There are many differences between the movie and the book for To Kill a Mockingbird. For example, in the book Miss Caroline is shown as being a very strict teacher by hitting Scout with a ruler. However, in the movie we do not get a glimpse of Miss Caroline. Instead, we jump to the playtime in which Scout beats up Walter Cunningham. Additionally, in the book, the knothole in the tree is filled up with cement when both Jem and Scout are not there. Unlike that, in the movie the knothole is filled up right in front of Jem and Scout. Lastly, in the book the dolls are made of soap, but in the movie the dolls are made from wood.
The Image Shows the Equality that we have today that we did not have previously.
Rohun, I agree with your picture because blacks were heavily discriminated back then, with lynchings and blacks being referred to strong slangs such as n----- and also making them slaves. However, in the 21st century, we now have a black president and African Americans are treated equally among society.
The picture that you posted shows the tolerance of everyone that is now here. This only started because we have learned from our mistakes, and we have seen how bad prejudice can really be.
i also agree with your post because skipping Miss Caroline's scene with Scout especially made me very confused because I was confused at the fact that Scout beat up the Cunningham child.
Rohun, I agree that skipping the scene of Miss Caroline whipping Scout was not good. Miss Caroline in the book is a teacher who whipped Scout for various reasons. In the book, it makes the readers feel angry at Miss Caroline's ignorance. But in the movie, skipping the scene altogether has no impact against the viewers and makes her seem as a regular teacher who whipped a student for misbehavior.
I agree with your post that instead of showing the scene where Miss Caroline whipped Scout, the movie skipped the event and continued on. This takes out the anger and emotions that the readers felt in the book. There were many specific details that were in the book but not shown in the movie.
When a book is made into a movie, many adjustments must be made because movies can only be a certain time and run on a specific budget. In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee there are many major differences between the book and the movie. Firstly, the conversation where Jem and Scout argue about retrieving the pants takes place in the bedroom, but in the movie takes place in front of the Radley place. Also, the discussion about who snuck into the Radley house is deleted from the movie and brings up no mention of poker.
The following clip relates the the book because of it's long standing theme of racism and how not to discriminate against others. I found this about a month ago, and I hope you guys can establish a connection between this and the movie. Enjoy!
I also believe that when Atticus told Scout to walk around in his skin, he meant to try his shoes on; to realize the differences of others around us. It may also mean to just simply get to know him better. The more you talk to someone and know him, the better you will understand his actions or his thoughts.
however I believe that the movie did a good job at obtaining the major details however we do miss out on the smaller things that could make a big difference later in the novel.
Jonathan, I also agree on that fact that they missed out on many details. I feel that a lot of the details that they missed were quite important, like the burning down of Miss Maudie's house. (sorry for the double post, still getting the hang of blogspot xD)
I agree with you Jonathan on the numerous inconsistencies with the book. I also observed another unusual difference. The timeline of what happens in the book plays no role in the making of the movie as the events are all scrambled up. For example, Dill doesn't cover for Jem about his pants because manages to get them back before Atticus questions him.
Agreed Jonathan, it is very difficult to change a book into a movie and still keep its essence, but as Alan said, though minor details are removed or changed, the basic message and story is still conserved so overall good job to the writers of the script for not doctoring to much
I feel like Atticus told Scout to view things from his point of view and to try and understand his feelings. I think as people we can all try different point of views and try and empathize with those around us.
There are several differences in the book and the movie. Many parts of the book were skipped, and many parts from the movie weren't in the book. Also, the first item in the knothole was a spelling bee medal instead of the gum that Scout found. Also, we do not see Scout talk to the teacher about the Cunninghams but we see her beating up Walter. My question is, why would they skip parts of the book and why would they add to the movie instead of sticking to the original? During this time period, Scout must grow up and mature faster in order to understand what is going on between the racial differences of that time period. It's hard growing up, especially during those times where you just want to be a child and enjoy your childhood. The link below leads you to the song "We Don't Want to Grow Up" where the kids don't want to mature, but later realize the need to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7Add8EUbU
Daphne, although the music has straightforward lyrics, I feel that a lot can be learned from the beginning instrumental, and how to light chirpy sounds add on the the feeling.
I agree with your post that the movie was missing many details that the book originally contained. This reduces the impact on the audience as some of the events in the book that filled the reader with emotions were missing.
I agree with William when he says that the details in the book filled the reader with emotion, because in the movie, some of these important scenes were taken out. If these scenes were added in, it could have completely changed the audience's view of the movie.
