Possibly the most over-rated film ever made. - To Kill a Mockingbird (1963) Discussion

[–] ObservationBlogger 12 years ago

To call one of the greatest movies/stories of all times overrated needs a good argument. Unfortunately your post doesn't possess any argument or indicative informative value for that matter.
My 120 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What would you add?

reply

[–] hodie 12 years ago

Absolutely, Amadeus.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

I just wanted to pop back in to stick by what I've said throughout this thread, the film was and continues to be a favorite of high school English teachers who pronounce the film (and book of course) as masterpieces, when in reality the TKAMB film is a inartistic commercial film helmed by a craftsman director (not an auteur) and it features really flat and uninteresting photography, editing, production design, and acting. Its flat mis-en-scene is strictly “mid-budget Hollywood average”. How anyone could champion anything with these mediocre production values as being one of the greatest films is beyond me.

Furthermore, in 1962 it wasn't "brave" for a film to take on racism. Films as diverse as The Steel Helmet in 1953 to Showboat back in 1935 confronted racism far more directly and righteously, and were much braver for doing so that long ago.

I'll say what I've said before: Most people who champion this film must not have seen many films. I think TKAMB is simply the "Go To" answer for anyone unsure how to answer the "What's your favorite film?" question. There are so many finer films with similar subjects out there waiting to be discovered.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

ebright,

A very interesting post. Thanks. I'm not entirely sure I see the film as you do, however.

First, to be admired (I don't consider TKAM a "masterpiece" necessarily) does a film need to be helmed by an "auteur"? Why can't it be "commercial" and directed by a "craftsman"? Are "masterpiece" and "commercial" mutually exclusive terms? Shakespeare and Dickens were commercially successful and wrote to make a buck. A masterpiece or two may be found in either of their collections. . . "The Best Years of Our Lives" is, I think, a masterpiece -- a simply produced narrative tale with great emotional impact that lasts, at least for me.

Additionally, I think you may have missed the material objective of TKAM. It's not really about "racism", is it? It is, rather, about neighbors and the coming of age of two (or three) young people in a particular place and at a particular time. Racism, admittedly, does play a part. The mis-en-scene seems appropriate to the telling and to the general "feel" of the effort.

reply

[–] vinidici 12 years ago

Speaking of "craftsmen directors as opposed to auteurs," Victor Fleming comes to mind. Can you say "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz?" True, Fleming was a company man who put everything together after other directors (e.g., George Cuckor on the former; King Vidor on the latter) had been bumped off the projects, but who would deny that GWTW and TWOZ are the crowning jewels of 1939, the year often cited as "Hollywood's Golden Year?"

Well, maybe a vocal minority who didn't like one or the other or either of those films would present a case that they're NOT "classics" or "masterpieces," but it's undeniable that the majority of film aficiandos include them among the greatest movies of all time. For which Victor Fleming, with his studio boss-issued "mop and bucket," gets a huge share of well-earned credit. Victor Fleming. "Company man." "Craftsman." And I can't help thinking he'd turn in his grave upon hearing anyone today referring to him as "an auteur."

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

"And I can't help thinking he'd turn in his grave upon hearing anyone today referring to him as 'an auteur'."

You betchum Red Ryder! Far from the New York film school type. Even Orson Welles (the king of the mavericks), it seems, had had, at the end of his career, enough. He responded to a question about the current (at the time of the questioning) crop of auteurs by saying -- pretty disappointing. They were, in his view, more interested in showcasing their own particular creative strengths than they were interested in creating and innovating for the sake of the drama.

reply

[–] vinidici 12 years ago

Even Orson Welles (the king of the mavericks), it seems, had had, at the end of his career, enough. He responded to a question about the current (at the time of the questioning) crop of auteurs by saying -- pretty disappointing. They were, in his view, more interested in showcasing their own particular creative strengths than they were interested in creating and innovating for the sake of the drama.

Not to be argumentative, but that's an easy attitude for Welles to adopt, considering his fame / notoriety for Citizen Kane (especially!) and The Magnificent Ambersons. Looks to me like a clear-cut classic case of the old man who compalains about the current generation of young whippersnappers sowing their wild oats, when he was no different himself at the same age!

