Perhaps Gregory Peck's Greatest Film

Rating: 9/10 (16 July 2010)

Harper Lee's famous novel came out in 1960 and this film adaptation followed only two years later, by which time the book was already starting to take on the status of a classic. The story is set in the fictional Maycomb County, Alabama, during the depression era of the 1930s, and is told through the eyes of a young girl named Jean Louise Finch who, for some unexplained reason, goes by the nickname Scout. She and her older brother Jem are the children of Atticus Finch, a widowed lawyer.
As in the book, the film's central incident is the trial of a black man, Tom Robinson, for the alleged rape of a white woman, Mayella Ewell; Atticus is Robinson's defence attorney. Harper Lee was using a classic thriller plot- the fight to prove the innocence of a man wrongly accused- to explore racism in America's Deep South. (William Faulkner had done something similar in his novel "Intruder in the Dust", later made into an excellent film by Clarence Brown). Although Robinson is clearly innocent of the charge, the all-white jury nevertheless vote to convict him, largely because to admit that a white woman, even one as sluttish as Mayella, was capable of making false accusations against a black man would force them to abandon their cherished ideas about the purity of Southern womanhood.
Lee's novel is more than just a courtroom drama, more than a study of racism in the Deep South. It is also a coming-of-age novel in which Scout and Jem, who begin as innocent children, are forced to confront the evil which lurks in their tranquil-seeming town and in which they learn important lessons about tolerance. A favourite saying of their father, who believes that most people, when you get to know them, are essentially kind, is that you should never judge a man until you have stood in his shoes and walked around in them. Atticus applies this principle not only to racial issues but also to various acquaintances whom his children dislike or disapprove of for one reason or another. Most importantly he applies it to Boo Radley, a simple-minded and reclusive neighbour, who is regarded by the local people with either fear, suspicion or mockery but who turns out to be inwardly brave and kindly.
The title of both book and film refers to a saying of Atticus that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird because they never do any harm, but it is a phrase which also refers to his philosophy of life. At various times several characters in the book- Robinson, Boo Radley, the children- can be seen as "mockingbirds", harmless creatures in need of protection.
Like most movies based upon novels, the film makes a few changes from the plot of the book, and omits certain episodes such as the subplot about the cantankerous, elderly Mrs. Dubose and her battle to overcome her opiate addiction. Its few faults are generally those of the book as well. For example, I have always felt that Lee never really explores the tension between Atticus's liberal philosophy of life and the problem of human evil as exemplified by the book's main villain Bob Ewell, Mayella's father. Ewell is neither misjudged nor misunderstood but just plain wicked; not only does he give perjured evidence in the hope of getting an innocent man sent to the gallows, and encourages his daughter to do the same, he also makes a vicious and cowardly attack on Atticus's children. Trying to stand in such a man's shoes would not, I feel, be a very productive exercise.
Nevertheless, the film is for the most part a faithful adaptation of the book and, most importantly, remains faithful to its spirit. Its faults are greatly outweighed by its merits, chief of which must be the performance of Gregory Peck, perhaps his greatest ever, with the possible exception of "The Big Country". Peck was himself well-known for his liberal opinions, and Atticus Finch- kindly, rational, tolerant, gentlemanly and both physically and morally courageous- was the sort of role he excelled in playing. Of the other acting contributions the one that stands out the most is from the young Mary Badham who makes an enchanting heroine as Scout. Robert Duvall is also good in his film debut as Boo Radley.
Peck deservedly won an Oscar for his performance. The film itself was nominated for "Best Picture", but lost out to "Lawrence of Arabia". Although that film has its merits, including another great performance from Peter O'Toole and some spectacular camera-work, I have always regarded it as a rather diffuse, sprawling work, lacking the concision and emotional power of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Perhaps David Lean's film won out because in the early sixties it seemed to represent the way the Hollywood was going. After the success of the likes of "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Ben Hur" and "Spartacus", it looked as though the future of the movie industry lay with the grand epic. (That style of film-making, although it produced some great movies while it lasted, was starting to look outdated by the end of the decade).
Robert Mulligan's film, by contrast, probably looked rather old-fashioned, with its more modest scale, small-town setting and monochrome photography. (Two years earlier the Academy had given "The Apartment" the last "Best Picture" award it would ever give to a film in black-and-white, apart from "Schindler's List" more than thirty years later). Today, however, we can recognise "To Kill a Mockingbird" as one of the cinematic achievements of 20th century, a moving human story, well-told and well-acted. One of the things the cinema does best. 9/10