Yes, a favorite of mine too. Charlton Heston and Burl Ives as the bad guys–though not without their nuances; it’s probably my favorite Ives performance–are really great.
But at least Hounsou was passionate about something. He actually drives the story (and he’s more charismatic to boot). Tom Robinson is mostly a device. Speaking for myself, I feel bad about his death because there’s a horrible injustice to it. But it’s still more a symbolic death as opposed to a real flesh-and-blood character that dies.
No, Heston is a good guy, though he’s a slow learner. He’s the ranch foreman, and the ranch owner is the other bad guy. I can’t remember who it is, but I have the DVD. I will check it out.
Hmm. Need to watch it again. What western has Heston as the bad guy? I still picture him, in the canyon, waiting to ambush Peck. I’ll have to watch it again tonight.
I disagree with the premise. I do not think that the majority of the praise directed at the film is focused on the “fearless” handling of racism.
The focus rather was on the various forms courage and compassion can take, and the tension between social transgressions good and bad - and of a child’s growing awareness of these. Racism was simply one of the issues informing this - as was class (the shaming of a classmate over table manners, the fact that one of the same people forming the lynch mob was paying Atticus in vegitables), the isolation of the mentally unstable Boo Radley … etc. Naturally, race was one of the biggies, as it is the racially-informed trial that forms one of the main themes in the story. But it is not the only one.
To my mind, it is the interweaving of these themes which provides the distiction and complexity. It is not “hindered”, in my opinion, by not potraying Atticus as “still susceptible to the same innate prejudices that can be found in rural Mississippi”, or by making Tom Robinson “is prickly, uncooperative, “uppity”, and a royal pain-in-the-ass”.
Why “sophistication” is valued in the sense of painting everyone as necessarily grey I do not understand.
The two feuding landowners were Ives and Charles Bickford. Heston was Bickford’s foreman, but finally backed away from getting into the big gunfight that Bickford and Ives were trying to drag all their men into. Heston and Peck do have a big fistfight scene.
Now that I’ve watched the trailer, I think I know what I’ll be watching more of tonight. Spectacular photography, too. And Jean Simmons, yum!
I’m not sure what other western you might be thinking of.
I will agree with you that Mockingbird works because of that balance as oriented to Scout’s POV. But I will also argue that most of the time the film is praised, it’s all about the trial and Atticus’ valiant courtroom efforts and “Stand Up, your Father’s passing.” You rarely hear about Scout’s observations independent of this, or the handling of Boo Radley’s fate. Yes, they are often cursorily acknowledged, but, to these eyes at least, the praise always seems inordinately geared toward the racism angle and how “progressive” it all is (this is particularly true when it’s cited as a paragon of “issue-oriented” cinema). YMMV, of course.
I use “sophistication” merely as a counterpoint to “predictable inevitability”. Every step of the way, Tom Robinson’s fate seems predestined out of literary convenience–the course of the trial, the prejudice of the town, his tragic end are all conveyed “authentically”, but because there are so few shades of grey, it all feels schematic to me. “Sophistication” means pushing the envelope, undermining your expectations, and taking things in directions that are unexpected but still feel completely organic and natural. There’s nothing about the Harper Lee story that speaks to this end for me. This isn’t necessarily a “failure” (some great narratives thrive on their sense of inevitability), but to me it feels a little too by-the-numbers. It’s a trip well-rendered and sensitively handled, but it doesn’t tell me much I don’t already know. It doesn’t challenge or subvert or provoke; which is why, as good as it is on its own terms, it doesn’t register with the same power, nor resonate with the same impact, as the Faulkner (to use but one example; there are others, too). Again, YMMV.
His most important film was “Twelve O’Clock High” because it had airplanes in it.
So there.
Yeah, right. Whatever…
I TIVO’D it and just watched it for the second time, and still have the same opinion.
Thank you
Quasi
Some clips from Intruder in the Dust , courtesy of TCM.