tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post8911075795859164018..comments2024-01-21T11:18:54.087-05:00Comments on Lost in the Movies: To Kill a MockingbirdJoel Bockohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-74189346011999194782013-08-21T12:30:41.020-04:002013-08-21T12:30:41.020-04:00I can't begin to describe the quality of this ... I can't begin to describe the quality of this book. It paints a very clear picture of segregation in 19th century America using a child as the narrator. And it works like a charm. One of the best books I've read in recent times. Friendship SMShttp://hindisms.org/sms/friendship-smsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-48459513302174853552009-04-30T08:19:00.000-04:002009-04-30T08:19:00.000-04:00Manwithout, thanks for dropping by. I agree with y...Manwithout, thanks for dropping by. I agree with you completely: without the expectations of a formal review, with requisite plot synopsis, overall opinion, etc. we're freer to zero in on what interests us most or what we consider worth discussing at the moment. This is possible to a certain extent in academic journals too, but with less restrictions in the blogosphere of course.<br /><br />I would suggest that you return when you've got the time and read the whole thing - I elaborate quite a bit (in fact I hardly even get to the point in the first few 'grafs - another benefit of blog-writing!). I'd be interested to know your opinion, especially since it deals in part with the source material and on your blog you seem to be pretty interested in questions of adaptation.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-9601498369896130412009-04-30T07:53:00.000-04:002009-04-30T07:53:00.000-04:00Hey,
This is a very interesting article which I'm...Hey,<br /><br />This is a very interesting article which I'm afraid I've only browsed, due to restraints of time. My comments below are mainly based on what you say in the opening paragraphs and an extension on your thoughts I guess..<br /><br />I actually don't see why it matters at all, intellectually, whether a critic thinks the film is good or bad.. I know why opinions have become so important- because in practical terms people look at the newspaper reviews to find out what to go and see Friday night. Pure economics.. But I think this is a crying shame and completely limits the potential for writing on film since it makes the dominant element of the article a simple question of morals and generally aesthetic morals - was it 'good' or 'bad.' Unless it's a political point the critic is making, but this is less common. And even political morals are limiting, since they insist on the writer having already decided on their politics rather than taking a more open approach..<br /><br />I think the interesting thing about the blog world is that it potentially allows new ways to discuss films- and encourages people to think about and put the emphasis on what is interesting about a film, book or whatever we choose to write about - rather than what is 'good.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-1007901589228358712009-04-28T14:07:00.000-04:002009-04-28T14:07:00.000-04:00Actually, my first real exposure to the issue of &...Actually, my first real exposure to the issue of "charismatic authority" and how one should hesitate to trust it was seeing Kazan & Schulberg's A FACE IN THE CROWD at age 10.C. Jerry Kutnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10901663264449536920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-83312303729869369202009-04-28T10:38:00.000-04:002009-04-28T10:38:00.000-04:00That should read "charismatic authority has its pl...That should read "charismatic authority has its place in real life as well as in the movies..."Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-85695243963743362472009-04-28T10:37:00.000-04:002009-04-28T10:37:00.000-04:00Interesting point vis a vis Lawrence, who I hadn't...Interesting point vis a vis Lawrence, who I hadn't even been thinking of when bringing up that point (despite mentioning the film in the opening paragraph of the review, a chronological connection rather than a thematic one).<br /><br />The movies thrive on charismatic authority - which is why I am both suspicious of aesthetic incursions into politics (where far more damning examples than Bush make themselves abundant throughout history) and of ethical incursions into aesthetics - and why I can accept ethically objectionable characters and material and approaches as great art. Of course, charismatic authority has its place - it's less a question for the public to consider, I suppose, than for the leader himself/herself (though it does seem to be exclusively "himselfs" we're dealing with here; how the question pertains to female authorities, whose personalities are more frequently disparaged than male authorities, is a compelling question).Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-48407791390743776732009-04-27T21:59:00.000-04:002009-04-27T21:59:00.000-04:00I may not consider Lawrence the greatest movie eve...I may not consider <I>Lawrence</I> the greatest movie ever made, but I am “moved” and “awed” by it, and consider it a classic which I return to periodically. In hindsight, Andy & Pauline totally missed the boat on that one.<br /><br />In <I>The American Cinema</I>, Sarris admits to loving the English cinema in his youth and then turning against it for some reason after discovering the auteur theory. How else to explain his underrating of Lean and Carol Reed, and the astounding omission of Michael Powell from that book?<br /><br />Wollen's distinction between rational-legal and charismatic authority is interesting - especially when applied to T.E. Lawrence (in either film or reality) who had both, but distrusted his own charisma. The latter should never be trusted in isolation - as George W. Bush has taught us well.C. Jerry Kutnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10901663264449536920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-52103268406366162022009-04-27T16:23:00.000-04:002009-04-27T16:23:00.000-04:00This afternoon I was reading Peter Wollen's essay ...This afternoon I was reading Peter Wollen's essay on the Auteur theory and discovered a passage which seemed to crystallize my ambivalence about Atticus vs. Ford's Lincoln. Wollen writes, about Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:<br /><br />"Ransom Stoddart represents rational-legal authority, Tom Doniphon represents charismatic authority. Doniphon abandons his charisma and cedes it, under what amounts to false pretences, to Stoddart. In this way charismatic and rational-legal authority are combined in the person of Stoddart and stability thus assured."<br /><br />This distinction and tension, between charismatic and rational-legal authority, gets right to the root of my unease. There's no doubt Atticus represents rational-legal authority, but he does not hold charismatic authority in his community, no matter what liberals and other enlightened folk in the audience feel towards him. Lincoln, on the other hand, embodies both qualities, albeit with the charisma given the upper hand beneath the subtext, even as legal-rational arguments are given precedence in the text.<br /><br />I'm wondering what other people feel about this distinction, if they prefer a film's protagonists to hold one authority to the other, if they feel that such different sources of attention bring up muddy issues of aesthetics and ethics (I'm generally of the opinion that aesthetics should be left out of politics, and ethics largely left ouf of art - but this may be an abstract inclination is idealistic rather than realistic), or what else is one their mind. Not sure if all of you still get e-mail updates on this thread, but I think this is a discussion worth continuing.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-59959439084619754622009-04-27T02:19:00.000-04:002009-04-27T02:19:00.000-04:00I do love this film - i think if there were an arm...I do love this film - i think if there were an army of Atticus' that could be a nice world.RChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11340006144797496514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-5837077679865824982009-04-22T22:55:00.000-04:002009-04-22T22:55:00.000-04:00Yes, Tony (Dayoub), my criticisms of Atticus the c...Yes, Tony (Dayoub), my criticisms of Atticus the character are not necessarily criticisms of Lee's writing, Mulligan's direction, and Peck's acting; in other words, though I do wonder if the story should allow for more ambiguity early on, I generally accept the presentation of him at face value (far more so than Sarris does, at any rate).<br /><br />That said, I do think the courtroom passage of the film is its most flawed. In the book these scenes are still filtered through the perspective of the children, but in the movie we lose our focus on them, which disrupts the movie's mood and style a bit. I'm not sure how or if this could even be rectified, but it does add to the impression conveyed by Sarris that the film is a digest version of the book. Frankly, that's true of just about any literary adaptation of a classic, and far less so of this than of any other.<br /><br />Sam,<br /><br />A few years ago I read a review by Kaufman which began, "In 1927 when I was 14 years old..." and I think I became quite giddy. God bless the old geezer.