An argument could be made that the innovative and artistic cinematic tecnique of Welles and his cinamatographer, Gregg Toland, even moreso than its character-driven plot and narrative (not to mention fine acting by the entire cast), is why Citizen Kane is at or near the top of almost any film critic's / film buff's short list of the best motion pictures of all time. But I said I wouldn't argue, didn't I?

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

I can't speak for Welles, of course, and you may be right about the "old man who complains ...". But, I think Welles was making the point that the "current crop" invents, improvises, and generally applies their personal "stamp" more to the benefit of their own reputations than for the benefit of the stories being told. He also said the innovations and techniques used in "Kane", and his other films, were there because the most effective rendering "required" that they be there. A case of too much "auteur" on the one hand -- and too little "craftsmanship" on the other?

Said yet another way, Welles WAS a genius and saw himself in that light. The others, perhaps, only saw themselves as geniuses, and embarked, therefore, on too anxious quests to prove their self-assessments.

reply

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

The director of The Best Years of Our Lives, William Wyler, was most definately an auteur.

Victor Fleming was certainly a craftsman, but applying the word "auteur" to producer driven studio films from that era (like GWTW and OZ) is generally not done. It's been argued and writen about at length about who the true "auteurs" of those films were or if the word should even apply, but most generally feel that producer Selznick and designer William Cameron Menzies were the auteurs of GWTW. The "auteurs" of that period were more typically writer/directors like Preston Sturges and Joseph Von Sternberg or writing/directing/producing partners like Capra/Riskin.

Of course a film can be great even if it wasn't directed by some master auteur but TKAMB is not an example of one.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

"The director of The Best Years of Our Lives, William Wyler, was most definately an auteur."

By what measurement(s) was Wyler so but not Mulligan?

"... but applying the word 'auteur' to producer driven studio films from that era (like GWTW and OZ) is generally not done."

By whom?

"Of course a film can be great even if it wasn't directed by some master auteur ..."

My point.

"... but TKAMB is not an example of one."

A purely subjective opinion, of course, and one to which you are certainly entitled.

reply

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

By what measurement(s) was Wyler so but not Mulligan?

To quote Wikipedia: Wyler's films garnered more awards for participating artists and actors than any other director in the history of Hollywood. He received 12 Oscar nominations for Best Director in total, while dozens of his collaborators and actors won Oscars or were nominated.

Mulligan not so much.

Now of course awards don't make one an auteur but all you have to do is look at the unity of the guy's work, the way his wartime and post-war films reflect his own personal situation and war service, and how his films changed after the war to see the personal stamp he put on his films. The awards also point to an iconoclastic approach to working with actors, his perfectionism in insisting on multiple takes was unusual at that time.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Well, that's certainly an answer, but I'm not so sure it gives me a better insight into why Wyler is an auteur and Mulligan is not.

I agree, awards do not an auteur (or craftsman) make.

I also agree, a great film can be made by a non-auteur (if that's a word?).

Going a little deeper: You've noted some of Wyler's techniques as a director, but are those techniques apparent to an audience viewing the completed work? Can an audience be moved by a scene which was taken but once? Can a director who's never experienced war create a moving wartime drama? What are some of Wyler's "personal stamps" which are discernible to an audience? Apparently there are none in TKAM which reflect Mulligan's personal experiences?

For me, the bottom line (I hate that expression, but what the hell) is what do I, in the audience, "get" from the picture. Frankly, craftsman, auteur (I think there is some auteur in every picture), or a combination of both are meaningless except in a purely academic setting.

TKAM is a great picture, imo, because of how people think of it even today, 50 years after its release. But, not for you perhaps.

(I directed a play some years ago and during a rehearsal an actor told me he felt good about what he was doing. He could relate to the character he was playing in that situation. That's fine, I said, hang onto that. But, I can't "see" it. And, it's what "I" - surrogate audience/the director's original role - can see that counts! . . . We tried it a different way. I don't know how he "felt" about what he ended doing . . . but I liked it and so, I think, did the audience.)

reply

[–] hoochiemoochie 12 years ago

It's simple...this movie is one of the greatest of all time and I have seen over 2000 movies and read hundreds of books...and anyone who doesn't think this movie is excellent was probably taught to look at the world with a cruel and hate-filled eye when they were young and/or scarred in some way as a child. Only a truly depraved individual would not like this movie.

