August 2, 2007
Reader Mail: Somebody in Hollywood Made a Mistake, This Film Didn’t Stink
One of my readers e-mailed a question I thought was worthy of answering here. He had just finished To Kill a Mockingbird and was wondering:
This is a complicated question that has many angles. To get to the roots of this, the inquiry can be broken down into two sections. 1. Why was this film so good? 2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?
The specific reasons why one would like this film are numerous. At the center of the piece is a fantastic story. The novel is a classic of American literature and this film does well by its source material. Both writers, Harper Lee who wrote the book and the screenwriter, Horton Foote who adapted the piece for the screen, are both Pulitzer Prize winners. This was back when winning the Pulitzer was a meaningful achievement. The work of these two is the foundation for the success of this piece. The main reason for this production working so well is because it was written first and then produced.
This isn’t always the case.
What I mean to say is that the script was carefully built. It was created with a literate mind at work. Often adaptations are lousy affairs where the original material is injured by the experience. If the screenwriter is a screenwriter first and isn’t versed in the broader areas of literature and dramatics, translating a complicated piece like this will most surely fail. While this piece isn’t a page by page translation, Foote’s obviously understood the work and went forward with thoughtful concern for what he was doing.
Another important point about this production is the director and lead actor. The director Robert Mulligan was at the top of his game during this period. He was brilliant with actors and assisted the likes of Ellen Burstyn, Natalie Wood and others to Oscar wins. In this piece, he helped the lead Gregory Peck win his Oscar for Best Performance. Peck’s performance as Atticus Finch is one of the better cinematic performances of his generation.
The short answer here is that you liked this film because it was well done. The casual pace matched the low boil the film is set to. The intelligence of the performances is in sync with the depth of the material. In other words, the best people doing the best work they’d produce in their lives built this film.
How many productions can boast that?
Looking to the other question of why aren’t more films made like this? Well, first and foremost it is an issue of marketing. The development of the “target audience” has killed literate film.
There has been a slight culture change. We’ve devolved from reading works like To Kill a Mockingbird, of Mice and Men, and In Cold Blood to consuming Stephen King and Harry Potter. Obviously people still review the classics but these folks aren’t those the marketers in Hollywood wish to woo. Look around, do you see some dim eyed, moron teen frantically working over their cell phone.
That’s the lump of humanity the movies are made for these days.
Go ask the aforementioned moron their thoughts on the character arc of Atticus Finch. Ask them about Lee, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Ask them if they know what a book is.
I bet they won’t know what you’re talking about. C’mon, they’re a moron – morons don’t know anything that’s why they’re morons. That is also why they go to give money to any movie that is pushed in front of them.
There’s a deeper issue at work within the industry as well. Unlike many directors and actors today, the folks from back in Gregory Peck’s day had serious dues to pay. This is not to take away from the work people do these days to get their big breaks. Back then however, it was common for actors and directors to come from theatrical backgrounds. They learned their craft not from some film school but from the theater. Peck, as an example, left Berkley to get into acting. He trained at the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York and made his way to Broadway before breaking into the movie business. While most actors still are trained, and trained by effective teachers, many go directly into film/television acting. Sure, many still attempt the theatrical life, it is safe to say that many simply head out East for the Gold Rush. The separation of film from theater another reason for the illiteracy in our entertainment. Those directing film/television are trained for these areas. They rarely have any theatrical background at all. Therefore, they begin their careers without being versed in the classics of our civilization. Instead they worship at the shrines of world cinema. This is how we end up with the likes of Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriquez. While they may be great guys to have a beer with, they are useless when it comes to insightful works that improve humanity. If one doesn’t have an understanding of the classics of drama they lose the broader view of this world. This, as we can see, leads to the artist having much less to say about this world.
To summarize:
1. Why was this film so good?
It is a piece built by the best in the business doing their best work.
2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?
Those who are not our best and brightest are making works to satisfy the common denominators in our society.
To finish I want to remind folks of a couple of things.
1. You can e-mail me with any film related question and I will be more than happy to oblige. If I don’t know the answer, I know where to direct you to find resolution to your query.
