lieu - The American sailors took a vote and decided that they’d rather meet their end at home, much like the sailor who jumped ship in San Francisco, which was his home town.
It’s funny, I’ve read most of Shute’s work but never read his most famous book, because I thought it’d be too depressing. And it was, but it was fascinating, too. And to show where my symapthies lie, I thought, “what happens to all the animals (like the horse in the one scene) after all the humans have commited suicide. I hope they had the decency to put them down first.”
Who here who lived through the Cold War really thought there’d be a nuclear holocaust by now?
How can this be? “Waltzing Mathilda,” for me, is inextricably tied to Gallipoli, and the horrendous casualties that the ANZAC forces took there. And especially to the homecoming for the wounded and survivors of that campaign. “Waltzing Mathilda” is always a tear-jerker for me.
Although I think Mockingbird is one of the best films to take a child’s-eye view of the world, I know I’ve argued before on this board that it’s a film that handles issues of race from a comfortably stacked deck. Atticus Finch? Genuinely human, but also absolutely perfect. The Ewells? Thoroughly irredeemable and detestable in every conceiveable way. Tom Robinson? Your quintessential victim and, like the Ewells, one-dimensional. The trial, evidence and final verdict (as well as Tom’s final fate)? Specifically triangulated to exploit even the most close-minded person’s sense of outrage. Were black people treated as such and worse? Of course. But Harper Lee positions all her players so that the conflict is seen in the most obvious (and predictable) black-and-white terms (so to speak). Racism is BAD. It’s a perfect story for, say, early teens, because they have a protagonist to identify with and it paints some of the truly heinous examples of racial prejudice in accessible (but still unflinching) terms. But for more adult viewers, it simply reinforces our own sense of moral self-regard, especially since the film is a period film, so even people in the 60s could look at the story and say, “Well, things aren’t as bad as that anymore.” And in that sense, I agree completely with lissener about its self-congratulatory air.
I think a far better film (from a more sophisticated story) is Clarence Brown’s Intruder in the Dust, from the William Faulkner novel. The lawyer hero, Gavin Stevens, isn’t perfect–he’s liberal, open-minded, but still susceptible to the same innate prejudices that can be found in rural Mississippi. Essentially, he’s more believable than Atticus Finch (if not quite as likable). Lucas Beauchamp, the black man on trial for murdering a white local, is prickly, uncooperative, “uppity”, and a royal pain-in-the-ass. He’s also smart, dignified, and unwilling to allow the white people around him to act as his “savior”, even when it’s his neck on the line. The Gowrie family (kin to the murdered man) are initially presented as ignorant white trash, but as the story progresses, there are unexpected depths and complexities that show that even hateful racists still have recognizable human qualities. They are people, not simply villanious devices to get the theme across. And when it comes to heroism, Atticus has nothing on Eunice Habersham, the old matron who sits in her rocking chair, shotgun in hand, facing off a surly lynch mob with her quiet rectitude. It’s a remarkable movie (with a perfectly appropriate, unsentimental ending) that takes place in the Southern here-and-now (the film was made in 1949), not the Southern way-back-when. And the acting across-the-board is superlative.
Mockingbird is indeed a lovely film and an excellent adaptation, and Peck has never been better (though I also agree either 12 O’Clock High or The Gunfighter are actually his best films). But it’s also a safe movie, cozy and comforting about our own “advanced” perceptions of race and justice. Dust leaves us with no obvious hero (though plenty of nobility to go around) and not as many convenient answers. And that is why I, too, think the former, while good and well-acted, is vastly overrated and the latter sorely underappreciated (it’s not even available on DVD). And Dust isn’t the only film to deal more interestingly, and provocatively, about race pre-1962, so while Mockingbird is sensitive and lovely, it’s in no way particularly ground-breaking in its handling of the subject.
Thanks for enlighening me, OtakuLoki. Just goes to show you, one can fill volumes with stuff one doesn’t know. For me a “Waltzing Mathilda” was always the bedroll Aussie soldiers used for sleeping… I just had never heard the tune played so sadly before…
That source seems to me to suggest that “Charlie Wheeler” is rhyming slang for “sheila”, which in turn is Australian slang for woman, based on the common Irish given name “Sheila”. There was a real person called Charles Wheeler, who was a painter, but I don’t think the phrase means boobs.
In the movie, after the American sailors come back from their scouting expedition to see if there was anyone left outside of Australia, Gregory Peck’s character goes fly fishing (out of season!) and a number of others are similarly breaking the law because it basically has no meaning. After the fishing you can hear “Waltzing Matilda” being sung more and more drunkenly and rowdily, and it begins to get on your nerves. Then a soloist sings the verse about never being taken alive, and how his ghost haunts the billabong. It brings the moment when the radiation sickness starts overtaking people.
Has anyone listened closely to the soundtrack? I don’t know if he was credited on the original movie soundtrack, but damn if I am not hearing strains of Copeland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man”!
I would recognize that piece anywhere since I used EL&P’s version of it as my skydiving video!
Elmer Bernstein’s Oscar-nominated score was 100% original for the film, but it is reminiscent of some Copland films scores (Our Town, Of Mice and Men) in how it evokes a classic rural Americana, so the comparison isn’t offbase.