Here is a thought provoking question for you all. Why did Jem cry in the book, but not show him crying in the movie? What does this have to do with ego? How does this make the movie and book differ from each other in terms of emotion?
*Scout I do not recall Jem's crying. I think they show her crying because they wish to develop a certain type of character that is willing to back their words with brute strength to cover the fact that she is an emotionally weak girl.
I believe the movie is trying to depict scout as the weaker one and Jem to be strong. This may have to do with the theme of growing up. Maybe scout becomes more mature and surpasses Jem. I don't know. However a lot will change when the lynchings start, maybe this has something to do with that.
Actually I just checked the book and it is Jem who cries over the concrete filled tree. Jem was probably shown crying because the author wants to show that the tree meant a lot to Jem and maybe Jem felt that it was more than gifts that he received. Maybe Jem felt that with each gift he was getting closer to Boo, but when Mr. Radley filled it up, the connection was broken.
I agree with Alan when he says that Jem not crying had to do with the theme of growing up. To add on about the difference of emotion in the book and movie, I would say that the book gives more feeling than the movie does because the movie merely shows the main ideas. The book shows all the ideas and themes put together to make the feeling much more profound than in the movie. I guess you don't notice the importance of the details until they aren't there...
The movie totally omits Scout's instruction in school and the conflicts between her and Miss Caroline. It also does not include the snowfall in Maycomb county and consequently the burning of Mrs. Maudie's house, two aberrations that seemed to foreshadow the supernatural and unusual time the story was in. This adumbration serves to show the uniqueness of the upcoming trial and that bad things can come from good things, like the destruction of Maudie's house came from trying to stay warm from the snow. Similarly, injustice and deep persecution can come from "good" or white people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs Here, a tree, which bears nutritious and giving fruit, can also be like poison. If this media was not sufficient, here is a picture. http://lh6.google.com/anthony.easton/R2ID9zrAVkI/AAAAAAAAA0w/h-E4EwZ7hzo/s800/SledBurnOnTracks-01.JPG Notice the juxtaposition. Now for my thought provoking question: Does society's approval justify an injustice? Please let that marinate. *sorry for listing my full name; I couldn't find the option to only put my first name, but I take full responsibility for this choice and will not hold Whitney High school or any of its employees liable for any damages that result from the showing of my full name.
When Atticus told her to "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it." I think that he meant her to not only try to see the other person's perspective, but also to broaden her view. Although she is academically precocious, she has not developed the social skills to help her function smoothly in life. This was also for her to see things in a boy's view. Women were seen as somewhat of an inferior at that time and could not see the full picture unless they thought like a man.
There are many differences between the book and the movie. This is most evident in the change of the order in the events. We learn about the Cunningham's problem in the book much closer the middle then in the movie. We aren't introduced to some of the minor character within the book that affected the story line. We miss out on Scout's teacher and problems inside the classroom. We also missed out on the acting scene's from Boo Radley and the confrontation about his missing pants. However the book does add in a black humming bird drawing that could mean something. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=qJEIIeVO3_2bAM:&imgrefurl=http://omcbride-ahebee.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&docid=Kq3BeRW2MTrOWM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pI860Wu1Nb4/TFN8f7QySmI/AAAAAAAAAHw/yhkOboTP2bI/s1600/mockingbird.jpg&w=450&h=295&ei=35QPT_ecJemciQLXqYDgDQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=318&sig=107879849404782474960&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=195&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=114&ty=62
Alan, I totally agree with you on your mention of the minor characters. In my opinion with the missing out of the minor character we miss out on some of the story line of the movie. However, the movie still makes the story a bit more interesting.
I agree with you. we missed out on an important scene, which was one with the children acting as the Radley's. This helped to better show what the children thought of them. Not to mention that we only got to see a small part about whist the children think of the Radley's, which seems to be a big part in the book so far. It also shows you that Atticus doesn't "judge a book by its cover".
I have a question for you guys: Why does Jem know that Scout will fight, because he is quick to pull her off of Walter? Also, Atticus did not seem surprised when Scout told him that she had fought. Do you guys maybe think there are some traces in her past that show her fighting?
I think that Jem has the exact same feelings that Scout has, he just does not present them in the same way as Scout. Jem may also have better control over his emotions and feelings, and how he expresses them. I also do think that there are traces from the past that show her fighting, and that Atticus had, to some extent, expected that something would happen.
