We all love to see Atticus’ struggle against this festering society with naught but a pure heart, and despite all the terrible setbacks in the novel and the deeply saddening conclusion to Tom’s life, we also love to see the triumph of Bob Ewell dead at the end of the novel, as morbid as that is to acknowledge.
1. To Kill A Mocking succeeds as a Hollywood movie because due to its actor choice and its narrow scope of the original story. To begin with, the movie has very famous Gregory Peck to play the main character, so one can imagine the guaranteed intrigue of this movie. They put him in the trailer to advertise for the film because the producers knew that would get people to come to the film. The other reason why is the straight to the point story. The movie had to take out many parts from the book so that it could run at standard running. The film would be at least 5 hours if they didn’t cut everything down. So, it stuck to the essential points that made the book famous such as the trial and the ending. The film was very much shallow compared to the book and that’s why people liked it more. People didn’t have to think that hard about the themes of the movie because they were essentially spoon fed to the audience.
ReplyDelete2. In Foote’s adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird, It was a lot less gut wrenching and bleak. It also made the white people look better: “The deputy called out to him to stop. Tom didn't stop. He shot at him to wound him and missed his aim. Killed him” (Foote). The sheriff wasn’t trying to hurt him and wanted him to survive. The readers will never know the reason for the deputy wanting him to live. Maybe it was for him to suffer or maybe it was so Tom could get an appeal. However, in t moment, the deputy looked like the good guy. In the book, however, is a different story: “Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much” (Lee). While the guards did shoot up in the air, it gave off a very sadistic vibe. Like the guards were just looking for a reason to kill Tom, to just riddle his body in bullets. The fact that there were 17 bullets meant they shot way more than 17, which makes the guards look cruel and sadistic.
3. While the book was more powerful than the movie with the themes of racism in prejudice, they both appealed to an audience about these particular themes. As I have said before The movie was more to the point and superficial in a way so the audience is able to digest. From a Gen Z/ Millennial prospective, we are able to pick up on details about race and gender that people 50 years ago maybe wouldn’t have been able to pick up on. Also, Atticus was praised as a hero while 50 years later, students are starting to question whether he is so great like his realization that “the law is no better than the individuals responsible for its functioning as an institution” (31-34). We see that conflict many years whereas someone living in the 1960s might have completely missed that conflict. Therefore, the movie is a nice summary of the book is about but not what it means.
I think the film failed as an accurate adaptation of the book because it failed to recognize a few important characters and their role. Aunt Alexandra was a prominent part of Scout’s coming of age story. The church scene was also left out and was massive in developing Calpurnia as a 3-D character. I understand that there were time constraints but it would have helped the audience better understand the characters. In the book there was a lot more about the kids investment in getting Boo to come out. I felt like Boo at the end of the movie seemed sort of disconnected from the story thus far.
ReplyDeleteFirst off there is a very clear difference between “He shot at him to wound him and missed his aim” (movie) and “Seventeen bullet holes in him” (book). This difference completely changes the instances surrounding his death. If we trust that the deputy was good in his nature (which ok, maybe he wasn't) than he didn’t have the intention to kill Tom. It is very clear in the book that they were out to kill him. I think the fact that he was shot 17 times is a very important detail because it’s clearly completely unnecessary. I think the movie would’ve delved deeper into the racism in the community had it more closely followed the book.
Had I seen this movie when it came out, I probably would've thought it was excellent. There is a much different standard for movies now, they're all fast paced and must be action packed to keep the audience's attention. As we talked about in class, this was the first movie to explore a trial and I think that would've been very engrossing at the time. I agree that the movie “restates...some basic truths”. I think that the kids learn alot about how the world works throughout the movie. A basic truth would be that Tom would lose the trial/his life or that people are bound to gossip about Boo when they don't know anything about him.