----------------------------------------
the truth hurts...sorry it's true

reply

[–] RustySpiderr 12 years ago

I didn't like the film at all, but I never thought of myself as a depraved individual...

Take your rose-colored glasses off and realize not everyone has to like the same things you do.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

While I like TKAM very much, I agree with your sentiment entirely. But ... by the same token, there are, I suspect, few "depraved individuals" who think of themselves as such.

reply

[–] hoochiemoochie 12 years ago

think of yourself that way or not...you are depraved if you do not like this movie...either that or you were raised by the Klan and don't like minorities being innocent and whites being guilty...take your pick: depraved or Klan?

I'll say no more nor will I ever return to read your comments, I've wasted enough of my time already.
----------------------------------------
the truth hurts...sorry it's true

reply

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

Well that was certainly a sane interlude. I know that I certainly am convinced of the film's greatness now that a guy who has "seen 2000 films" has declared that if I don't like it I am depraved. Thank you for clearing that up.

reply

[–] philjones602 12 years ago

Why do you care if someone likes this film? Let them like it, it's not hurting you. It's not my favorite movie ever either, but I respect the care that went into making it. At least people like movies like this, and aren't only loving movies that are big budget cash grabs.
How do you know people only like it because they haven't seen too many other films. many critics have seen tons more films than you will ever see, and they still list it as a top movie. Not because they feel they need to, but because they actually liked it.

I respect your opinion of not liking it, but I stop respecting when people judge others just because they like a film. If you expect people to respect your opinion of NOT liking it, then respect their reasons FOR liking it. That is all.

reply

[–] g_dekok 12 years ago

How old ARE you, anyway? Ten?

Have mommy put your Teletubbies video on for you, before she packs you off to bed.

reply

[–] philjones602 12 years ago

I think this forum has gotten way out of hand here with attacks lol. All I am going to say is that just because it is over-rated doesn't mean it is not good. I personally love the movie. Do I think it is the best movie I have ever seen? No. But it moved me and I cannot help that.

BUT just because other people love it more DOES NOT mean you can judge them because of it. Let them like it! At least they aren't fawning over movies that were made only as a cash grab. I know many people who consider this movie their favorite. You cannot deny the care and seriousness that went into making this film, even if you don't like it.

reply

[–] ebright99 12 years ago

BUT just because other people love it more DOES NOT mean you can judge them because of it.

Sorry, but on a message board devoted to movies I AM going to judge people by their taste in movies. If you think this movie is the best movie ever made your taste runs way too shallow. A person like that probably thinks All in the Family is the best TV show ever. Yawn.

reply

[–] brad_filippone 12 years ago

I respect the opinions of the original poster and of ebright99 even though I disagree strongly with them. I do NOT respect a person like "hoochiemoochie" who while he/she may like the film is showing a clear case of immaturity towards those who might not happen to like it.
Quite frankly, there is NO movie ever made that is going to appeal to every person who ever sees it. Even the most brilliant director out there is just not that good. I know I'm stating the obvious, but clearly hoochie does not understand that. The OP and ebright do not sound "depraved" to me in the slightest, even though I disagree with their opinions.
Note to ebright, however. While I DO rate To Kill a Mockingbird very highly, in my top 20 in fact, it is not my favorite. That honor to me belongs to Casablanca. Yes, I have seen more than a few classics. In fact I have a collection of over 1000 classics, and it's still growing. So I'm wondering, does my choice of Casablanca as favorite movie ALSO sound to you as a "go to" movie to use your term?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hello_happy_fatty 12 years ago

I won't call for a rope and demand a hanging (it has a g at the end in English), but that you insist others will suggests you're more interested in being provocative than offering sincere criticism.

You say it's over-rated (etc.) but you fail to offer a single shred of evidence for this. I can agree there may be varying opinions on its merits, but you declare an empirical statement (over-rated, etc.) without backing it up.

As for "the the last gasp of the 50s, before the 60s really got going," that's an utterly ridiculous statement. You imagine in the late 1950s they were aware of everything that would be coming in the following decade? The absurdity of your statement is it's hindsight imagined as foresight.

