Some movies are hyped up unnecessarily without any apparent reasons. An old classic 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' is one such example. I am sure the classic movie lovers would loathe that statement of mine. But I can not help but be honest in expressing my feelings about the movie.
Based on a critically acclaimed novel by Harper Lee with the same title, this movie features in the Top 50 movie list of all times from IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top) at number 46. It is a Black-&-White movie produced in 1962 with the talented star of his time Gregory Pack inn lead role.
The story revolves around a Lawyer who defends an African-American man for the crime that he did not commit. It depicts the severely racist and disgusting attitude of American people at that time. It depicts an African American's plight and humiliation that he had to face because of such racist community. Along with this main theme, it also shows innocent gambol of two little children of this Lawyer and few incidents surrounding them.
Now about the criticism of this movie. First, the director has taken a real long time to build up the plot. The weaving of the tale is far too lengthy and lackluster. I agree that it is difficult to appreciate a classic movie because of lack of technical magnificence of lighting and sound effects. But this movie lacks the grip in the plot too.
The movie is supposed to be a Court Room Drama. And even the book for that matter. But the courtroom scene in the movie is hardly 15 minutes long in the whole movie, which is of the length of about 130 minutes. The dialogues are banal. Acting of all the actors except the two kids and the legend Pack himself are superfluous to say the least.
Though the intelligentsia would demean my opinion by calling it pedestrian because I am unable to appreciate the so called 'Classics', I would stand up and boldly say that I would rather rate movies like 'Gladiator' or 'Cindrella Man' of today's time better than these old movies which have grabbed the place in history as classics just because they appeared earlier in time.
Posts
3 comments:
Its an amazing movie Bhavin! Though its not as good as the book and has a few loopholes too (but then, none of the movies that are based on classic books are "good").
And I dont think that the movie lacks grip in the plot. You have to appreciate the fact that the movie was made in 1962, when cinematographic technologies were very very different and under-developed. Today you have graphics, SFX, morphings, better cameras, clearer voices and stuff which didnt exist earlier. Also, never compare book/novel-based movies with other movies. It takes a lot of effort on the part of the director and the crew to "feel" the author's viewpoint and "get into a character". Its different with your own script, as there is scope for modifcation, customisation and amendments. Also, when script writing is done, it is done by keeping a particular actor/set of actors in mind, and that cannot be done in case of movies based on novels. The director and the script-writer and the actors have to struggle a lot...it is very difficult and needs tremendous courage to portray someone else's thoughts on screen. You have to let go of your egos, you have to dump your creativity, and you have to pull yourself to look in to someone else's soul, which indeed is a big challenge.
Movies like Lord of the rings and Godfather have done justice to the books. And you do not need sound effects and camera work to make your movie engaging. Godfather again is an example of it.
I do not think that the book itself would be too interesting. Again, personal opinion. Our choices can differ.
I've read the book and I loved it like anything. Haven't watched/read Godfather so can't say. LOTR was too long and detailed a read, so the movie was indeed welcome. And yes, we may always agree to disagree...ladne ka maza hi kuch aur hai :D
Post a Comment