I think it fails to translate the messages about the deeper themes such as racism and class that the book did a good job of addressing. It replaced a lot of scenes and characters that centred around that theme, such as the visit to Calpurnia’s church and the talk with Mr. Raymond about his lifestyle. Without these scenes and other ones including Aunt Alexandra, I think the movie lost an important essence that the book had. The trial scene is one of the best scenes in my opinion, yet I think it would have been even more moving had the movie focused even more on the racial tensions and the lessons the children learned about race throughout the story. The movie seemed more of simply a coming of age story rather than a coming of age story in the time of intense racism and discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI think this was one of the scenes that should have been exactly as it was in the book. Seeing as though there was no Aunt Alexandra though makes it a bit difficult. She definitely did add something to this scene though. Throughout the book, she had been a generally uptight, ignorant, and discriminatory character. For her to react in the way she did, exclaiming “didn’t they try and stop him? Didn’t they give him any warning?” as her “voice shook” sort of makes Tom’s murder presented with even more weight and injustice. For someone as biased as her to realize how wrong it was for the guards to kill him means something. I also think Atticus’s last sentence when he said “I guess Tom was tired of white men’s chances and preferred to take his own” is a very important line. This emphasizes that Tom was a victim of a racist society rather than a victim of his own crime. In the movie, Atticus just kept repeating “we had a good chance, We had more than a good chance.” I think this kind of becomes ignorance on Atticus’s part because in all honesty, they probably did not have a good chance seeing as though it was the deep south in the 60’s.
I think part of the reason it was such a big hit was because coming of age movies are usually crowd pleasers. It is easy for a wide range of viewers to connect to aspects of the story, such as having that one cranky old lady in the neighborhood like Ms. Dubose (who’s storyline was unfortunately completely left out. The children learned alot from that) or the scary run down house. With the movie also came a sense of nostalgia since Scout was telling it in the past. I also think for the time, the movie was probably very advanced in it’s messages about racism and injustice. Now (although still a lot of work needs to be done) we have progressed further in civil rights. To us, it feels like there was a lot left out regarding racism, but perhaps when the movie first came out it was more than what people were used to. I also think the movie does have good messages about walking in someone else’s shoes. As Palmer says, viewers are reminded “that a clear and conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions.” This message is also important for everyone to learn.
Even though I voted an overall “Meh” regarding the film as a whole, I think there are some aspects of the film that really work. This movie is filmed sort of like a horror movie, which I think is incredibly effective. As August said in class, which kind of blew my mind, there were some scenes that were straight out of Night of the Living Dead, for example, when drunk Mr. Ewell creepily approached Jem in the car. Mr. Ewell came up to the window almost zombie-like, a mirror image of the beginning of Night of the Living Dead. This film is horrific, especially regarding racism and the community’s rather narrow views (although I believe the novel does a much better job.)
ReplyDeleteThose tiny and not-so-tiny details definitely do matter. At one point, the screenplay directly contradicts Harper Lee’s novel. In Foote’s screenplay, Atticus says, “We had such a good chance. We had more than a good chance,” about Tom’s prospects in the trial. HOWEVER, in the novel, Atticus says, “‘We had such a good chance,’ he said. ‘I told him what I thought, but I couldn't in truth say that we'd had more than a good chance. I guess Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own.’” These two quotes blatantly contradict each other in terms of wording, meaning, and significance. The screenplay shows an optimistic Atticus, while the novel shows a rare sign of pessimism in Atticus’ demeanor, which I think is incredibly important regarding the aspect of Atticus’ characterization and in showing just how ingrained racism is in Maycomb.
I guess this movie was so popular at the time (and still is) because it is a pioneer in some ways (as Liam kept telling me in class.) It “restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths,” and it is pretty hard to find a truthful movie. Many films paint life as a perfect picture with very few problems and happy endings, but this film was one of the first to say that there are problems in our society, and even our “law of land” is corrupt in finding solutions. I think that it’s important that our main characters are children because it highlights how these issues and beliefs are ingrained in children at a very young age and that maybe humanity is not as pure as we think we are. Many people would find this negative outlook on our society too controversial to voice on-screen to a national audience.
I thought that this adaptation of the novel failed most in regards to the characters it omitted and the pacing. Aunt Alexandra was completely taken out of the film which is a decision that I understand, but I think her character adds depth to Scout’s coming of age journey. In the book, there are many very important scenes that present tension between Aunt Alexandra and Scout that highlight the different pressures on Scout and her femininity that develops her coming of age a lot. While not omitted from the film, I felt that Calpurnia lacked depth, background, and screen time as her character seemed to get lost with only the few appearances she makes. I also think the pacing didn’t quite match the read and flow of the novel as the movie jumped around from major plot point to the next much more abruptly than I thought the novel made them.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised when watching the film at how brief and business like this line was from atticus. It was so short and to the point that it felt lacking of any genuine emotions and concern. Atticus simply says, “He shot at him to wound him and missed his aim. Killed him”(71). when in the novel Atticus says, “Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much. Cal, I want you to come with and help me tell Helen" (315). Not only was Calpurnia completely removed from the scene as I talked about previously but the brutality of the killing was entirely swept under the rug. Including the detail of the devastating 17 shots I believe has a very different impact then the concise line atticus game.