<br /><br />Tony (d'ambra),<br /><br />Thanks - and if you do revisit, I'll be interested to read your perspective. I think I saw on Sam's site that you have another (non-noir focused) blog, and I will have to check it out.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-8067751662452043182009-04-22T20:09:00.000-04:002009-04-22T20:09:00.000-04:00I tip my fedora to you: Movie Man, Tony Dayoub, an...I tip my fedora to you: Movie Man, Tony Dayoub, and Sam. Great writing and wonderful insights. You have definitely made me want to watch the movie again!Tony D'Ambrahttp://myfilmblogs.filmsnoir.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-39192086455384956602009-04-22T16:07:00.000-04:002009-04-22T16:07:00.000-04:00I think it's BOTH Tony (Dayoub) No novel read and ...I think it's BOTH Tony (Dayoub) No novel read and taught in today's high school classes is more acutely focused on theme, and none other suffused as much by 'conflict.' The characters of course, are representative of rural Americana during the time of the Great Depression, and are symbols, yet they function within the framework of a story and a setting that says easily as much as the human components.<br /><br /> Getting back to Sarris and Kael, Movie Man, I have always respected Stanley Kauffmann as being 'above' the fray between Kael and Sarris, even if I found myself agreeing with either. But Kauffmann panned THE GODFATHER, which today is seen as an act of near senility (Kauffmann though was only in his 50's then. He's 94 now and still writes reviews)<br />I enjoyed reading your segment there about LAWRENCE OF ARABIA'S initial reception.<br /> Kael did once go at Kauffmann, and Kauffmann politely offered a postscript and that was with WEST SIDE STORY (1961), which Kauffmann rightly calls "the greatest film musical of all-time," a position he has stood by to this day. When chided in writing, Kauffman got a bit defensive and qualified his assessment saying "in spirit and in energy, and in successfully transfering the stage qualities to screen, it's the finest musical film I know."<br /> Kael had her own musical moment that raised eyebrows when she heaped lavish praise on FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (1971) and the performance of it's central star, Topol. Other critics gave the film mediocre or scathing notices, but Kael basically called the film a masterpiece. Of course her annointment of Bertolucci's LAST TANGO IN PARIS as heir apparent to CITIZEN KANE (so to speak) has to be perhaps her most infamous moment as a critic.<br /><br /> Movie Man, your long response above is so excellent that I can say much, but would need to go in a number of directions. You were astonishingly thorough and superb, as always. I agree that as a literary adaptation, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is as perfect (and as literal) as we've ever had. I agree with your one disclaimer with Bernstein's score, as the whimsical childhood fantasy material is what really works. Melodiously, it's up there with his best work (his late career FAR FROM HEAVEN is in this category in its exceedingly-beautiful lyricism)<br /><br />And of course you perfectly sasy what needs to be said, a position I agree with completely:<br /><br />"the film fully embodies a kind of magical ground between grand myth/specific recollection, a world of childhood capture on film."<br /><br />Nice.<br /><br />The courtroom scenes were bound to attract serious criticism, but again, they are necessary, even if the presentation was simplistic. Above all, the very moving novel, (one of the greatest novels ever written by an American in the twentieth century) lost none of its emotional resonance on screen, and that fact, (intellectualizing and all) is really the bottom line here.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-56337360288414775372009-04-22T14:45:00.000-04:002009-04-22T14:45:00.000-04:00I think in the previous comment, you make many of ...I think in the previous comment, you make many of the points I wished to address myself. Namely, that I believe it intentional on Mulligan and Lee's part (in their respective masterpieces) to do a number of things that Sarris, and sometimes you, point to as flaws.<br /><br />Because the story is refracted through a child's perspective, many of the racial themes are simplified, perspectives that view the players as representatives of good vs. evil are heightened, and much of the courtroom drama is heavyhanded... all deliberately.<br /><br />The childhood-related anecdotes are more nuanced because they would be to the narrator, even an adult one remembering childhood impressions.