Overrated

Rating: 5/10 (16 June 2013)

To Kill A Mockingbird is not a bad film, but it's pretty overrated. Apologies to the fans.
I'm amazed Gregory Peck won the Academy Award. He took what seems like a great part, on paper, and managed to give a stiff, heavy (though convincing) performance, in my opinion. This guy once had a great deal of looseness and charm, as in: The Yearling (1946). Is Atticus such a paragon and saint that he has to be played with clenched jaw and stiff neck? I would have liked it if he loosened up occasionally. I just felt Peck was playing one note throughout. I hate to say he was bad, but I felt he was verging on it. I read somewhere that Harper Lee originally wanted Spencer Tracy. Though I suppose Tracy was a bit too old, by then, he had the ability to humanize saintly characters. (Meanwhile, Universal wanted Rock Hudson, their biggest box office star.)
The children are natural, but not especially great actors. Alice Ghostly is good, though her ebullience seems toned down to fit in with the "Playhouse 90" acting style that pervades everything. Robert Duvall is good. The various supporting players are all commendable but without much presence. They seem to underplay to the point of fading into the background. Maudie, Calpurnia, etc. Then in the courtroom we get some overacting.
I can't put my finger on what I don't like about the film, overall, but I just think it's not altogether life-like. I also wish it had been shot on location; I think a lot of atmosphere could have been achieved. The set, which was completely constructed on the Universal back lot by a brilliant art director, Henry Bumstead, is quite an achievement. But no set has the same "life" to it that a real location has.
This isn't a bad film, and of course it has its touching scenes (with several moments greatly enhanced, emotionally, by Elmer Bernstein's score). I just don't have the same reaction to it that many others seem to have.