Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 202: Much More War

In my last post I complained about the amount of war films nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in the 1960s. I reckon that my feelings about war films come from the fact that I was forced to watch so much of them as a kid. Though all of these films have their plus points, I find myself switching off every time a massive action scene occurs. The Guns of Navarone definitely fits into the category of war film that I was forced into watching on weekend afternoons in my youth. The story concerns a group of men who are sent to destroy a number of massive radar-guns that have been aimed at the Greek island of Navarone by the German army. These guns are aimed at the island in order to threaten Turkey into joining the Axis Powers during World War 2. The group of men sent on the mission include mountaineer Keith Mallory, explosives expert John Miller, Greek army captain Anthony Stavrou and their leader Major Roy Franklin. The group disguise themselves as Greek fishermen but encounter peril from the get-go when their boat is hit by a storm and the majority of their possessions are destroyed. Meanwhile Franklin is injured during a climb and Mallory ends up taking control of the unit as they meet up with some of the island's local resistance fighters. Eventually the team are captured by the Germans but, thanks to a diversion from Stavrou, they are able to overpower their captors and disguise themselves as German officers. However, Miller later discovers his explosives have been tampered with and realises that there is a mole within their midst. So it remains to be seen if the guns of Navarone will be destroyed or if our heroes will fail their mission. Which one do you think is more likely?

I'm going to try and be a little positive in this review and say there were some things I liked about The Guns of Navarone. The lead performances from Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn all had something to offer even it all three have done a lot better. As Mallory, Peck was a natural leader but was full of regret about what he'd done in the war up to this point. Mallory's blood feud with Stavrou was also an interesting theme running throughout the film as I found it utterly intriguing that the latter had promised to kill the former after the war was over. I did enjoy Quinn's turn, even if it was a slightly more aggressive version of his Zorba the Greek character that he would play several years later. Meanwhile Niven acted almost as the light relief of the film but then turned towards the end as he found out who the saboteur was in their group. My main issue with the film is that I just wasn't invested enough in any of the characters and therefore I didn't really care when they started dying in the final scenes. I do have to admit though that the action scenes were fairly spectacular for the time and that the film did deserve to win its Special Effects Oscar. I feel like I'm repeating myself when I'm saying the film is far too long but I don't feel that the story needed two and a half hours devoted to it. Overall The Guns of Navarone was a well-acted war film with some great set pieces but I never really found myself immersed in the action in the way I feel I should've been.

Next time I take a step away from the action with something a little more sedate.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 201: How to keep your Coolies

As I move onto the last ten or so films of this decade I can't help but notice how many war films I have left to watch. In fact I'm surprised by the number of war epics and westerns in these ceremonies, but I suppose these were simpler times before the notion of the 'Oscar film' was ever created. Anyway, the next war film on my list, The Sand Pebbles, stars everybody's favourite action hero Steve McQueen as naval machinist Jake Holman. The film follows Holman as he becomes a member of the crew of gunboat 'The San Paolo', nicknamed the 'Sand Pebble' by the men who serve on it. When Holman arrives he discovers that the crew do very little and instead leave all of the work to the Chinese labourers known as Coolies. Holman isn't a fan of the current situation and wants to work in the engine room, but the majority of the crew see him as a threat to their cushy lifestyle and refuse to help him out. Holman's only friend aboard the ship is the sensitive Frenchy who strikes up a relationship with educated local girl Maily, after he stopped her from being bought by another crew member. However, Maily and Frenchy's relationship is stalled when the rebellious natives refuse to let the San Paolo leave until they free all of their Chinese coolies. This stalemate eventually results in a gun battle between the two which leaves many of the San Paolo crew members dead. Meanwhile Holman and Captain Collins lead a team whose mission it is to rescue two American teachers who are stranded in the country. But it seems that this mission may be their last as the Chinese begin to close in on them.

I have to say that, during this Oscar challenge, the films that feature prolonged battle segments are the ones that probably interest me the least. Thankfully, when The Sand Pebbles wasn't full of macho posturing, there were some things to like. Steve McQueen gives a balanced performance as Holman, a man who is always trying to do the right thing but always seems to get people killed in the process. In fact I quite agreed with the crew of the San Paolo as life was a lot easier before he came along. But his presence at least brings up some interesting themes about the exploitation of immigrant workers and racial tensions between the two. Richard Crenna was also great as the matter-of-fact captain who was just trying to do the best for his crew and I felt his scenes were some of the more compelling. But the film was definitely stolen by Richard Attenborough whose was brilliant as the likeable yet naive Frenchy. Even though I couldn't tell what accent Attenborough was attempting, I found Frenchy's relationship with Maily the most interesting and engaging story in the whole film. At just over three hours, The Sand Pebbles was far too long and I thought that, if it had been trimmed down by at least thirty minutes, it would've been a lot better. I also didn't much care for the central love story betwen Holman and Candice Bergen's teacher Shirley as there was never any chemistry between the two. Interestingly, The Sand Pebbles was nominated for eight Oscars but went home with none, something I'm not surprised about as I found it to be a completely forgettable film, if not one that did have a few standout moments.