As Peck says, “It doesn't hurt any of us, for instance, to be reminded that a clear conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions”(Palmer 135). I think this quote sums up clearly one reason for the wide popularity of this movie. It addresses these deep racial issues through the lense of a coming of age story in which makes it a film for wider audiences as it is accessible presented. The themes of racism and injustice are present throughout the whole film and but connected with it novel of great success, maybe audiences were more open to the themes because they knew of the book or because the themes were more nuanced that blatant.
1. I think that the same aspects of To Kill a Mockingbird that fall short as an adaptation are what make it an accessible movie. For one, there’s no confusion about the intention of the story. Very quickly and very directly, the viewer is informed that this is a film about a trial. Unlike with the book, where many people who read it as kids believe the focus is Boo Radley, the movie has a clear indication of its premise. Also, while the children feature prominently, they are mostly used as a vehicle to further Atticus’ story. The children the,selves receive very title growth. I would also suggest that the lack of exploration into the lives of black characters—particularly the scene where the kids go to Calpurnia’s church—didn’t hurt the film’s success.
ReplyDelete2. The revelation of Tom’s death in the book is much more plainly impactful on not only the characters, but us as the readers as well. First of all, we see how it impacted Aunt Alexandra (who is left out of the film entirely). This scene gives us an insight into how she’s changed, and how being confronted with the reality of Maycomb can affect even a thorn-in-your-side like Aunt Alexandra. The other part of the scene which doesn’t translate into the movie is the question Atticus’ statement raises to us. He says: “I guess Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own” (Lee 315). Personally, I was left thinking about that idea. Tom was pushed to the edge of his limit after being done wrong by numerous white people. Was he justified in feeling completely untrustworthy in the law system that they established? Would I have run too? The movie adaptation features none of this: “The deputy says Tom just ran like a crazy man. The last thing I told him was not to lose heart, that we'd ask for an appeal. We had such a good chance” (Three Screenplays. Horton Foote. Grove Weidenfeld, New York 1989. 71). This line doesn’t ask you to think about whether Tom was justified. I feel that it pushes you to think he was crazy, or stupid, without giving the extra inkling of context which Atticus suggests in the book.
3. The film was able to cover an incredibly relevant topic to many living in America in the 60s without ever really having to confront it. Most of Calpurnia’s character is stripped away, there aren’t any scenes where we explore what life is like for the black characters outside of the brief scene where Atticus and the kids visit Helena. Even then, we stay in the car the whole time, never visiting the family ourselves. I think this film was a success because it allowed viewers to have their somewhat progressive views reaffirmed without ever being forced to think about them too heavily. Essentially, it acts almost like a pat on the back in a way that the book never did. “Mockingbird [Peck] suggests, restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths. It doesn't hurt any of us, for instance, to be reminded that a clear conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions. And on the question of racial prejudice, it reminds us that we already gave the answer to all our racial problems in this country. The Golden Rule has been there all along” (Palmer 135). This quote perfectly captures my point. It made good people feel good to go see the movie and name their children and pets after Atticus without really thinking enough to try and enact change in America.
I think that the film fails when it comes to the stories of the secondary characters (specifically Calpurnia and Aunt Alexandra). Though Cal isn’t a huge part of the book, we still get the church scene to learn a little more about her. As for Alexandra, she was a large part in how Scout learned about being a “lady”. I thought it was a shame that neither of them were really in it. I understand that they didn’t have a lot of time to put everything in, but to me, those were important characters.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they changed how Tom was shot really surprised me. I thought that they kinda downplayed the role of the police/the guards. It felt much more accidental in the movie. Atticus says, “He shot at him to wound him and missed his aim.” That is very accidental rather than Atticus saying that, “Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much.” That is definitely much more intentional. I thought that it was a strange decision that watered the actual story down. A lot of the things they didn’t include seemed to be because they didn’t have enough time, but they could have definitely put in the fact that they shot him 17 times. It wouldn’t take up that much time.
I think the book made the movie. People liked the movie so much because it gave a real vision to what they saw in the book. For myself, I was pretty disappointed because I thought the book was so much better and the movie watered it down. For the time though, I think people liked how it, at least, discussed the idea of race. I don’t think that a lot of movies during that time talked about race at all. I also think that the directors knew that books might be able to get away with some more things than a movie can, so they can’t do all the things that Harper Lee could do in her book. I don’t think that this movie would have been made the impact that it did when it comes to race. The Palmer quote says this, “And on the question of racial prejudice, it reminds us that we already gave the answer to all our racial problems in this country. The Golden Rule has been there all along.” That seems a bit much to me, and I don’t think that it would be said in today’s world.