2. Any such e-mails are subject to being republished here (without your name) if the answer matches my content.
“What is it about the style and pace that makes it so different (and good)? I don't understand why they there aren't more films that capture that feeling. Is it the casting as much as the story? Or is it just the whole package?”
This is a complicated question that has many angles. To get to the roots of this, the inquiry can be broken down into two sections. 1. Why was this film so good? 2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?
The specific reasons why one would like this film are numerous. At the center of the piece is a fantastic story. The novel is a classic of American literature and this film does well by its source material. Both writers, Harper Lee who wrote the book and the screenwriter, Horton Foote who adapted the piece for the screen, are both Pulitzer Prize winners. This was back when winning the Pulitzer was a meaningful achievement. The work of these two is the foundation for the success of this piece. The main reason for this production working so well is because it was written first and then produced.
This isn’t always the case.
What I mean to say is that the script was carefully built. It was created with a literate mind at work. Often adaptations are lousy affairs where the original material is injured by the experience. If the screenwriter is a screenwriter first and isn’t versed in the broader areas of literature and dramatics, translating a complicated piece like this will most surely fail. While this piece isn’t a page by page translation, Foote’s obviously understood the work and went forward with thoughtful concern for what he was doing.
Another important point about this production is the director and lead actor. The director Robert Mulligan was at the top of his game during this period. He was brilliant with actors and assisted the likes of Ellen Burstyn, Natalie Wood and others to Oscar wins. In this piece, he helped the lead Gregory Peck win his Oscar for Best Performance. Peck’s performance as Atticus Finch is one of the better cinematic performances of his generation.
The short answer here is that you liked this film because it was well done. The casual pace matched the low boil the film is set to. The intelligence of the performances is in sync with the depth of the material. In other words, the best people doing the best work they’d produce in their lives built this film.
How many productions can boast that?
Looking to the other question of why aren’t more films made like this? Well, first and foremost it is an issue of marketing. The development of the “target audience” has killed literate film.
There has been a slight culture change. We’ve devolved from reading works like To Kill a Mockingbird, of Mice and Men, and In Cold Blood to consuming Stephen King and Harry Potter. Obviously people still review the classics but these folks aren’t those the marketers in Hollywood wish to woo. Look around, do you see some dim eyed, moron teen frantically working over their cell phone.
That’s the lump of humanity the movies are made for these days.
Go ask the aforementioned moron their thoughts on the character arc of Atticus Finch. Ask them about Lee, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Ask them if they know what a book is.
I bet they won’t know what you’re talking about. C’mon, they’re a moron – morons don’t know anything that’s why they’re morons. That is also why they go to give money to any movie that is pushed in front of them.
There’s a deeper issue at work within the industry as well. Unlike many directors and actors today, the folks from back in Gregory Peck’s day had serious dues to pay. This is not to take away from the work people do these days to get their big breaks. Back then however, it was common for actors and directors to come from theatrical backgrounds. They learned their craft not from some film school but from the theater. Peck, as an example, left Berkley to get into acting. He trained at the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York and made his way to Broadway before breaking into the movie business. While most actors still are trained, and trained by effective teachers, many go directly into film/television acting. Sure, many still attempt the theatrical life, it is safe to say that many simply head out East for the Gold Rush. The separation of film from theater another reason for the illiteracy in our entertainment. Those directing film/television are trained for these areas. They rarely have any theatrical background at all. Therefore, they begin their careers without being versed in the classics of our civilization. Instead they worship at the shrines of world cinema. This is how we end up with the likes of Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriquez. While they may be great guys to have a beer with, they are useless when it comes to insightful works that improve humanity. If one doesn’t have an understanding of the classics of drama they lose the broader view of this world. This, as we can see, leads to the artist having much less to say about this world.
To summarize:
1. Why was this film so good?
It is a piece built by the best in the business doing their best work.
2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?
Those who are not our best and brightest are making works to satisfy the common denominators in our society.
To finish I want to remind folks of a couple of things.
1. You can e-mail me with any film related question and I will be more than happy to oblige. If I don’t know the answer, I know where to direct you to find resolution to your query.
2. Any such e-mails are subject to being republished here (without your name) if the answer matches my content.
Labels: adaptation, commentary, Gregory Peck, reader mail
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 6:47 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home