The movie on To Kill a Mockingbird was, but wasn’t much like the book. The characters in the movie were nothing like how I imagined then in my head when I read the book. I imagined Scout to have braids in her hair, overalls, and intelligent. But the Scout in movie looked to young, and if she was wearing her overalls, she looked like a boy and not a girl. Scout was supposed to act like a boy, not look like one. Although I did think Jem’s character looked all right, but he still looked a bit too young. Dill was nothing like how I imagined him. Dill was pretty ugly, no offense to him, but Scout was supposed to be a bit attracted to him because they were “married” and in the movie she didn’t seem to attracted to him and I don’t blame her. Atticus was what I imagined him to be. The actor who played him was a good actor. He acted just like Atticus would react.
Something about the movie that bothered me was how the aging was different. Scout and Jem were supposed to age a couple years and Jem was supposed to be at a more mature level by the time the trial of Tom Robinson happened. Instead, they didn’t age at all and were still at that young age. So these young kids were in a courthouse at it looks like the age of 6-10ish and they were talking about rape. I don’t think kids at that age should be allowed in a situation like that.
They also skipped a couple scenes from the book that was important. They skipped the scene where Miss Maudie’s house caught on fire. That was an important scene because Boo came out and put a blanket on Scout. When Boo left things in the tree for Scout and Jem in the book, Scout and Jem were always together when they found the surprises. In the movie, Scout was only present for one of them. Another scene that was n the book, but not in the movie, was when Scout and Jem went to Cal’s church meeting on Sunday.
The book, in my case, was better than the movie. I have yet to see a movie that has as all the details from a book, and until then, I will always like the book better. But the faults above make me not enjoy the movie as much as I liked the book. I didn’t really like how it was in black and white, but I liked it a bit because it shows the age of both the movie and the book. The book was set in the early mid 1900’s and that was a while ago, so the movie shows how old the book really is.
You make some fair points- and for what it's worth, books will always have more detail than a film- it's just not possible to have that level of detail in film. Can't be done. Yet.
ReplyDeleteThat said, comparing books and film really is an apple/oranges gig- they're two different medium with different constraints and strengths.
For example: in the trial scene, the body language between Bob Ewell and Mayella is brilliant- and it isn't in the book at all.