While my blogging has fallen by the wayside for a while, I’ve been busy with various projects, a couple of which I will soon report on right here. In the meantime, though, it’s been my pleasure to keep taking part in Erik Martin’s CineVerse podcast discussion group. A few weeks ago the group gave its verdict on To Kill a Mockingbird, which marks a 60th anniversary. Spoiler: The group loved it. For proof, read a summary of our major talking points gathered below and lend an ear to a recording of our group discussion right here.
Among the questions we addressed include: has this picture stood the test of time? Why is it worth honoring 60 years after its release, and why and how does To Kill a Mockingbird still matter?
· It’s one of the best films about serious adult matters ever told and shown from a child’s perspective, thanks to director Robert Mulligan adhering closely to the book by consistently presenting Scout and Jem’s point of view and keeping the camera at relatively low angles, often looking up and in awe of adults.
· Likewise, the performances are among the finest and most believable of any child actors ever cast in a Hollywood film. Mary Badham as Scout (nine years old at the time), John Megna as Dill (also nine), and Philip Alford as Jem (around age 13) are each excellent in their roles. Interestingly, despite their fine acting, Badham and Alford didn’t parlay these performances into a long-running acting career.
· It feels relevant and important today because more Americans in the 21st century have increasingly come to reckon with our nation’s shortcomings about racial relations and our problematic history of racial inequality. While Mockingbird has some elements modern audiences may consider troubling, including the concept of an impossibly perfect white savior and the fact that the black characters largely remain on the periphery, this is a morality tale that debatably hasn’t lost any of its power to remind viewers how challenging life proved for African-Americans at this time in history, and how truly segregated our country was.
· To Kill a Mockingbird also persists as one of the finest and most faithful translations of a beloved and widely read novel ever made. Consider how often movie adaptations of books fail to live up to readers’ expectations or do justice to the quality of the source material. This is a rare but prime example of a film that could be equal to the book it is based on. Original authors are often dissatisfied with big-screen versions of their work, but Harper Lee expressed her delight with the finished film product.
· Additionally, the opening title sequence is distinctive and different for an early 1960s film, showcasing close-up views of childhood objects, including crayons, jacks, coins, and figurines as well as quick sketches and colorings made by the hands of a youngster. Immediately, we are immersed in the imaginative world of a child, which sets the tone and the narrative expectations right from the start.
· Lastly, the bygone milieu recreated, that of a small town in 1930s era Alabama, looks and feels authentic, thanks to the fine attention to detail in the areas of architecture, costumes, and visual elements emblematic of the Great Depression coupled with the crisp black-and-white canvas rendered expertly by cinematographer Russell Harlan.
Posts