A lot of books and movies differ, and this was no exception. In the book, I felt that the way Atticus was described was different. I felt that in the book, he did not stand out as much. Though he is a lawyer, he still had some of the characteristics of a Maycomb citizen.In the movie, he stood out a lot, with his suit and just his attitude in general.
Another difference was the fact that so many parts were skipped over in the movie. For example, Scout did not find the gum in the knothole. It seemed like Jem found everything, and Scout only found the carvings.
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_707/7073455/file/race-equality-message-prejudice-small-85118.jpg This picture relates to the theme of racism as well, because it shows that no matter what the outside is, everyone is the same, and we must all stick up for each other.
Generally speaking, movies are always made differently than books. Sometimes movies leave out certain conversations that were said in the book, or they leave out scenes. In the movie To Kill A Mockingbird, they skip the scene when Jem and Scout make a snowman using Miss Maudie's hat. They ignore other scenes such as the scene when Francis and Scout have their fight, or when Uncle Jack has a talk with Scout about inappropriate language. The movie also mixed up the fact that Scout was running by the knot-hole tree and discovered it first, not Jem.
The book also focuses on discrimination and prejudice. Not only do the townspeople show discrimination towards African Americans but they also show discrimination towards Authur "Boo" Radley. Everyone in the neighborhood believes that Boo Radley is a monster.
The picture shows how the everyone in the neighborhood is together and close, but Boo is not wanted. He is the 'monster' no one wants to be near. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1152&bih=761&tbm=isch&tbnid=m1bJvZ3GdXC7XM:&imgrefurl=http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/school-district-in-north-carolina-accused-of-discrimination/7588/&docid=Lg7KT9u4fXtDgM&imgurl=http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/uploads/images/article-images/discrimination_NOrth_carolina.jpg&w=781&h=553&ei=jZ8PT4SDK6OpiALKnvy2DQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=442&sig=108859274357244952261&page=5&tbnh=126&tbnw=193&start=94&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:94&tx=178&ty=46
I also think the books focuses of rumors. Like how the people of Maycomb are just assuming that Boo Radley is this crazed monster and how Miss Caroline just assumes that Walter Cunningham was being ignorant not accepting the money without knowing the truth behind his family.
Everyone thinks that Boo Radley is a monster in the beginning, but as time goes by, Scout and Jem discover some things about Boo. First, Jem discovers the medal in the tree. The medal could mean that Boo is actually like everyone else because he won awards at school. Boo also was able to make models of Jem and Scout out of rocks, further proving that he can be a nice, civilized human. Last, Jem finds his pants neatly folded on the gate. Boo was probably trying to help him get away fast and show that he is not a bad person. Over time, Scout and Jem learn that Boo Radley is a normal human being and that he should be treated as one.
I agree with your picture that you presented. Boo is seen as the odd one out, but I don't think that can always be seen as a bad thing. Like Andrew said, Jem and Scout find that Boo Radley isn't such a bad guy. He may make a few mistakes, but that's what everyone does. This picture is ironic because Boo does stand out, but at the same time he is just like everyone else because everyone makes mistakes.
I agree with the picture that you had. People in the neighborhood didn't want anyone going near his house. Like what Kimberly said, they were making rumors about him, when he could be a different person inside.
the difference between the movie and the book was that the book did not mention Atticus going to town in order to talk to the person he is defending on the case. In the scene, it showcased many foreshadowing where Mr. Ewell staggered onto the car, looking at Jem very barbarically. This might foreshadow Mr. Ewell's involvement on the case that Atticus is defending. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=mHzf4k0kYmVp3M:&imgrefurl=http://stockfresh.com/image/348037/one-standing-out-from-the-crowd&docid=IK94U2z5XVpoXM&imgurl=http://stockfresh.com/files/i/iqoncept/m/71/348037_stock-photo-one-standing-out-from-the-crowd.jpg&w=400&h=400&ei=TKEPT-y3N8aqiQLk6YiPCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=541&vpy=63&dur=4535&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=114&ty=159&sig=102127557791870205876&page=4&tbnh=127&tbnw=127&start=62&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:62 this photo represents Atticus because he lived in a seperated society in which the "white" people were on top of the pyramid and the african americans were at the bottom. Atticus is the different one because he believed in equality of the people.