1)This movie tells the story of a white hero in a black man’s life. While it is mainly from the perspective of the children, there are many scenes that were added that shows that the true protagonist of this movie is Atticus. Of course, who wouldn’t want to go to the theatre and see Gregory Peck be the good guy; he was a very famous actor and was trying to save a man's life. Everything Hollywood needed to fill seats.
ReplyDelete2)The lines that are very telling to the discrepancies of the movie and the book are how they state Tom Robinson died. In the book Atticus states that he died because of “seventeen bullet holes in [Tom]” and to emphasize the brutalness of this killing he goes on to say “they didn’t have to shoot him that much.” Atticus talks of the way he dies and how awful it was. Tom could have survived if he had two good arms. The disability that was his chance of survival in the trial is now his downfall in the jail. The movie is much less harsh in the telling of Tom’s death. Atticus tells his children that “Tom broke loose and ran... [The Deputy] shot at him to wound him and missed his aim. Killed him.” This makes it seem as though there was no intention for Tom to die. One stray bullet in the movie as opposed to the seventeen they riddled him with in the book. Small details like this, that could have been easily added, is why the movie lacked the same weight that the book held. The book did not try and sugar coat the horribleness of Tom’s death while the movie did to a certain extent.
3)Even though this movie was about racism and injustice it was popular during that time because there was more to it than that, it was a movie about a boy who --along with his sister -- watched his father stand up to the population of a small town fraught with deep racial biases. It was something many people wanted to relate too. Everyone wanted to be reminded that “conscience and self-respects are … valuable possessions” (Peck). People want to be good role models for their kids in any way they can, teaching them about the principle of respect. This movie symbolized the relationship between a father and his children.
1. This film excels in conveying its themes to the audience. Coming of Age, racism, and Southern tradition is brought with relevance to the plot(though it's not a seamless story). It is able to highlight most of Lee's message through well shot and choreographed moments. It uses music to set the tone of scenes; when Jem found the medallion in the Radley tree, the horror theatricals kick in. Zooming in on characters showed their acting expressions better, and omission of music marked crucial dialogue. Environmental cues were used often in the film to signal the specific theme tying that scene in the film together.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie would have a deeper message, considering the time it was in, if more of the dialogue on page 315 was included. "Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much,' would definitely have an emotional effect on the audience, but would also disturb those who were still Southerners who supported segregation. Adding this part would be a little subtle, but at the same time radical. Directly blaming Tom's excessively brutal death on race would be very confrontational to those denying or ignoring racism.
The movie was a groundbreaking one in the topics it discussed. Race was not typically depicted in movies, especially not like this. Similar to Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lee garnered awareness of how unfair and wrong segregation was, through the example of Tom Robinson.
I think this film was more successful as a hollywood movie than as an adaption of the novel. The movie was fast paced, and relatively simple, taking out a lot of the important details and even characters that were in the novel, allowing it to be more accessible to a large range of audiences. It also had lots of overdramatized moments that seemed to clearly be for shock value. For example, the scene where the kids are attacked or Boo’s final reveal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the novel was much more powerful. Although this is a given because of how much more content they’re allowed to fit in, I think there were key pieces and phrases that were missing from the screenplay. This scene especially would have been a good time to add more content. For example, in the screen play it simply says, The deputy says Tom just ran like a crazy man”. But in the novel it says, “What was one Negro, more or less, among two hundred of 'em? He wasn't Tom to them, he was an escaping prisoner…. I guess Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own.?" To me, these were two really important lines that not only showed Atticus’s opinion of the situation, but also revealed aspects of society and how Atticus knew the toll that they took on Tom.
I think this movie absolutely mad a strong commentary on racism and injustice. However, it did so in a setting that was surrounded by this classic “small town” story of poverty and values. Because of this context and the intense and entertaining trial scene I think it makes the movie intriguing to lots of different types of people. I believe it was a little bit of a radical movie at the time, but it’s success says a lot about the way the movie was done. Again this quote, “What was one Negro, more or less, among two hundred of 'em? He wasn't Tom to them, he was an escaping prisoner” is one that I really think sums up a lot of the final theme of the story and although it was not in the film, the message still comes across and it was one that a lot of people needed to hear.