<br /><br />Ultimately, the story is not about Atticus failing to overcome racial inequality in a close-minded southern town. It is about Atticus finally attaining an elevated status as a hero in his daughter's eyes by the way he comports himself in this moment in time, despite his own limitations concerning race, because of the power of his decency. And Mulligan, Lee and Peckare all effective and successful in delivering that impression of Atticus.<br /><br />It's almost more of a character study despite the strongly delineated plot.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-58087403333140594452009-04-22T10:25:00.000-04:002009-04-22T10:25:00.000-04:00Wow, this was speedy. I left this page minutes ago...Wow, this was speedy. I left this page minutes ago to comment (and promote said piece) on Wonders in the Dark, and returned to find two comments nestled beneath the review. Thanks, both!<br /><br />Sam, to be fair to Sarris he does focus more on the film's intellectual content than its pedestrian stylistics, decrying its form in a passing paragraph. But on the other hand, I don't agree with his dismissal of the style as pedestrian. He hits a few homers (the specific examples he cites of too-faithful adaptations to Lee's superficially "cinematic" prose - the approach of the shadow more so than the scuffle in the woods - are well-chosen), but the reason the film retains the book's spirit and theme is that its style is largely successful.<br /><br />I think Peck is excellent as Atticus, though I think craft only goes so far in explaining it: a deep emotional identification on the actor's part overcomes any potentially over-calculated effects to sublimate performer and character into one persona. It is one of the best literary adaptations out there, albeit one that does not quite transcend the source (which is almost never done, of course, when the source is a classic in its own right) so much as embody it.<br /><br />The score is wonderful. I listened to a bit of the commentary (director Robert Mulligan and producer Alan J. Pakula, both wonderful filmmakers, both sadly deceased) before writing this, and Mulligan (I think it was Mulligan) said that the melodramatic music late in the film doesn't really work for him, but the childhood theme is pure magic. The opening credits sequence is also wonderful - with its sharp, crisp, black-and-white, telephoto, almost abstract images, gorgeous sentimental (in a good sense, a sense which is rarely used) score, and vaguely eerie sounds (of a little girl humming) seems thoroughly modern; it's startling to realize this opens a 1962 Hollywood movie.<br /><br />Funny that I am only know really discussing the film's form, in the comments section. Admittedly, this review could equally serve as a critique of Lee's novel, since my focus is on the text rather than the mise en scene. Which brings me to...<br /><br />Tony,<br /><br />"Deconstruction is fine but if we lose sight of the gestalt we are not seeing the wood for the trees." Funny, this was EXACTLY my feeling after writing this review and then going to bed. I was even tempted to delete this piece in the morning, because it strays from my new aim on this blog (to immerse myself more in the rich, romantic aura of cinema rather than standing outside and commenting rationistically on the process) and because I feared it squelched the magic of the movie, which I still experience, for a too cold and harsh analysis.<br /><br />But upon re-reading it, I found it one of my better-written pieces and worth keeping. Nonetheless, as I note in the final paragraph, my focus does not convey - or attempt to convey - the overall experience of the movie so much as one aspect, considering intellectually.<br /><br />"As for Atticus, strong decent people are flawed like the rest of us - they struggle each day to overcome the failings that make them human." This to me was the redeeming quality of Atticus and that aspect of the movie - one which I reflected may have been intentional on Lee's part, a tender observation of her own father's humanity, following on the heels of so much warm-hearted worship. Much of the film reflects Atticus as seen by his little girl, but the final scene seems to reflect him as seen by his little girl grown up.<br /><br />"it seems a trifle unfair to hold To Kill a Mockingbird to a standard constructed ex-poste." I don't think this is exactly what I am doing (other than in a brief aside or two, such as the one referring to the sanitized racial politics, a point which can be defended elsewhere). Rather, I am wondering if Atticus is sacrificing effect for affect - if by playing into the prejudices and mores of his time, however repugnant he finds them, he could save one man's life. Perhaps he couldn't, but the film doesn't even seem to allow this possiblity. And I don't think it's only hindsight that illuminates the shortcomings of Atticus' martyrdom - hence my analogies drawn to Young Mr. Lincoln, a much earlier film which mixes pragmatism and idealism in its hero, in a character whose ambiguity I find deeply compelling, and whose effectiveness runs contrary in interesting ways to liberal myths of nobility and radical myths of purity. And as Sarris indicates, many of these questions occurred to people in 1962 as well.