Formulaic? Which other films follow this "formula"? Name just five, please. And are all stories that deal with America's racist element "exploitive"?

Judging by your overall "review" you appear not to know it was based on a book (which also was not "formulaic"). As a whole, your rant was a long way of saying the film went over your head and you didn't appreciate it possibly because you lack the requisite patience, knowledge, and understanding. Claiming it's over-rated because you're in the minority might help make you feel better about yourself, but it hardly helps you grow or improve yourself. You'd have done better to read why others appreciate the film instead of embarrassing yourself by kicking out against something you clearly don't understand.

reply

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 12 years ago

^^Great post!!

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

reply

[–] tkurylo 12 years ago

I agree that it's greatly overrated movie, very cliched and acting was unimpressive. I think it's popularity is largely because it was one of the first to describe racial prejudice in the South.

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

I disagree. TKAM is a highly regarded film deserving of regard. The acting does what it should with what's demanded in a beautifully crafted script from what has been called, in some literary circles, the best novel of the century.

I'm sorry but I don't see the "cliches" you, apparently, see. If by cliche you mean characteristics (people's attitudes and behavior) you've seen before, it may be because those characteristics played an important part in the identity and events of the place and time depicted.

BTW, racial prejudice in the South and elsewhere has been explored in many films prior to TKAM; eg., "Intolerance", "Gentlemen's Agreement", "No Way Out", "The Defiant Ones", "A Raisin in the Sun", "Island in the Sun" ... (if not, how do you arrive at "cliched"?). And, it's important to remember that TKAM is not about "racial prejudice". It's about neighbors and the coming of age of two children in a time and place not often used to depict such events. Alas, if you missed this . . . you missed a lot.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I've read the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". It has a lot of themes. Yes, it's about neighbors, coming of age...and yes, it's about racial issues as well.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

[–] shellieeyre 12 years ago

OP - "over-rated" is only meaningful if there is a "correct" rating; what might that rating be, and who decided it?

I'm the clever one; you're the potato one

reply

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Mrs. Queen,

You're quite right as far as it goes. My point is simply that racial prejudice isn't the sine qua non of the film (or book), as so many viewers suppose today. We are, at least in the U.S., race obsessed; ie., if the story contains any element of race consciousness, well, then, that must be what the story is "about". In other words, the uniqueness and, therefore, unique impact of TKAM is due to its non-preachy approach to the subject -- no fingers being waggled in our faces. The normalcy of it all is what's most upsetting -- and memorable. The prejudice depicted is but a part of the broader picture of neighborliness and a young person's growing-up in a particular time and place. . . Guess I could have said it better.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I understand, cwente.

Actually, it's not that different here in Canada.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

[–] ebright99 11 years ago

it was one of the first to describe racial prejudice in the South

Hardly. As I said in the second post in this thread, check out James Wales adaptation of Showboat.

reply

[–] thelegallywicked 11 years ago

Thank goodness I am not the only one who thinks this. I like everyone else in America had to read this in High School and hated the first time, I had to read it again after transferring schools and only liked it a little bit more. People praise this book and movie like it is Gone With the Wind, when in reality it looks cheap and quickly put together.

I understand that the author loved the movie and was deeply moved with Pecks performance but the woman is nuts. I understand she does not think she will ever make a book just as good but still she herself is a recluse.

Half the scenes make no sense together with the amount of stuff cut from the book and the book was not that long and for a book that was supposedly so inspirational and spoke to so many people they couldn't just do everything in the book not just the core story adding in tiny parts that make nod to the book.

Why is this in black and white? They had color in at that time and the knew that it would make money, I honestly am not someone who finds black and white movies any more compelling than color movies.

No one in this movie gives an outstanding performance and honestly when I read it I didn't picture it looking anything like it did. I understand that everyone has a different idea of how the characters look but these people were just not how you would imagine the characters. It seems like they were more interested in having Peck in a film than having the rights to the film and he himself gave a weak performance compared to other films.

It almost seems like the film makers knew that if they made the film people would watch it no matter what and people would love it and know that it would win awards just based on the title of the film.

I think that this would do great as a mini series with a star filled cast done with the entire book over 2-3 nights but of course because everyone is so blinded by this boring film it does not matter.

reply