I think that this film provides a nice narrative that allows the viewer to enjoy the aspects of the plot and understand the characters. I also think that as a Hollywood movie, this film does a good job of showing action and the tension between the characters during the film. The film succeeds by keeping the viewer at the edge of their seats with all of the action and curiosity that the film fosters through continuous conflict and adventures. I think it also presents an issue that can be discussed further where it talks about issues such as race and domestic abuse which adds to the value of it as a movie.
ReplyDeleteI think that the book did this scene better than in the movie in my opinion because in the book, when it talked about the “seventeen bullet holes in him” it brought the aspect of race into a bigger view. I say this because 17 shots is a lot of bullets no matter who you are and I think this shows the obvious racism that the guards at the prison have. By just saying in the movie, “shot at him” I think this almost makes the killing of Tom Robinson seem less brutal and less racist. By shooting 17 times, it shows that the guards were passionate about killing Tom, but by saying that they shot at him and tried to wound him but accidentally killed him makes it seem like an accident while it was quite obvious that they wanted him dead and would take any excuse to make that happen. I think the film would have gained in the narrative of racism aspect of the film by putting these details in because they magnify the effect that the audience has on how brutal Tom’s death was. I think by saying he was accidentally killed, they tone down the actual intentions of the guards and make it seem like people didn’t want him dead while in reality the guards and almost all the white people in Maycomb county wanted him dead.
I think that this movie did well because of its ability to show an adventure of little kids and seeing things through their point of view while tackling a very controversial and difficult set of themes. I think this mixture made it both a very appealing movie to the youth and also to older people. I think the audience that the film was targeted too was a large one and so the film did well as many people all ages and races went to see it. I think this film also presents us with a variety of characters that the audience was able to build their impressions of and choose which ones to like or dislike. This adds a little bit of connection to the film and most of the characters were built up very well. I think another thing that the film does is get us angry about the “senseless killing” of Tom Robinson which reflects how attached we get to each of the characters once we learn about their story and their life. These connections make people want to watch the film to see how their protagonist deals with issues and such in the film.
ReplyDeleteI think the mulligan film failed a great bit at adapting to the film. They left out many scenes that sparked lots of questions and discussion that were in the book. If we are talking about the end of the film and scenes that weren’t included. I wish the missionary circle scene with calpurnia was included to better understand her character and background. This was an important scene because we see Scout maturing as a woman. It also shows the different opinions and hypocrisy between the women involving the discussion of race and religion. Another scene they failed to put in that was very important was tom in jail and although this may be controversial I suspect many people would have wanted to see him trying to escape because it was a very detailed description in the book. The whole book was about honesty and taking a stand, every scene shows this in the book. The Mulligan film failed adapting to these and made the film loose the meaning and message of the book without crucial scenes.
Foote’s adaptation lacked the emotion and the sense of how much this case meant to Atticus. Aunt Alexandra was crucial to this scene and we never saw her in the film. Aunt Alexandra showed lots of emotion in the book, “Didn’t they try to stop him? Didn't they give him any warning?” Aunt Alexandra's voice shook””(315). This is point in the novel where we see Aunt Alexandra shift her attitude and become a mother like figure. Instead of talking to Aunt Alexandra he is talking to calpurnia. If the movie gave more of a background of Calpurnia I could see how this scene could be a bit more meaningful. When Atticus told the kids that Tom was dead it didn’t hit me as much as it did it the book. Atticus leaned against the refrigerator, pushed up his glasses, and rubbed his eyes. "We had such a good chance," he said. "I told him what I thought, but I couldn't in truth say that we'd had more than a good chance. I guess Tom was tired of white men's chances and preferred to take his own. Ready, Cal?" (315) In the movie he just turned around from car and said, “The last thing I told him was not to lose heart, that we'd ask for an appeal. We had such a good chance. We had more than a good chance. I have to go out and tell his family” instead of calpurnia going with him it was Jem, i found this very interesting and a moment of maturity from Jem to want to go support his father and be with him while he breaks the news to helen.
I thought the film was okay, if the producers had recreated crucial scenes it may have been better and gotten the message across more. The book flowed much better than the movie. The book points out more of the racial prejudice, and reminds the reader or viewer instances of things that goes on everyday and is a reminder. “...restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths. It doesn't hurt any of us, for instance, to be reminded that a clear conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions. “ Honesty and respect for other can get you a long way or it can stop you in your tracks. Atticus always stayed honest and although it failed, the amount of respect he earned from the town was like no other.
