'Mockingbird,' a skeptical view
There's a film screening Friday in Pomona of "To Kill a Mockingbird," followed by a discussion contrasting the book and the movie. This is all part of the Big Read community reading program. The event takes place from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Cal Poly Pomona Downtown Center, 300 W. 2nd St.
Can I admit I think the book and movie are overrated? *
I saw the movie first, a few years back, and, in part because of high expectations, was let down. Gregory Peck is such a model of rectitude, he's not very interesting. I kept waiting for a big character flaw or plot twist that never came.
My opinion softened a bit last year. I read the book and admired its tone and gentle humor, and its child-level perspective. The movie, seen a second time, expectations grounded, became more enjoyable.
Many read the book in childhood, as a class requirement. Perhaps my opinion would be different had I not come to the book as an adult.
Still, I think the message -- to see things from the other guy's point of view before judging -- may be a bit thin to warrant the veneration both book and movie have received. Ultimately I liked them both, don't get me wrong, but I didn't love them.
Anyone share my puzzlement, or am I all wet?
* Based on the comments, apparently not.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
About this blogger
A journalist for more than two decades, David Allen has been writing a column for the Daily Bulletin since 1997 and blogging since 2007.He lives in Claremont.
E-mail David here or read columns here.
MNG Corporate Site Map | Newspaper Media Kit
| For more local Southern California News: | Copyright ©2010 |
| Los Angeles Newspaper group |
We had to read it in Jr. High or should I say forced to read it. Later on in my years I did end up reading it again and I thought it was very good but I like the movie better. Also at the Ebell or at the Historical Society of Pomona (the same place) on Oct. 23 at 7 p.m. the actress Mary Badham, the child star who was in the movie, will be there to talk about the movie To Kill A Mockingbird.
GREETINGS:
David, I must commend you on stepping up and taking the contrary view in an attempt to solicit response from your readers. It's a brave and selfless effort, making oneself appear callous and obtuse in front of a larger audience in the effort to encourage public discourse on such a meaningful subject.
"To Kill a Mockingbird" is both a landmark book and influential movie, a rare combination. The Pulitzer Prize isn't typically awarded to a "fun" read. The story's subjects strike to the core of the human condition. And Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch earned a well-deserved Oscar.
The most memorable moment for me in the movie? It's not the final introduction of Arthur Radley (Robert Duvall), but rather the scene in the courtroom where Rev. Sykes (Bill Walker) says "Jean Louise. Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing."
So thank you David for your willingness to appear the fool. I know you can't possibly have had any other motivation than simply to engage discussion on such a classic piece of literature (and cinema).
["Callous and obtuse"? Oh dear. -- DA]
Charles,
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was all wet. :)
One might suggest the book is rather simplistic, although one might also suggest that is part of its charm. David's opinion may also be based on the fact that he encountered "Mockingbird"'s reputation before encountering the book itself; that is, he may have created expectations in his mind of what a great and influential work of literature is like, and then found those unconscious expectations not fulfilled.
[A lot of our responses to life are about expectations, aren't they? In this case, it helped, in a way, that I was already disappointed by the movie before reading the book, which proved better than expected. In turn, the book (and lowered expectations) helped me appreciate the movie more. As I said, I ended up liking both, but they're not among my favorites. -- DA]
I liked the book, which I read as an adult without external compulsion. I consider a lot of "literature" unpleasant to read and not worthwhile in terms of making a point, so I had no expectations, especially not great ones. (I did learn to enjoy Dickens, despite at least one opening sentence with a Fogg index indicating a required reading level unachievable in a normal lifetime.)
The Pulitzer Prize is often awarded based on the politics of the prize panel. Sometimes, it is awarded for truly excellent work; but, sometimes for totally wrong-headed stuff. See James Loewen, "Lies My Teacher Told Me."
David, your blasé reaction surprises me. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of my all time favorite books. Scout may in fact be my favorite character in literature. She's scrappy, curious, has high morals though is not a goodie goodie, she's loving, and fair-minded. Granted, I have been out of the young adult literature circuit for some time, but I doubt authors today have developed such wonderful characters.
I did read it as a young teen, but then read it again as an adult and loved it even more.
[I appreciate your defense of the book. Again, my reaction may well have been different had I read the book as a young teen (or as a young teen female), but I came to it as a 43-year-old male, and sometimes that makes all the difference. -- DA]
Surprisingly perhaps, I had never read TKAM until my first year teaching it as a high school English teacher. I had heard of it (even confused it in my mind with the plot of A Raisin in the Sun, not the same story at all, so I don't know why I did) before, but once I began to analyze and study it, it grew on me. I love slice-of-life stories, and enjoy recalling simpler times tales. Wonderful descriptive passages are a favorite, too.
Despite the moral and social justice themes, it's just a good read about the supposed "good ol' days" that weren't always so good, and maybe even not all that old, either.