I agree. Atticus seems to be the only one in the neighborhood who believes in equal rights, liberty, and justice. I think this makes Atticus stronger as a person because with all the people around him feeling that they are superior to either the poor, like the Cunninghams, or superior to another race, like African Americans,Atticus still keeps his beliefs.
I feel that the movie and the book of To Kill A Mockingbird was too different from each other. I understand that changes must be made in movies because of movie length problems and other irritations, but the changes in the movie weren't just adjustments, the producers missed many huge, important details that cannot be taken out.
Some few examples of alterations from the book to the movie were, first, that Mrs. Calpurnia does not seem as scary and strict as Scout describes in the book. I mean, from Scout's interpretation of her, I would imagine her screaming at the children when they have done something wrong. But in the movie, compared to how I would think of her, Calpurnia actually seems nice. Also, to my opinion, I think that the movie does not quite explain the Radleys enough. They are an important factor to the movie, but there is too much lacking from the story of the Radleys in the movie. Lastly, Jem and Scout never receive their B.B. Guns.
What Jem means when he says that Scout must "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it" is just like the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover." Scout was think Jem of one way without fully understanding what is going on. She cannot just get the whole picture while looking at only her point of view. Scout must be able to sit in Jem's position and let everything marinate.
This picture shows the huge differences between black and whites in the story of To Kill A Mockingbird because, for example, people were calling Atticus a nigger-lover for helping a black man in a case. This shows the hatred from the whites.
Justin, I agree with the fact that Calpurnia is shown to be very scary in the book because of the intense description. It was very necessary to have more description of Calpurnia because that way, the Filch's may see how the "colored" people see the world. After all, Calpurnia is the bridge between the "colored" people and the "white" people.
I agree with you Justin. The fact that the Radleys weren't described as much takes a toll on the plot of the movie. They weren't able to correctly show the children happy to receive gifts the the hole in the tree and how they were thankful to the anonymous person, which i think will later on move the plot. Although showing the spelling bee was a plus. They also didn't show Mr. Nathan Radley's lie about cementing the tree because it was dead. They just portrayed him as an angry person.
Like most movies based on books, the novels are more detailed and in depth while the movie leave out many scenes from the book. For example, in the novel, the conflict between Miss Caroline and Scout about Walter Cunningham not accepting the money was a more major incident and was much more detailed. While in the movie, Miss Caroline does not even appear and all that is shown is the fight between Scout and Walter. Another difference was that in the novel, Scout sees some tin foil in the knothole of the Radley's tree and later on finds two Indian head pennies. In contrast, the movie shows that Jem found the spelling bee medal, pocket watch, and others. Also in the movie, Jem and Scout are there when Mr. Radley is filling the knothole with cement. While in the book, the children don't. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&tbnid=WWp4jZ9pyx90kM:&imgrefurl=http://bakarov.deviantart.com/art/no-racism-153496006&docid=FbxZUjhk7D2ZtM&imgurl=http://www.deviantart.com/download/153496006/no_racism_by_bakarov.jpg&w=7087&h=4724&ei=OqEPT_vPFevZiALXwtSjDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=67&vpy=193&dur=898&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=157&ty=116&sig=117587756686985897728&page=1&tbnh=99&tbnw=129&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1138&bih=473 This picture goes with the theme of racism between blacks and whites that is shown throughout To Kill a Mockingbird. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=0-tctI2w4mLhjM:&imgrefurl=http://tundeswriting.wordpress.com/&docid=XuDgbRUTTOnmdM&imgurl=http://tundeswriting.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/racial_prejudice3.jpg&w=862&h=1626&ei=aaEPT_H2HcnciQLqpOnkDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=87&vpy=32&dur=1494&hovh=309&hovw=163&tx=121&ty=231&sig=117587756686985897728&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=63&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&biw=1138&bih=473 This picture show a face made up of different people of different races. It shows that it doesn't matter what races you are or what you look like from the outside, but on the inside a person is a person.
I agree with your example that Miss Caroline was not thoroughly introduced. I also think that since she isn't shown at all, people who would only watch the movie and not read the book would not get the feeling or knowledge as to why Scout would hurt the kid in school.
When Atticus says "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it," he means Scout should look at things from a person's point of view. Not just Jem's point of view but others including Miss Caroline, Walter Cunningham, and even African Americans. This leads me to beluve that another reason why Atticus is defending Tom Robinson is because he believes he needs to see things from Tom's point of view. Atticus seems like the only one in the book who "[doesn't] judge a book by its cover."