1. I think many things were done very well in the movie. I think the acting a camera shots were very good and honestly I really liked the choice of black and white especially for the trial scene. I think the closeups were done very well and really made me almost uncomfortable. I think the way that they set up the trail was very good. I also think the music was very good and really helped set the tone for certain scenes.
ReplyDelete2. I think the details in the story were so important for me just because I had thought about them so much. I think aunt Alexandra and the missionary circle really add a whole new topic to the book that we completely missed out on in the movie besides one line that Jem says about scout acting like a girl. I also felt like some of the details we missed out on could have very easily been in the movie such as Tom’s testimony staying the same. I think situations like those made it feel to me like the director was trying to make the viewer less uncomfortable.
3. I think the movie vs the book tackles this theme of racism but in a much more comfortable way and that’s why I think it was such a successful film. There were so many times were I thought the movie was trying too hard to make us feel less sad. When Tom is shot in the movie, it is an accident while in the book, they say the guards shot to kill. This is just a minor detail but I think it’s very important to look into why they make changes like this.
I think the most important aspect of the book that the movie failed to convey was the black characters and and the black community. Even though the film was made in the 1960’s and the movie is more about Atticus and the town, I think it would have been nice to show us what life was like on the other side of town. I think Calpurnia was also underdeveloped and she could have added more to the Finch family dynamic had she been more developed as a character.
ReplyDeleteI think the details of what Atticus said in the book are important. They change the way we view the story as a whole. I think the part about them shooting Tom seventeen times is supposed to make us think that the guards were looking for an excuse to kill another black man. And then the thing about Tom being tired of “white men's chances” brings up the dilemma that comes with Tom’s decision to run. Overall, the book introduces a thornier and a more morally ambiguous story.
“It doesn't hurt any of us, for instance, to be reminded that a clear conscience and self-respect are our most valuable possessions.” I think this quote helps explain some of the tantalizing qualities of this film. Atticus is the white hero of this film. He displays a deep concern for others, even if they are black, and faces each situation with integrity and honor as best as he can. He displays elements of nonviolence that are reminiscent of the way MLK dealt with racial adversity. I think that this movie inspired people, mostly white people, to be more like Atticus. However, with that comes all of Atticus’s shortcomings and his inability to see all the ugliness that exits in his town. So it comes with some ignorance as well.
I believe that this film succeeds in that it is so true to the book compared to movie adaptations of novels today. Though there were certain things I thought important that were left out, I think overall this was a great adaptation of Harper Lee's novel. I think the movie did an excellent job of adding what needed to be put in for the sake of making it an enjoyable and exciting movie while still staying true to the original plot and characters. I think this movie succeeded in capturing the audience and holding our attention, despite the fact that we already knew what was going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI think a huge part of Atticus's dialogue in the book that was lost in the film was the part where he was talking about Tom Robinson's death. In the novel, Atticus says that they, "put seventeen bullets in him," while in the movie, Atticus only says, "He shot at him... Killed him." I think this is an incredibly important distinction because of the sheer overkill that was described in the novel, but not in the film. Firing 17 shots into a man is enough to kill him many, many times over. Obviously, this was way more than enough to stop Tom, and it speaks to the racism shown in the film and shown in our society, both back in the 60s and today still. There have been so many stories in the news over the past few years about young, unarmed black men being shot to the point of overkill by white police officers, and even more who were killed and tortured fifty years ago. This one small detail speaks to the culture of violence and hatred surrounding the relationships between many white officers and young black men. This one small detail would have been so relevant at the time of this film's release and is still relevant today.
I think what made this movie so popular is its blatant opposition of the racist ideals of the time. "And on the question of racial prejudice, it reminds us that we already gave the answer to all our racial problems in this country." This movie came out right in the heart of the civil rights era and African Americans were starting to feel empowered by their race, despite being told by those that held power over them that it was something that made them lesser human beings. I think for a 'mainstream' movie to speak out against the brutality man African Americans were facing at that time was somewhat unheard of and I think this was sort of an empowering thing for those who wanted equality. However, the story of To Kill a Mockingbird is not just a story about racism and injustice, and I think that is part of what made it so popular for the time. It was not something overly preachy that wouldn't appeal to those who perhaps wouldn't want to watch a 'black movie', but instead it combines many different themes and elements that people from different walks of life can relate to, while still holding a very important message.