Next time more shooting and macho posturing with another all-action war film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 199 and 200: All at Sea

So here we are, back again with another post featuring two films bound together by a common theme. This time I'm taking it to incredibly tenuous levels by focusing on two movies that are both set on boats. One is a remake of a previous Oscar winner, the other is a periodic drama focusing on a number of characters aboard a German ocean liner.

And we'll start with the latter film, Ship of Fools, which is based on a novel but feels like it's been adapted from a play. The film focuses on a plethora of characters aboard a liner that has departed from Mexico and is on the way to Germany. Several to camera monologues are performed by a dwarf named Glocken, who is regularly ostracised on the ship and spends his dinner times eating with the Jewish passengers. The majority of the film is seen through the eyes of the ship's Doctor Schumann, who is about depart the vessel as he has found out he is dying from a heart condition. Schumann is drawn to one of the latest passengers - a drug-addicted countessa from Spain who is bound for a Mexican jail. Schumann and La Contessa fall in love but both realise that their courtship cannot last. Aging divorcee Mary Treadwell is attempting to glam herself up but she discovers she isn't as young as she used to be, something former baseball player Bill Denny is also learning. Meanwhile younger couple Jenny and David are having issues as he feels like she doesn't appreciate his art and doesn't have as many ideas and beliefs as him. Finally we meet Rieber, a bigoted businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party and perfectly represents the feeling of some Germans in 1933.

I personally found Ship of Fools to be a mixed bag of stories, some that I liked more than others. I felt the relationship between Schumman and the countessa was perfectly played by Oskar Werner and Simone Signoret. This sort of tragic love story was at the heart of the film and I would've preferred to have seen the film focus on just that. Vivien Leigh, in her final film role, is brilliant as Mary a former beauty who is losing her looks, and I really liked the scene in which she put on make-up in front of the mirror while talking to herself. But I found other stories to be less engaging especially the one focusing on Jose Ferrer's Rieber and his ostracising of several of his fellow passengers. One of the better performances from me came from Michael Dunn who, as Glocken, has to narrate the story straight to the audience. The film certainly looked impressive, with the flamenco scene in particular catching my eye, but there's only so much you can do with a film set almost completely on a boat. Given the cast, I would've thought that Ship of Fools could've been better but there was just far too much going on. While I'm not surprised that it received a ton of Oscar nominations, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I also found myself comparing it to previous Best Picture Winner Grand Hotel which this bore more than a striking resemblance to.

Talking of Best Picture winners from the 1930s, we have our first remake of one in the form of Mutiny on the Bounty. This version, director by Lewis Milestone, sees Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian return but this time both characters seem slightly different. The story is the same, namely that a crew of men set off to Tahiti but on the way their Captain starts to act in a tyrannical fashion. As Captain Bligh wants to keep the water rations low, he starts to deprive his men of their basic rations and raises the ire of Fletcher. But in this version of Mutiny on the Bounty, Fletcher is presented as more of a fop who is influence into mutiny by his fellow shipmates. One seaman in particular, Mills, gets in Fletcher's ear and provokes him into fighting against his captain. One other big change is that Fletcher ultimately regrets his decision and tries to return to England but his plans our sabotaged by other mutineers. This version of the story also introduced a narrator in the form of horticulturist William Brown whose job it was to identify the breadfruit plants when the crew got to Tahiti. However, I didn't believe Brown would've been part of the mutiny and felt the only reason for his betrayal was so that he could recall the story on camera.