I agree with your thinking but i want to add that Atticus wants Scout to understand how one feels as well instead of only looking at a different point of view.
I agree as well, but I would also like to add that besides wanting Scout to understand one's feelings, he also feels obligated to efend this man. I believe that he feels that if he did not listen to what Tom Robinson had wanted, that he would be setting a bad example for his children. That if he did not listen to one man, his children would question why they would have to listen and obey him.
One of the major differences between the book and the movie of To Kill A Mockingbird is the order of scenes. The movie starts with Mr. Cunningham delivering something to Scout's house, but that scene occurs later on in the book. Also, many scenes in the movie were skipped, like how Miss Caroline was not shown in the movie. Instead of showing the part when Scout gets in trouble, it skips to Scout beating up Walter. The story about Scout's school day is revealed when Scout tells Atticus about what happened. http://allmandlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Hands-Tied1.jpg This picture represents how Scout is tied down by many things. Miss Caroline doesn't allow her to read and Atticuz stops Scout from fighting. Scout's freedom is bound and she can't do much. Even though she sneaks out a lot, whenever Atticus sees her, he tells her to go home.
I definitely agree with your picture and description. But also, the reason for this is because of the fact that she is very young and still needs to be taught. Nice JOB!
I agree. She has many things stopping her from doing what she wants. However, Scout is still very young and Atticus is a wise father. It is his responsibility to keep his child in check just like how any father would.
I believe that Atticus is stripping Scout from her freedom, like you said, being tied down, because with more freedom in your hands, there comes more responsibility. This has to do with the theme of growing up. Atticus doesn't think that Scout has matured yet and can't handle being out by herself.
In a person, skin is a very sensitive organ in which one can feel almost anything that brushes past it. The fact that Atticus told Scout to climb into another's skin instead of shoes is to stress the importance of being considerate of others. Instead of looking in another perspective, Atticus wanted Scout to understand and realize what others feel in the same situation http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=19shdbmt81e9VM:&imgrefurl=http://www.anthonymillerphotography.com/2011/02/understanding/&docid=14sJQFG2bJji5M&imgurl=http://www.anthonymillerphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Understanding.jpg&w=1440&h=960&ei=W6YPT4eeHMGviQL17rW9DQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=673&vpy=349&dur=2393&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=177&ty=130&sig=102127557791870205876&page=4&tbnh=131&tbnw=179&start=67&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:67 this photo shows that one needs to be taught about understanding another and how they feel.
Athena, I completely agree that climbing into one's skin and being in another's shoes are two totally different things. My post was almost like yours, except I didn't read yours before I posted mine, so I didn't copy. Climbing into one's skin is much more than just putting yourself in one's shoes.
I feel as though Atticus is more of a wise lawyer who guides Jem and Scout, and admonishes them when they make mistakes. Even Scout once described her father in the beginning as "courteously detached".
Actually I disagree with you (Elijah). Atticus is more like a father since he isn't afraid to help Scout and Jem understand their feelings. Not only that, but Atticus also puts his children before him in many cases. For example, he came running with he heard a mad dog was near his children. Although Atticus is "courteously detached," Atticus' love for Jem and Scout is obvious.
I think that between the book and the movie his character is different. I believe that in the book he is more of the wise lawyer that believes in equality for all, but in the movie he is presented more as a fahter first and then a wise lawyer would stands for equality within society.
Question: What do you think would've happened to the case if Atticus did not believe that all people are equal? Would Atticus still try to defend the person or would he go against his orders to somehow prove the man guilty?
In my opinion, I think if Atticus didn't believe in equality, he wouldn't even think twice about turning the African American man down in defending him. Think about it, all government workers at the time, including the judicial system, were white and probably racist, so Atticus probably didn't get paid much either for defending him. In fact, it would be a lot easier for Atticus to just try to do a bad job as a lawyer and prove him guilty instead because everyone else would be on his side to back it up. Strength is in numbers, and unfortunately, this ment African American's were forced to submit to the whites.
In the book, Jem and Scout seemed really comfortable around Mr. Radley and they didn't have problems talking to him. Why do you think that Scout and Jem are extremely scared around him in the movie?
When Atticus says to "climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it" I think he means to not judge people without truly getting to know them. From your perspective, it may seem different, but you should try to look at the situation in that person's perspective and not jump to conclusions because you may not know the entire part of the story.
