cwente2
Joined Mar 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews3
cwente2's rating
After forty-three years, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (TKAM) remains one of the most effective testimonials to the ravages of ignorance and prejudice ever recorded on film. Asking myself why this gracefully paced narrative has left such an indelible impression on so many, I've concluded it's because the film isn't about what most of its supporters and detractors claim it's about. Not about race or prejudice? . . . No. At its core, TKAM is about "neighbors" and "community", which concept forms the basis for the gravity of its message in the matter of Tom Robinson.
Other films have followed on the familiar theme of racial bigotry and its well-documented devastations. These films have been consistently less effective because we are not asked to think so much, or to connect the history depicted with the histories of our own lives and our own communities.
I've performed in two stage versions of TKAM, neither of which benefited from the brilliant input of screenwriter, Horton Foote. Both plays focus, almost exclusively, on the racial element of the story. They, like so many films of later years, come off as "heavy-handed" or "in-your-face" regarding this element. Well . . . "If you think this way -- you're bad." End of story. In TKAM (the film), we see a community of poor, unique, and apparently respectable people helping one another through a Depression. In stark contrast (and beautifully prepared by the film's creators) the injustices meted out to Tom Robinson and his family represent a dramatic anachronism of unthinkable proportions. And, it's as routine, in this gentle Southern community, as a child's fear of a mysterious neighbor, or a shy but happy exchange of hickory nuts for legal services rendered. Memorable? Most emphatically. Think about it. It's what director Mulligan wants us to do.
Other films have followed on the familiar theme of racial bigotry and its well-documented devastations. These films have been consistently less effective because we are not asked to think so much, or to connect the history depicted with the histories of our own lives and our own communities.
I've performed in two stage versions of TKAM, neither of which benefited from the brilliant input of screenwriter, Horton Foote. Both plays focus, almost exclusively, on the racial element of the story. They, like so many films of later years, come off as "heavy-handed" or "in-your-face" regarding this element. Well . . . "If you think this way -- you're bad." End of story. In TKAM (the film), we see a community of poor, unique, and apparently respectable people helping one another through a Depression. In stark contrast (and beautifully prepared by the film's creators) the injustices meted out to Tom Robinson and his family represent a dramatic anachronism of unthinkable proportions. And, it's as routine, in this gentle Southern community, as a child's fear of a mysterious neighbor, or a shy but happy exchange of hickory nuts for legal services rendered. Memorable? Most emphatically. Think about it. It's what director Mulligan wants us to do.
"The Ten Commandments" is a milestone film. For some, those of us in their 50's or older, it represents the end of an era: Some call it "The Golden Age of Hollywood"; the beginning of the end of the studio system; and the end of a period in which the real founders of the "public art" took, or began to take, their final bows -- DeMille, Zukor, Goldwyn, Selznick, and others.
For those of us who saw "The Ten Commandments" on the big screen and in one of the now extinct gilded movie palaces of yesteryear, the picture holds special memories. There is a sense of nostalgia that accompanies any new viewing of this one-of-a-kind Victorian pageant. For many, I'm sure, the nostalgia extends beyond the film itself.
There were problems in the mid-fifties, as in every decade since the real Moses came down from Mount Sinai. Polio, the continuing menace of poverty, the material and spiritual separateness of what we called "colored people", Communism, etc. But . . . there were virtues too, many reflected in the writing and performances of "The Ten Commandments": Virtues like courage, strength of character, personal honor, and endurance were paramount (no pun intended). The biggest problem in schools was students chewing gum in class. Today, it's students "shooting-up" in parking lots or shooting down their classmates in the halls. . . America had an identity then.
DeMille's vision was, always, of "an ideal". He painstakingly produced authentic looking packages in which to wrap his vision -- embellished by the "glitz" of what was, then, the "ideal" Hollywood portrait: Bluer than blue skies; shimmering, jewel-encrusted costumes; out-sized architecture; dramatically convenient thunderbolts; and perfectly lovely female leads, with make-up invariably and predictably un-smudged. DeMille gave his audience what they expected from an "A" picture. He wasn't interested in realism. His idea was to reinforce values he'd learned from his parents and his brother (a noted playwright) in a dramatic format which could be "felt" by young and old, alike . . . more a reverence for time-honored principles than the analytical, ironic, and questioning approach dominant in the films of today. There was in the 50's and the 40's a more amicable attitude toward "orthodoxy" -- in all its forms. Hence, the overwhelming popularity of every DeMille production released during that period.
After fifty years, "The Ten Commandments" is still impressive visually, dramatically, and especially in terms of the intensity of its convictions (reflected in all the biographies of the principals) . . . something which cannot be said of many similar big-budget pictures of the same era.
One day, someone may attempt a re-make. Expect that it will be visually impressive and less "stagy". But . . . expect, as well, that it will be punctuated with the obligatory mandates of political correctness; an uncertainty about its message; and a healthy dose of Twenty-First Century cynicism. It will be more "realistic" to be sure, but far less "authentic" -- like a perfume ad, physically attractive, but without a "heart".
For those of us who saw "The Ten Commandments" on the big screen and in one of the now extinct gilded movie palaces of yesteryear, the picture holds special memories. There is a sense of nostalgia that accompanies any new viewing of this one-of-a-kind Victorian pageant. For many, I'm sure, the nostalgia extends beyond the film itself.
There were problems in the mid-fifties, as in every decade since the real Moses came down from Mount Sinai. Polio, the continuing menace of poverty, the material and spiritual separateness of what we called "colored people", Communism, etc. But . . . there were virtues too, many reflected in the writing and performances of "The Ten Commandments": Virtues like courage, strength of character, personal honor, and endurance were paramount (no pun intended). The biggest problem in schools was students chewing gum in class. Today, it's students "shooting-up" in parking lots or shooting down their classmates in the halls. . . America had an identity then.
DeMille's vision was, always, of "an ideal". He painstakingly produced authentic looking packages in which to wrap his vision -- embellished by the "glitz" of what was, then, the "ideal" Hollywood portrait: Bluer than blue skies; shimmering, jewel-encrusted costumes; out-sized architecture; dramatically convenient thunderbolts; and perfectly lovely female leads, with make-up invariably and predictably un-smudged. DeMille gave his audience what they expected from an "A" picture. He wasn't interested in realism. His idea was to reinforce values he'd learned from his parents and his brother (a noted playwright) in a dramatic format which could be "felt" by young and old, alike . . . more a reverence for time-honored principles than the analytical, ironic, and questioning approach dominant in the films of today. There was in the 50's and the 40's a more amicable attitude toward "orthodoxy" -- in all its forms. Hence, the overwhelming popularity of every DeMille production released during that period.
After fifty years, "The Ten Commandments" is still impressive visually, dramatically, and especially in terms of the intensity of its convictions (reflected in all the biographies of the principals) . . . something which cannot be said of many similar big-budget pictures of the same era.
One day, someone may attempt a re-make. Expect that it will be visually impressive and less "stagy". But . . . expect, as well, that it will be punctuated with the obligatory mandates of political correctness; an uncertainty about its message; and a healthy dose of Twenty-First Century cynicism. It will be more "realistic" to be sure, but far less "authentic" -- like a perfume ad, physically attractive, but without a "heart".