I personally wasn't much of a fan of this version of Mutiny on the Bounty than I was of the Oscar-winning 1935 original. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of the performances lacked the passion that was present in the previous cast. A case in point is Trevor Howard, who played Bligh, as he is a lot less menacing and therefore comes across as less of a brute than Charles Laughton. Indeed, Bligh was fairly friendly at times and most of his dastardly acts were at least explainable to an extent. I get the feeling that Fletcher Christian's change of character was due to the fact that Marlon Brando played him. Brando, who allegedly held up the production, obviously wanted to play more of a hero so in this version Fletcher literally goes down in flames. I fact I found the most compelling member of the cast to be Richard Harris as idealistic Seaman Mills. At almost three hours, the film is way too long and I honestly didn't really get into it until the second act. The film really gets going during and after the mutiny with all the cast excelling in their various roles. There's no denying that this version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more visually spectacular than its original but other than that there's nothing new here. I especially wasn't a fan of Brando here, and I feel that he's lost something since I last saw him in On the Waterfront and Sayonara.

Next time we continue on the sea - this time with Steve McQueen.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 198: Practise What You Preach

Next up a look at how religion became big business and how preaching the Lord's name for profit can sometimes be a bad idea. The film in question is Elmer Gantry, with the titular hard-drinking salesman being played with verve and vigour by a game Burt Lancaster. In the early part of the film, Gantry is portrayed as a man who likes women, whisky and gambling but his world soon changes when he encounters public evangelist Sister Sharon Falconer. After several attempts to attract her attention, Elmer finally weasels his way into her roadshow team and gradually becomes part of the service himself. Elmer and Sharon quickly develop a good cop/bad cop routine where he tells everyone they're going to hell before she promises to save their souls. Meanwhile, the pair's exploits attract the attention of sceptical journalist Jim Lefferts who gains notoriety himself after trying to expose Gantry for the fraud he is. Despite Jim's criticisms, Sharon and Elmer continue to build-up a following and start taking their show to larger cities, drawing bigger crowds as they go. Elmer is also able to talk himself into presenting a radio show and tells the locals to shut down known speakeasys and brothels. However, when Elmer breaks into one of these brothels, he encounters an old flame of his - Lulu who has fallen on hard times since Elmer left her. Lulu attempts to get revenge by staging a scene in which Elmer is seen giving her money and planting a kiss on her lips. When Sharon, who has since become Elmer's lover, sees the pictures she resolves to pay Lulu the money she wants but the pictures make it to the paper nonetheless. As Elmer's reputation is muddied, the roadshows are almost empty with most of the congregation made up of people who want to heckle and throw things at Sharon and Elmer. But, after Elmer comes to Lulu's aid, she recants her tale and admits that the whole thing was a set-up just to avenge the way Elmer treated her. As the crowds return to Sharon's show, it seems that her life is back on track but one more tragedy hits that changes everything.

I have to say it did take me a while to warm to Elmer Gantry, mainly because the first twenty minutes were simply spent building up to Elmer's first meeting with Sharon. I felt director Richard Brooks' script, which was partly based on Sinclair Lewis' novel, really presented an interesting character in Elmer. Throughout the film you didn't know how much of what he said was genuine and whether he really believed in what he was saying or that he was simply trying to make a fast buck. Similarly, Sharon's motives are initially questioned, as it seems as if her preaching the name of God is simply to get famous, however we later learn the truth about where the money is going. While the film presented a number of interesting characters, including Jim and Lulu, I never felt it was visually stunning until the final ten minutes. The final disaster of the film, which I won't ruin in this post, is presented in a way in which you really fear for the lives of all of the characters. Elmer Gantry's other strength is the Oscar-Winning central performance from Burt Lancaster who really steals the show as the fast-talking conman. From the very first scene, Lancaster is truly captivating as he wanders around with a big smile on his face and preaches the word of the Lord with such conviction. Jean Simmons was also brilliant as Sister Sharon, a character whose motives change several times during the film. I'm surprised that Simmons wasn't even nominated for an Oscar seeing as her performance is just as engaging as Lancaster's. The film's other acting award went to Shirley Jones, who is captivating in the film's second act as the damaged and vengeful Lulu. While some of the scenes in the film could've been slightly shorter, I felt that Elmer Gantry had a lot to offer with its themes of whether religion can ever be used as entertainment. It's odd that this film isn't as well-remembered as some of the other films from this decade; however I'm now going to go out and preach the word of one Elmer Gantry.

Next time we step on board two very different ships.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 197: Many Hur-dles to Jump

Obviously this blog has already covered many iconic films most of which have gone on to win the Best Picture prize. It has also allowed me to fill in a lot of gaps in my cinematic viewing as there are many classic films that I have never watched. One such film is Ben-Hur, which grabbed the top prize at the 1960 Academy Awards. Obviously I was aware of the film's iconic chariot race but at the time I didn't realise how much of it relied on the characters' religious beliefs.