<br /><br />As to both of you and the admiration for the film's evocation you express, I agree and here I think is another area where Sarris misses the point. After snarking that "To Kill a Mockingbird relates the Cult of Childhood to the Negro Problem with disastrous results" (while I disagree with the results being "disastrous" his characterization of the film as a mash-up of genres is perceptive, and, I submit, the seams do show on occasion, particularly in the latter case)...anyway, after he writing that, he proceeds:<br /><br />"What fools too many critics about a project like this is the trick of the child's point of view. The camera drops a foot, then darts and swoops with the child's erratic movements. The world opens up, and everything looks more profound and inventive." He's wrong, and yet he's right (or perhaps right, and yet wrong). Sarris is wrong in that Mulligan, Lee, and Foote do much more than just drop the camera a foot and swoop with the movements of the children. True, the movie takes a few scenes to fully get its bearings (was it shot in rough sequence?) though there is a magic present even in the rough and occasionally forced early passages, but by the sublime approach to the climax I cited, the film fully embodies a kind of magical ground between grand myth/specific recollection, a world of childhood capture on film.<br /><br />But Sarris is right in that by taking the childrens' point of view "everything looks more profound and inventive." How true...and what exactly is wrong with this? If anything, the film stumbles less when it is fully immersed in the world of children than when it tries to take a mature, adult point of view (Lee and Mulligan are far above-average chroniclers of the pint-size perspective, while their facility with the courtroom thriller is adequate at best; yet which skill would you rather hold?).<br /><br />If this is the Cult of Childhood, sign me up and please pass the kool-aid.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-54807987102826426802009-04-22T09:55:00.000-04:002009-04-22T09:55:00.000-04:00Movie Man, it seems a trifle unfair to hold To Kil...Movie Man, it seems a trifle unfair to hold To Kill a Mockingbird to a standard constructed ex-poste. At the time of its making it was as good as you could hope for. Film critics are not the final arbiters of a film's worth. Sarris writing is full of hubris, and I welcome your balanced and nuanced appraisal. For me the evocation of childhood is masterful and transcends the period and cultural boundaries. As for Atticus, strong decent people are flawed like the rest of us - they struggle each day to overcome the failings that make them human. Deconstruction is fine but if we lose sight of the gestalt we are not seeing the wood for the trees.Tony D'Ambrahttp://myfilmblogs.filmsnoir.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610074516299275060.post-76212525572165239332009-04-22T09:39:00.000-04:002009-04-22T09:39:00.000-04:00Somtimes Sarris can be infuriating. But that was ...Somtimes Sarris can be infuriating. But that was all in the past as he is now an 80 year-old mush, prone to issuing good to great reviews to just about everything, much like Ebert. Ah, but back in the old days......the renunciation of the beloved screen transcription of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (basically as perfect an adaptation as we are likely to see) because of pedestrian stylistics, is a case again of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The esssence of the film, while not cinematically embellished was retained in spirit and theme to create the same kind of emotional resonance found in Lee's Pulitzer prize winner. Peck's stately performance as Atticus Finch was flawless, and again what Lee intended. I have used this film a half-dozen times in a Jr. High School English class as the capper after assigning the novel, and it has always deeply enriched the experience. <br /> It's a film that practically defies criticism, and Lee herself was overwhelmed with it and Peck's performance. They remained close friends afrewards for many years.<br /> Some of the film's ,magic' include Robert Duvall's first screen appearance as Boo Radley, and one of Elmer Bernstein greatest scores, a lyrical and wistful component.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.com