I think that Atticus meant that Scout should stop acting like her way is the only way and that others may be in different situations that affect their actions. His quote not only applies to Scout looking from Jem's perspective, but from everyone's. When Scout sees something that she doesn't like, Atticus doesn't want her to get mad, but to try and understand why they did it. He wants her to ask herself, "What would you do in their situation?"
Atticus explains to Scout that a compromise is "an agreement reached by mutual consent". When did Scout ever show her agreement and disagreement to what Atticus' definition of compromise?
I would like to discuss the effects of the book vs the those of the movie. Personally, I really dislike movies of books in general. The book shows the thoughts and emotions of the character in a more provoking and personal way. In books, we are able to feel what the characters feel. We may pity, sympathize, and loathe others with them. We may admire, appreciate, and love with them. However, in the movie, everything has to compacted and scenes are left out, as you guys have already mentioned above. Doing this, especially after reading the novel, is really..disconcerting. What happened? How could they (the movie producers) do that? Why did they leave that important part out? Everything is rushed through and the audience are literally not able to leisurely collect and experience all the emotions of the characters.
Here's an SAT word for you guys: VICARIOUS. It means to feel and experience an incident yourself though it has happened to someone else.
Since the rest of you have already mentioned many examples of scenes left out in the movie, I encourage the audience to read the above posts (and below ones) so as I do not need to repeat what has already been said by someone else. Thank you.
In "To Kill a Mockingbird", Atticus advises Scout that to understand how other people think and feel she needs to "climb into his skin and walk around in it". Skin is like one's coat; it would feel different if you took someone else's. Each coat is unique, worn to different events, treated differently. Coats also have color: white, black, yellow, etc. Shoes are the same; some are more comfortable, more suitable to a certain event. worn for different occasions. Also, some are more valued than others. Our skin, our coat, and our shoes..they very much represent us in a way that they've been wherever we've been. They've seen whatever we've seen. They take us places and prepare us for future ventures.
“You never truly know someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes.”
The movie does not do a good job of using vital details from the actual book to the story. Many small details in the book contribute greatly to the overall plot and theme. For example, the unfortunate burning of Miss Maudie's house was not included in the movie. That event in the book is hugely significant because it is one of the few times where Boo is revealed. Boo putting a blanket around scout is a contradiction to all the rumors and myths about him. Boo's actions change the children's perspective about Boo, and they do not bother Boo Radley like they did in the past. http://www.slugsite.com/archives/1004 This is an article by someone who reviews something that may look expensive, but it is a cheap fraud. Boo may seem like a scary individual, but in reality, he does have a heart and is human.
When Atticus tells Scout "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it," he means you do not know what a person's going through until you have fully experience their lives yourself. Climbing into one's skin, I believe, is going far beyond than putting yourself in one's shoes. Atticus says climb into Jem's skin and not "put yourself in his shoes" for a reason. Scout has to live his life the same exact way and feel the same exact emotions as Jem, not just think about how she WOULD feel if she was Jem. It's not the same thing. Climbing into someone's skin is much more complicated.
I agree. I feel as though they've left out some vital scenes that occurred in the book. In the beginning of the story, Scout was talking about how they discussed the events leading to Jem's accident, and how she insisted that it was the Ewells' fault. I don't recall Burris Ewell being introduced into the story, as they cut the school scene from the movie. http://rippleeffects.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/can-a-movie-adaptation-ever-be-as-good-as-the-book/
I agree with you Don. I also think that since the movie skipped the part where Miss Maudie's house burns down it leaves Boo Radley's character sort of undefined because of the usual gossip about him.
When Scout couldn't understand why things couldn't be done her way, Atticus tells her that she should "climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it". I think that Atticus means that Scout should try to understand what it would be like to be Jem in that certain situation, and see things from a different perspective other than her own.
The differences between TKAM the book and movie are great and as I have commented before especially in the way they make you feel. Nevertheless, all the apparent importance that would be expected from the book is in the movie. One example are the quotes used. One of them is posted above. I would compare the quote above to a quote made by Don Freeman explaining that you won't know someone until you think like they would. Atticus meant for Scout to look at herslef in Jem's place. What would Jem do and think? What kinds of things might Jem know or feel that might affect his judgement? This article shows what Jem might've felt that Scout hadn't about losing their mother. http://www.articleslash.com/Self-Improvement/Grief-Loss/314250__After-The-Sympathy-Card.html
This leads me to propose a question: What would you do if you were in Jem's skin (so to speak)? Would you let Scout go wild at anyone who makes even the sightest insult to Atticus and join her in the act or would you stop her and console her at such incidences knowing not the reasoning beyond your father's actions and simply listen to your father?