In fact some of the early scenes in the film revolve around us seeing Joseph and Jesus at the former's carpentry warehouse. However, as you probably guessed, the film is mainly based around Charlton Heston's titular character. At the beginning of the film, Ben-Hur is a wealthy prince who is glad to have his old friend Messala back in town as the new Roman tribune. However, the two fall out after Ben-Hur doesn't give Messala the names of the Jews who criticise the Romans. As revenge, Messala condemns Ben-Hur to the galleys after a roof slate falls during a parade for the Romans. Now a slave, Ben-Hur finally gets to prove himself when their ship is attacked by Macedonian forces and he frees the boat's commander Arrius. Ben-Hur stop Arrius committing suicide and the two are later rescued, with Arrius successfully petitioning for Ben-Hur's freedom. Arrius then adopts Ben-Hur as his son and treats him to the finer things in life but Ben-Hur eventually decides he needs to return to Judea. On return to his hometown he meets his old slave's daughter Esther who informs him that his mother and sister have died. In actuality, the pair have contracted leprosy and are now living in a commune, but they don't want Ben-Hur to know about it. Filled with rage, Ben-Hur agrees to compete in a chariot race for wealthy Sheik Ilderim so he can defeat Messala once and for all. After being successful in the chariot race, Ben-Hur sees Jesus perform the Sermon on the Mount and later witnesses his crucifixion. He also attempts to give Jesus water, as Jesus had given Ben-Hur water earlier on, and in return for this Jesus miraculously cures Ben-Hur's mother and sister.

Ben-Hur is definitely a film that is of its time. I think if it came along today then it wouldn't receive the same praise as it did back then. Indeed Ben-Hur has gone down in Oscar history as one of three films, along with Titanic and Return of the King, to win 11 awards. Among these was a Best Actor Award for Charlton Heston who essentially played the same role as he did in The Ten Commandments. Heston's brooding Ben-Hur was certainly compelling but I feel he over-did his performance at some points. Hugh Griffith, as Sheik Ilderim, was also rewarded with the Best Supporting Actor Award for what was a primarily comic turn. Indeed I believe the best performance in the film came from Jack Hawkins as the emotionally tormented Quintus Arrius. I felt Hawkins excelled in the scenes in which his ship comes under attack and he attempts to kill himself only to be freed by one of his slaves. Obviously the film is best remembered for the chariot scene and I felt that was visually spectacular. Indeed, this was what I'd been waiting to see and it didn't disappoint with both director William Wyler and cinematographer Robert L Surtees going out of their way to make this scene completely thrilling. Elsewhere I really enjoyed the scenes in which Ben-Hur was a slave on the boat and found the award-winning Art Direction was also in full force during the section of the film that was set in Rome. I have to say though, and I know this may be seen as heresy, but I felt that the film took a good while to get going and could've been trimmed down by at least thirty minutes. Having said that, I can at least argue that Ben-Hur deserved its Best Picture Oscar as this was a visually-stunning and bold epic which audience wouldn't have seen at the time. While it's far from perfect, it has enough going for it to be a rightful winner and I have no problem with this being one of the eighty or so Best Pictures that I will encounter on this blog.

Next up we continue our religious theme with a very different film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 195 and 196: Girls in Love

Regular readers of this blog will know how often I like to group two or three films together in one post. Usually, I've planned this in advance but occasionally I'll do a double film post out of the blue. This is one such post as I noticed a link between two that being young women routinely getting their heartbroken. The stories are centuries apart but both centre around young lovers and hurdles put in their way to stop them finding love. 

Of course we all know the hurdles that are put in the way of Romeo and Juliet - family rivalry, mates being killed and ridiculously large balconies. Obviously Shakespeare's play has had many different screen versions however Fraco Zeffirelli's adaptation, which was nominated at the 1969 ceremony, is one of the most famous. In fact at the time the film was the most commercially successful film version of a Shakespeare play ever partly due to its contemporary feel. Another reason for its appeal is that it was the first time that the two actors playing the titular lovers were of a similar age. Teenage viewers saw the film in their droves due to the fact that fifteen year old Olivia Hussey and seventeen year old Leonard Whiting played the lead roles. Indeed their casting caused controversy not least because of Hussey appearing in a very brief nude scene. I personally felt that their casting added a lot to the overall believability of the story and can see why it would appeal to a younger audience. Hussey especially excelled at portraying Juliet's naive qualities and really made you believe that Romeo was her first love. Personally I wasn't as much a fan of Whiting, however he was still compelling in the scenes in which Romeo kills Tybalt and essentially ruins any chance of happiness he had with Juliet. While we're on the subject of the cast I felt that Michael York was perfectly snide as Tybalt while Milo O'Shea was a great choice to play Romeo's confident Friar Lawrence. The whole film was also given a bit of Shakespearian authenticity by the fact that Laurence Olivier provided the voice-over for the film, even though he was never credited. 