As just a Hollywood film, To Kill A Mockingbird fails because of the lack of development in both primary and secondary characters, lack of action, and lack of a clear cut theme. Without the book, the movie would be a flop because it did not embody the emotional and societal depth that Harper Lee created in her version. The film would have to be about twice the length in order to get the true meaning of To Kill A Mockingbird. Perhaps this is not plausible. The directors should have realized their constraints before creating the motion picture.
ReplyDeleteChristian gave a strong analytical comparison of these scenes during class when he talked about how "watered down" the film version of Tom Robinson's death is. In Lee's book Atticus says, "Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much." In the film, the script makes the murder seem like a harmless accident. The police officer, who should have tons of training with a gun, just happens to misfire when he is supposedly firing "to wound [Tom Robinson]". This whitewashing shows a lot about the era this movie was made in and how uncomfortable people used to be with public violence that was nonracial.
Back in the sixties, people definitely noticed the racial injustice that was portrayed in the film. However, one thing that makes this film great for the time is that the black man is actually given his day in court. What the viewer comes to understand by the end is that no matter how much a black man plays by the rules, a white man can, and will, manipulate the law to come out on top. This idea is expressed by Scout on page 323: "Atticus had used every tool available to free men to save Tom Robinson, but in the secret courts of men's hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell had opened her mouth and screamed." Nowadays this abuse of power does not resonate so well with audiences because of racial equality and modernized ethics. The book will always be a classic, but the way people enjoy it will continue to evolve just like us.
1. I think that Mulligan’s interpretation of Bob Ewell is one aspect of what made this film a successful Hollywood movie. Firstly, it allowed for some very cinematic scenes, such as the scene outside the Robinson's house with Bob Ewell drunkenly starting at Jem and Scout through the car windows. The background music at the time combined with Jem’s terrified expression convey the danger of the scene in a very classically Hollywood fashion. They also do a good job of making the children and Atticus very lovable characters that the audience can easily get attached to and therefore giving them reason very early on to be invested in the storyline. I also think that the court scene itself is very well done and I can see why it would be popular from the lense of Hollywood films. The way that Atticus slowly makes his points through painting pictures with various questions, and the emotions of Mayella and Tom when making their statements, make this scene fascinating to watch.
ReplyDelete2. I find it interesting that in the film Atticus said that the deputy “shot at him to wound him and missed his aim.” The way that this was said in the movie honestly took away from how devastating Tom’s death really was through details including the statement that “if he'd had two good arms he'd have made it” and additionally that Tom had “Seventeen bullet holes in him.” These are the important details that make this moment in the book warrant various reactions from the readers, from a sinking feeling to full out tears. In the movie it simply wasn’t the same and didn’t produce quite the same reaction as all the details they gave in the book for one main reason, there wasn’t enough information to understand why Tom would run. I think that this information can be found in one crucial statement, when Atticus says that maybe Tom was “tired of white man’s chances.” The way that this scene cut out those details made it almost gloss over the relevant racial aspect of the way Tom died that makes the event so gut-wrenching in the book.
3. I think that the lovable children and the morals of Atticus made this film so popular. It’s subject matter very centrally concerns issues of racial prejudice that no doubt made audiences think yet, at certain points the strength of the statements in the book were softened for the film. As it said in the Palmer quote, the film, “restates in a heart-warming way, some basic truths.” I think that in this way the film could be misinterpreted as a family film when really, it has some important commentary surrounding issues of racial prejudice (even if it does so in a more mellow fashion than the book itself).
I agree with most in that the film lost a lot of important scenes in the adaptation because of time. As a result of that, I think Mulligan needed to focus more on the character development of the supporting roles. Like many, I’m thinking about Calpurnia here. Cal is the one connection the Finches have to the black community before Tom’s case. She is essential for many reasons> One of which is that she has a huge influence on Jem and Scout. Yet, she is almost completely passed over in the film. With the loss of the scenes creating Cal’s character and life outside of the Finch home, there needed to be something incorporated to the adaptation to develop her further. After reading the film, this movie’s depiction of Cal is lacking.
ReplyDeleteThe screenplay version of this scene is very cut and dry. You can sense a little bit of emotion and shock in Atticus, but it’s formatted as event,then event, then event. Very list like. Foote’s adaptation lacks emotion and any kind of excited, riled state, like we see in aunt Alexandra saying, “Didn’t they try to stop him? Didn’t they give him any warning?”, or the shocking, disappointed state of Cal. Foote’s seems much less interactive, and therefore would be more difficult for the reader to invest their emotion into Tom’s death. The screenplay also seems to point blame at Tom for his own death by having Atticus say, “Tom broke loose and ran. The deputy called out to him to stop. Tom didn't stop,”. The novel paints this tragedy as just that, a tragedy.