Being the oldest of the siblings, both in my family and as Jem, I'd do my best to adhere to Atticus' wishes and keep Scout in line for it is my responsibility to do so.
Jem and Scout have both lost some of their childhood innocence, and have become aware of the prejudice and discrimination in their society. Although they are both having a hard time adapting to this new world, they are slowly becoming less puerile.
I agree with Allison when she says that they have started to notice the tension between the blacks and the whites. Also, as the story progresses, their feelings toward Atticus grow stronger as the story progresses.
POST: Although many others that have commented on this blog believe that the movie does not portray the characters in To Kill a Mockingbird well, I have to disagree. Many quotes in the movie actually come straight out of the book, and many scenes are perfectly redone in the movie except for a few minor differences. For example, although the argument between Miss Caroline and Scout isn’t shown, Scout’s fight with Walter Cunningham and the dinner with Walter are shown according to the book. Actually I was surprised how closely the director followed the storyline of the book. QUESTION: Mr. Radley covered the hole in the tree that often held gifts with cement even though Atticus said that it wasn't necessary. Why and What does this symbolize? PICTURE: http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1639&bih=769&tbm=isch&tbnid=q_zdM9lakF4-yM:&imgrefurl=http://photo.mattjonesblog.com/2007/04/30/loner/&docid=8SEY7xggsWtB I believe the red flower in this picture symbolizes Atticus since he is different and stands up for Tom Robinson.
I completely agree with you Allison, the movie actually helped me visualized the characters better, I dunno, maybe that's just me. I think so far, this movie had done a pretty good job of not completely screwing the storyline up as most movie remakes of books and/or series do. My answer to your question would be that, the hole in the tree symbolizes the open story of Boo Radley. The hole can be filled with whatever trinkets (thoughts or rumors) that people put in it. However, after the children kinda see him for themselves, they can begin to unravel the truth, so their ignorance of him is sealed up. :)
There are many differences presented between the book and the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. From the minor characters, sequences of events, and details that have either been added or taken away from the book, each version of this story has different meanings and perspectives that can be understood. I find that the most noticeable and thought provoking difference between the movie and the novel is the relationship between Atticus and Scout.
As is presented in the book, their relsationship is very informal and there is a wide gap dividing them from a typical father-daughter relationships, whereas in the movie they seem to share a deeper connection. In the movie, Atticus seems to play a more fatherly role towards his two children.
The article attached explainsn the importance of a father-daughter relationship, and how the daughter can be affected by the role model her father is presented as. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Importance-of-Father-Daughter-Relationships&id=1681381
My question involving this topic is: Why does Atticus have a more fatherly role in the movie compared to the book?
Yeah, another thing I noticed was that Atticus is very sad and it shows on his face when Scout is asking Jem about their mother. In the book it seems Atticus is always just reading the newspaper and overall, I think the movie shows that the family is somewhat close even after the death of the mother, but in the book I think it's trying to show that their whole family falls apart after her death and the Atticus is barely struggling to hold it together...maybe that has something to do with what he feels about taking on the case.?
Yeah, also in the movie it shows Atticus sad when Scout is asking Jem about their mother. One thing I want to know is why Atticus feels like he has to take on the Tom Robinson case otherwise he can't face Scout and Jem.