Away from the casting, the other reason for the film's success was its use of colour and setting to convey the story. I personally loved the Oscar-winning costume designs which were used to differentiate the two warring families. While the Montagues war drab greys and blues, the Capulets were decked out in brighter colours and were definitely viewed as the richer of the two tribes. The fact that the whole film was shot in Rome added to the authenticity of the film and the exterior shots were particularly impressive. Indeed Pasqualino De Santis' cinematography also won an Oscar and I felt his visuals shone throughout the film. I personally felt that the balcony scene and the duels which saw the deaths of both Mercutio and Tybalt were brilliantly filmed. Even though the style and the casting were spot on, I can't say that I was completely wowed by the film. At well over two hours, I found the film dragged and there were some scenes that still didn't really work on film. Overall though, Zeferelli was the first director to give Romeo and Juliet that cinematic flare that it so richly deserved. The use of colour, setting and age-appropriate actors all added to the original text and I ultimately found this film to be a rewarding watch. 

We now rewind back seven years for the second film in this double bill. The film in question is Fanny, whose titular character is played by Leslie Caron of Gigi fame. In the 1950s we saw Caron star in two musicals, An American in Paris was the other one, however here Fanny is a musical with the songs removed. Caron's Fanny is an eighteen year old fish-seller who is desperately in love with young bartender Marius. Marius has been ear-marked by his bar owning father Caesar to take over the family firm but his son dreams of becoming a sailor. Fanny later receives an offer of marriage from elderly bachelor Panisse but turns him down as she wants to be with her true love Marius. Fanny eventually realises that Marius feels trapped and doesn't want to pressure him into a relationship. The two spend one last night together, but she still encourages him to go abroad and tells him that she's rather marry Panisse for his money. Two months after Marius' departure, Fanny discovers she is pregnant with his child and accepts Panisse's offer of marriage mainly to save face. Even though Panisse realises he'll be raising another man's child, he wants his family name to continue and feels this will be the only way to do so. Marius soon discovers the truth but finds out that Panisse will not let Fanny takes his child away and so she turns down Marius once again. Obviously Fanny is torn between her love for Marius and for her young son, and so will be left heartbroken either way.  

I have to say it took me a while to warm to Fanny, mainly because the first twenty minutes or so all revolved around the characters either selling fish or playing cards. It was only after Marius and Fanny had their first heart-to-heart that I really got into the story and found myself really caring about the characters. Indeed Fanny has at least four stand-out performances not least from Caron who is much improved from her turn in Gigi. It's also interesting to see veteran actors Charles Boyer and Maurice Chevalier appear here as both have featured in films on this list since the early 1930s. Boyer, the only member of the cast to get an acting nomination, anchors the film as the passionate yet lonely Caesar. But it was Chevalier who impressed me most in what was a fairly dramatic role, his Panisse was a man who'd never truly found love and used his money to marry Fanny. However Chevalier played a man who really did care for this young woman and longed for her to love him. Horst Buchholtz was a brilliant Marius and had great chemistry with Caron and Boyer meaning that his relationships with both characters were utterly believable. Jack Cardiff's Oscar nominated cinematography captured the French shipping town well and really added to the overall mood of the film. While Fanny was by no means perfect, I found myself getting rather emotional towards its climax and ultimately found it to be an affecting and well-played romantic drama. 

And as I've revealed my soppier side here, I feel the only way to go next is with an iconic sword and sandals epic. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 194: Another Day in Court

In the 1950s we had two courtroom films that were nominated for Best Picture in the same year. The 1960s has also had its fair share of courtroom films, so join me as I spend another day with two more legal movies.