I love this movie, but I see why some people don’t. I agree with Gracelyn in saying that there is a different standard to movies now, and this film does not follow the themes of socially popular movies today. I think why it was so popular back then is because it was new, the black and white in a color time was intriguing, and the concept of racial differences was way different back then than it is now. Similarly to the controversy of the novel being taught in class, people may also be timid toward bringing up a movie with such a strong race and class presence, since people want to believe society is so much better now than it was then
1. The film was much more about the trial and much less about prejudice, which, in my opinion, was what the book was all about. I agree with Jacobi in that the First Purchase Church chapter was very important. That chapter in the book was what made the film not about racism, but about prejudice of all types. And that’s an important nuance that the book has that I feel the movie is truly missing.
ReplyDelete2. Yes I definitely think the film would be deeper if it incorporated more of Lee’s original book. Book Tom got shot “seventeen” times, whereas film Tom got shot at with the intention of being wounded but the deputy “missed his aim” and “killed him.” These are two very different stories. And these little details really add up.
3. I think it was popular because the book was popular. I mean it’s hard to tell, but one look at that “trailer” for the film makes it clear that the filmmakers knew what they were doing. They weren’t making the greatest movie of all time, they were making a film to remind people of the book. No more.
1. (For The Seniors Only) Where does the Mulligan film fail most as an adaptation of Harper Lee's novel? Write several sentences.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mulligan failed at a few points by leaving out some crucial scenes and characters. Like gracelyn mentioned, I think aunt Alexandra was a crucial part of the story and she was just completely left out in the movie. Also the whole missionary group wasn't included and I think in the reading it really helped us get an understanding of the mindset of some of these women. Overall I think it was a nice adaptation, because like we mentioned before, if we included everything in the book the movie would be hours.
So what gets lost in Foote's adaptation of page 315 in the novel—and to what effect? Would the film be stronger, deeper—different in a good way—if more of Lee made it into what Atticus says? Quote from both the script and novel (what's at the top of the page) in your response.
I think one thing that stood out to me in the book that I lost in the movie was that Tom was shot 17 times. "Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn't have to shoot him that much." The reason this stood out to me so much when reading was because I found it, unfortunately, very similar to things we hear in the headlines today. In a really sad way the book made this scene seem almost familiar. I lost that in the movie. It was crucial because it showed just how severe it was and just how tom was treated.
3. The movie was a huge success—$108 million in today's currency (it would have been the 29th highest grossing film of 2018). Yet many of you found it okay—or just meh. So what do you think made it so popular in its time, given its serious themes of racism and injustice? In your answer, quote from one the quotes at the top of the page.
I think it was so popular at the time because it was the story of racism, something which was so controversial at the time. Segregation was such a recent thing and I think that this film helped show just how unfair things were. "Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell had opened her mouth and screamed. (323)" It's the story of what people went through and hopefully helped people see why change was so important. I'm sure there were tons to mixed emotions around this movie as well, making it highly talked about and popular.
Here is Jon’s blog. Enjoy.
ReplyDeleteHe fails quite a bit at incorporating secondary characters. Characters such as Aunt Alexandra, Calpurnia, and Reverend Sykes are passed over in the movie. These characters are crucial in delving deeply into themes such as racism and sexism. Even without those characters, the movie still does a good job showing the racial tension within the town however.
I think the biggest detail that is left out is the fact that Tom Robinson is shot 17 times. “Seventeen bullet holes in him.” This was a detail that makes it much more relevant to today. We have talked in class about how excessive force by police is pretty much a modern day lynching. Maybe Lee knew what she was doing with that detail, maybe she just didn't think about it. Maybe the screenwriter did not realize it was an important detail, maybe he thought it would be inflammatory. Either way, it's a detail that clearly resonates with people today, and allows young people like myself to relate to the movie more.
To Kill A Mockingbird is a touching coming of a age story, about how a spunky little girl navigates growing up in a small southern town. Many aspects of Maycomb are idyllic, however, there are many negative aspects such as racism and sexism that manifest itself as the evil force in the film, Bob Ewell. There is also the force of good, Atticus Finch, the man who can see the best in the local racists and the accused rapist. While an extremely serious injustice is going on, Scout still lives her childhood, Boo Radley being her most childish fascination, who ends up saving her from Bob Ewell in a very touching ending. Maybe the movie is not as deep as the book, but it has the major aspects. All of these aspects are why this movie was a hit.