I’ll be watching On the Beach later tonight OnDemand so I might actually be able to contribute to the real topic. But meanwhile…
As opposed to the nuanced shadings in a film that would show that racism is … not bad? But seriously, I think it’s a strange viewing of TKAM indeed that would result in deciding that the Ewells are unidimensional evil. The father? Sure, considering he’s a racist child abusing thug. But Mayella (the daughter) herself? How on earth could one see her as portrayed as pure evil? The script, the direction, the performance all combined to paint a picture of a girl who’s been forced into drudgery by poverty, lack of education and a brutish, bigoted father. She reaches out to Tom in a moment of loneliness/need. Only upon being caught by Ewell does she turn around and blames Tom for so-called attempted rape. Of course, this is a horrible, cowardly thing to do, but considering she was badly beaten and throttled – probably not the first time – it’s somewhat mitigated by her being afraid for her life. Mayella’s desperate to hide her feelings of attraction for Tom from her father (though he already really knows) and the town. (My reading on Mayella’s not exactly obscure – these points are all brought up in Atticus’s cross examination and closing argument!)
So I just don’t see the irredeemable, utterly detestable villain you describe. How are we supposed to react to her? With contempt, certainly, but some measure of pity as well.
And look at the lynch mob scene. If TKAM were all about black/white depictions of EVIL! vs. good, the bigots in the crowd wouldn’t have cared about Atticus or his kids’ presence, they’d’ve run roughshod over them and murdered Tom as planned. Instead, we see Mr. Cunningham – another impoverished, ignorant man much like Ewell – feeling shame and humility, and finally turning away.
Obviously it’s possible to view TKAM the way you and lissener do. But to me it seems an awfully shallow reading of this beautiful film.
glee - I echo your tears during that “your father’s passin’” scene. So heartbreaking.
But you know what? I have enjoyed reading all of your opinions - on topic or not. Agreeing with me or not.
And, as result, I will be watching TKAM the next time it comes around with your comments in mind.
However, (y’all knew a “however” was coming, right???) I still believe Gregory Peck played his roles (Well, dammit - with the exception of “Omen”, and what got into him to agree to that role???) studiously well, and I can still see him trying to tell Moira about his family, dead, and the fact that he just cannot accept it. It was as close to crying that I believe the man could come…
This man who gets into bed with Tuesday Weld fully clothed…
You make a good point about Mayella, but her pa has little nuance beyond abusive, pathologically racist and dishonest white trash. That alone I don’t have a problem with. But the depiction of Tom Robinson is a pendulum swing in the other direction. Sweet, beatific, docile, humble, and with a crippled arm no less. All he’s missing are ruminations on his dead puppy! Brock Peters does a great job with flimsy material, but having the case for him be so transparently one-sided, to have him found guilty despite testimony that a blind man can see through, and then (just to drive the point home for anyone who hasn’t caught on yet) to have him gunned down in cold blood–that’s called stacking the narrative deck. We may know that racism is bad, but this has the subtlety of an anvil.
You can stack the deck without putting all aces in your hand. The fact that the crowd scene isn’t handled as you describe it could’ve been doesn’t negate the argument I’ve made about positioning every character and plot development to most easily get your message across (plus, the result is still the same: a Dead Tom Robinson). Plus, Atticus is still seen as a pillar of the community (and a crack shot, as well), so having them intimidated by a figure of moral authority isn’t much of a stretch.
To make these arguments, I’d argue, is the exact opposite of a shallow reading. I admire and appreciate the film for what it is, and there are many beautiful things about it (particularly Scout’s growing awareness of her world, her father, and the cruelty that exists in the world and the choices people make in it). But I’m not about to admit it’s a paradigm of sophistication in exploring racial issues when it’s clearly not.
Though Judge Priest was the first film I thought of in this context, I agree with you 100% about Intruder in the Dust. The fact that it’s never been available on DVD (and used VHSes of it go for collectors’ prices) helps, perhaps, to keep it more toward the back of my mind, when seeking examples in a wideranging forum like this one, than in the front. But it does show up on TCM from time to time, and I have an, um, homemade disc of it. We have a Black History Month display in my video store right now, and I felt that film’s absence acutely when I was putting the display together.
I’m not sure why a movie must be a “paradigm of sophistication in exploring racial issues” in order to be a good movie. Isn’t having a moving story convincingly acted and directed a worthwhile goal?
Moreover, I do not see that depicting someone as a genuinely good person (such as Atticus) ruins the story; I do not understand the notion that sophistication equals portraying everyone as having feet of clay. Admittedly it takes more skill to convincingly portray an altogether good person …
There’s another Peck film I really like, The Big Country. Peck is a sea captain who comes to the Wild West to marry his girl, and it’s about clashing cultures. All the locals are blowhard cowboys who talk about the bigness of the lands and their own toughness, as demonstrated by breaking broncs and beating on each other. Peck won’t have any of it, and neither he nor they are impressed with each other.
As I’ve said repeatedly, it is a good movie. But it’s also an overrated one. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Much of the praise for the film tends not to focus on the film’s true strengths (the coming-of-age/young girl’s POV angle), but on its “fearless” handling of racism. But it’s not fearless. It’s safe and cozy and perfectly fine for what it is. But its approach to the subject is like shooting fish in a barrel–it’s really hard to miss what you’re aiming for.
And again–depicting someone as resolutely good and honorable isn’t the issue (Atticus is unquestionably heroic, and Peck nicely shades in the areas of his character’s doubts and insecurities). It’s when that singularly positive portrayal fits comfortably into a larger schema of other extremes that it becomes, not so much a “problem” or a “failing”, but definitely a hinderance to achieving something more mature and complex and distinctive, both thematically and tonally.
This is exactly what bugged me (well, one of many things) about Blood Diamond. Every time Djimon Hounsou posed for his marble bust I thought of Brock Peters in TKaM. (Not the performance so much as the character.)
But meanwhile…