The first movie is almost solely set around the trial of a man convicted of shooting another man in cold blood. The film in question - Anatomy of a Murder has often been hailed by law professors as the greatest pure trial movie in history and after watching it it's easy to see why. James Stewart stars as Paul Biegler a former DA who now runs a failing law firm alongside a loyal secretary who sticks by Paul despite his lack of cases. Biegler is contacted by Laura Manion who wants him to defend her husband Paul who has been charged with the murder of innkeeper Barney Quill. It transpires that Biegler went to Quill's inn after discovering that Quill had raped Laura but once getting there shot him in cold blood. As Biegler realises the case will be a tough one to win, he decides to go with a defence of temporary insanity. This involved explaining to Paul exactly what he wants him to say on the stand and hopes this will be enough to get him off. Meanwhile Paul also tells Laura to dress more demurely in court as her seductive outfits may give the wrong impression to the jury. Paul's other issue is that the prosecution have drafted in a hot new attorney in the form of Claude Dancer who initially rungs rings around the world-weary Paul. It is only when Paul does some digging that he discovers the relationship between Quill and his barmaid Mary. Paul implores Mary to come forward as a witness as he feels that his case would depend on her testimony. But with Dancer getting the best of Paul, is Mary going to be enough to win the case?

I would agree that Anatomy of a Murder is a great trial movie and one that bases most of its action in and around the gathering of evidence. Despite being over two and half hours long, Anatomy of a Murder flew by thanks in part to Wendell Mayes' script which is incredibly well-paced, and giving a lot of time to each individual part of the story. Even though the vast majority of it is set in the courtroom, Otto Preminger still manages to make his film seem utterly stylish. The film is also given a contemporary air thanks to the Duke Ellington soundtrack which makes Anatomy of a Murder seem a lot less stuffy than other trial movies of the time. This is also true of the film's content, as it was one of the first to deal with both rape and sex in graphic terms as they both play heavily into the trial itself. Of course the cast are all terrific, with James Stewart earning a Best Actor nomination for his role as the once great DA who has now fallen on hard times. New kid on the bock George C Scott was also awarded a nomination for playing the young and hungry Dancer with some of the film's highlights being their courtroom sparring. Elsewhere, Lee Remick's sexuality makes you question whether or not Quill did force himself on her, while Eve Arden is on brilliantly comic form as Biegler's secretary Maida. Overall, Anatomy of a Murder is a fantastic film, full of intrigue, great performances, an amazing soundtrack and a well-paced script. It's also probably the best film I've ever seen that's largely set in a courtroom.

The other film covered in this post isn't largely set in a courtroom, but is still all based around trial. The film in question is Robert Mulligan's adaptation of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. For those who have never read the book, the film is all seen through the eyes of 'Scout' Finch a young girl with a big imagination. Along with her broth Jem, she lives in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama where their father Atticus is a pioneering lawyer. Atticus believes that everybody should be given a fair trial regardless of their race, sex or beliefs and this ethos often gets him into trouble. The middle section of the story sees Atticus defend Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a local girl with a violent father. A lot of the irrational townspeople take against Atticus defending Tom and want to kill Tom before he even gets to court. The pivotal scenes in the film do take place in the court as Scout and Jem sneak into the courtroom to see their father in action. These scenes allow us to witness how innocent Tom actually is however the racist jury don't see it that way and find Tom guilty. From there the tension in the film rises as the people of Maycomb take against Atticus for pleading Tom's innocence and for wanting him to take part in a retrial. Atticus' actions also put Scout and Jem in danger however they are eventually saved by an unlikely guardian angel.

As someone who hasn't read the book, I went into To Kill a Mockingbird with no prior knowledge of the story. What I found this to be was an innocent observer's view of an unjust society and another of cinema's most iconic courtroom scenes. I thought watching this and Anatomy of a Murder as a double was interesting as that film's protagonist may well be guilty, while Tom Robinson is blatantly innocent. Russell Harlan's cinematography is keen to make us feel like we're watching the entire story through Scout's eyes and makes sure the camera is at her level. Robert Mulligan also makes the whole town of Maycomb seem like a sweltering, confined environment where prejudice is rife and where everybody knows each other's business. I was personally entranced by the performances from the two young actors, Mary Badham and Philip Alford, who played Scout and Jem respectively. Badham was brilliant as the narrator of the piece and was rewarded with a Supporting Actress Nomination for her part in the film. Meanwhile, I found Brock Peters to be absolutely enticing as the tragic Tom Robinson as he really made you feel sorry for his character. However this film will be most remembered for Gregory Peck's Oscar-winning turn as the mighty Atticus Finch. Peck is captivating throughout the film's run and is able to make Finch into one of cinema's biggest heroes of all-time. Peck's Finch is admirable without being preachy and he is able to anchor the film perfectly. While To Kill a Mockingbird may not be as stylish or compelling as Anatomy of a Murder, it is full of heart and real character and that's why I fell in love with the film.