Very Poorly Made Film From Almost Every Aspect

Yes, I know it's a much loved picture, considered a classic; and that the idea of a remake is "unimaginable" to many. But I've never understood the regard in which it's held.

I first read Lee's novel in the early '60's, when I was a teenage boy, and was blown away. It is truly splendid, about as perfect as a book can be. I was haunted by it for a long time, and couldn't wait to see the work come to life on the screen. Finally the big day arrived - and I was hugely disappointed in what is, in my opinion one of the worst adaptations of a book in history. I've decided the main problem was that by some unhappy fate, the rights to the book fell into the hands of the wrong people all the way around.

1) The picture is so relentlessly *grim.* Of course the main storylines were serious, but the total aura of the novel is not. This is basically a story of a couple of years in the lives of some kids. Lee infused their story with a mixture of pathos and happier experiences, and humor. None of this lightheartedness survives. The atmosphere is so leaden throughout.

2) The film is smotheringly studio bound. When I think of the 30's rural south, I think of cotton fields, country dirt roads leading to swimming holes, to run down houses and rutted streets and faded, somewhat tattered and wrinkled clothes, and to cicaeda and the wind in trees. Instead, we get streets that look like cement, lawns that resemble those in Beverly Hills, fake trees, garments that look like what they are: costumes fresh and new off the rack. Rather than feeling I was visiting the time and place of the book, I got an overwhelming impression of being on the Universal lot in the early '60's. The whole feel of the picture is one of inauthenticity.

3) Let's face it: many of the actors, especially those portraying Scout and Jem weren't that great. Much has been said about their "authentic Alabama accents." But authentic Alabama accents
can't make up for lack of charisma and believability. Mary Badham in particular seems not my idea of Scout. There is something cold and hard in her demeanor and appearence. I got the impression, not of a child, but of a 30 year old woman awkwardly cast as a young girl.

4) Gregory Peck, God bless him, no doubt a wonderful human being and a fine actor in the right role. Some people seem to think this is one of the greatest characterizations in film history; but I utterly fail to see it. From the book, I got the impression that Atticus was an ordinary, decent, good hearted person, with a good, dry sense of humor. A warmly recognizable human being who had another job to do and he did his duty the best he could, and then probably moved on. But what we have in Peck's interpretation is not an ordinary guy or really even a human; but a virtual archetype: The Great White Father Who Defends The Blacks. He comes across as pompous, impossibly larger than life, A Man On A Mission, grimly earnest and totally unbelievable. Is it any wonder that someone, viewing the film early on, remarked, "My God, he thinks he's Lincoln freeing the slaves!"?

5) Many memorable scenes from the novel were omitted, no doubt in the interest of economics. The entire episodes of the relationship of Jem and Mrs. Dubose was axed, except for a token appearence of her early on. I thought the way she got to Jem and his final breaking point was one of the most vivid and important scenes in the book. Shame, really. The rare snow and the pitiful snowman sequence would only have taken a few seconds to depict. The housefire could have been turned into a very moving scene. Calpurnia taking Scout and Jem to the black church was, for me, a major scene in the book. But God forbid in their PC mania to rid blacks of any semblance to ideosyncratic, colorful or interesting people, that episode was doomed. Calpurnia, so loved and respected in the novel, was so "de-blacked", made so bland that she virtually becomes a non existent entity.

6) The final scene where Scout walks Boo home and back was the finest in the book. A haunting a perfect ending. And I realize that it would be difficult, if not impossible to convey on screen the same poetic feel possible only through words. But, why in the name of God couldn't they have at least kept true to the visual aspect of the scene: we're talking the last day of October. But on the claustrophobic set, there was no sense of this fact. It might as well have been May. And Lee was specific in describing that a misty rain was falling. Dry as a bone. A little thing perhaps, but yet another of very many indications that this film was made, not by artists who loved and respected the material; but by people who only wanted to capitalize on the popularity of the book. Sad.

I could go on, (by observing things like how flat, unreal and utterly lacking in tension is the rabid dog episode, for example). But I've made my point.
I'd just like to add a couple of things: first Elmer Bernstein's haunting score. It is wonderfully apposite;and in my opinion the best thing about the film.
Second: to those who hold this movie as a favorite, I'm happy that you enjoy it.
But if the thought of a remake is anathema to you, it isn't to me. I realize remakes are historically inferior. But they need not be - if you have the right people at the helm.
And my hope is that we will be fortunate enough to have those people remake this great story. People who are interested in making a work of art, rather than making a buck.