If you look at the book, after the scene that Scout, Jem, and Dill run from the Radley house Jem loses his pants in the process. After they are called back Atticus wants to know why Jem lost his pants. Dill is quick on his feet to say that he won them in a game of strip poker. In the movie this scene does not exist. I think that this scence should not have been removed because it shows character traits in Scout, Jem, and Dill. It shows how in times of pressure, Dill is quick-witted. It also shows how in order to protect a secret Scout and Jem are able to lie to their beloved father, Atticus, to whom they always obey. It also shows a connection between the three children in the sense that Dill lied, the other two were able to quickly pick up on that and go along with Dill. Possibly because they trust him. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=character+development&hl=en&biw=1455&bih=878&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=527Li3mDt7rj3M:&imgrefurl=http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/morchr/morchr.html&docid=Bme9M0I09dkNuM&imgurl=http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/morchr/morchr1.jpg&w=582&h=525&ei=2LYPT_WzAoWfiQL5svTqDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=182&vpy=184&dur=5504&hovh=213&hovw=236&tx=98&ty=133&sig=113896129902599696219&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=159&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0 This chart shows some of the instantaneous subconscious things that may have gone on in the children's minds. It shows that maybe in their subconscious that they may have trusted each other
I agree, the chart does show some of the moral and development in children. some children grow up without or a mother or father or even both and cannot live by themselves. they cannot do everything themselves so they might stick together and trust each other. Jem and Scout dont really have someone watching over them all the time because atticus is usually at the courthouse. This can lead to children not being able to gain good morals and grow up properly http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/The_Outsiders_book.jpg/200px-The_Outsiders_book.jpg
It seems that today's debate has centered on whether the movie portrays the characters well or not. I have to side with those who say it does a good job overall of capturing the essence of the character. Being a movie, it will almost by definition not be able to fully capture the complexity of the characters as seen in the book, but overall it does a fantastic job for what a film can do. However, the one thing that has me wondering is, why did the movie choose to make Mr. Radley the old version not Nathan,in other words, why make him the old mean Grinch and not at least a half decent person like the book tried to do? Also, though it may seem that discrimination is lessened in today's world it is not quite so. Discrimination is still a major part of society just more subtle, for example we still have the age old anti black bigotry, but a new prejudice on the horizon is the anti Muslim and/or Middle Eastern fear in today's world as the following video shows http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-5-2012/the-elephant-in-the-room
I agree with you discrimination is still here in our world ,but no matter how hard we try to stop it, it's always going to happen because discrimination starts off with an opinion and we do not have the right to take someone's opinion from them. If we try to make this utopia of no discrimination we'll end up making a dystopia because we're restricting freedom of minds making a lifeless world.
True its not going to go away, and we may end up with a Fahrenheit 451 type environment. Also you are correct that a person's opinion is sacred and we can' take it from them
Reply to Post: I believe that Atticus was trying to say that not everyone was the same and in order to understand others it is essential to think in their perspectives by "pretending to be them" aka "be in their skin."
Just a question to ponder, but why would the movie change around the order of events so much? What was the point in doing that if there was any point at all?
I know i was wondering the same thing, and also why'd they skip the scene about the fire? I thought that was an important part in the book because it could symbolize the innocence burning away because that's around the same time when Scout starts cussing and 'growing up'.right?
I also think that the movie does a good job in capturing the personality and essence of the characters especially ones with strong personality such as Scout, Atticus, and Dill. The movie itself definitely leaves some details out, but for the most part the main points are still there. We have to take into take into consideration that, unlike books, movies have a certain time limit, contrary to the actual story, which can keep going for seven books if it wanted to. Anyway, just like the book, the movie also gives us an un-gilded look on how life was like during this time. It still captures the themes of the story too, like being the better person, growing up, and facing discrimination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESSpXnDxlDQ
So the difference that I noticed was that in the book Atticus explained the sin about killing the mockingbird to Jem and Scout after they have received their guns. however in the movie it is explained at dinner with Jem, Scout, and Walter Cunningham, I think the movie weakened the effect of the moral.
A question for you to ponder on.. deeply: If the people of Maycomb did not gossip about Boo Radley, and instead they dared not to speak a word of him, do you think the children would be more or less afraid of him?
I think the children would be more afraid of him. A quote that I often hear is "people are afraid of the unknown". If the children didn't know about Boo Radley, they would be more scared of him. Although they've heard stories about him, if they didn't know anything about him, he'd be mysterious and scary to the children.
I think that the children would actually be less frightened of him. Because everyone talks about him, and his story has been passed on and changed so many times, Boo Radley is typically thought of as a lot more frightening than he really is. If no one spoke about him, there would be fewer rumors and speculations about him, and there would be fewer lies about his past, which would keep people from being so afraid of him.
The movie TKAM had several key differences from the book itself. For example, the gum that was found in the tree mentioned in the book was not shown in the movie. Also, Mr. Radley filled up the hole in the tree with cement in the front of Jem and Scout rather than doing it at some other time, as written in the book. I believe that the movie does a poor job of the plot because many specific details in the book are left out. My question for TKAM is how does Jem and Scout's view of Boo Radley change throughout Part 1 of the novel? http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part/ http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part2/ http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part4/ These articles explain the long/short-term effects of discrimination and how it can "leave many parents childless or many children parentless".
I have read the articles on the harmful effects of discrimination and agree with its relations to violence and hate. i commend your points and the movie does leave out parts of the novel but it could be because maybe something too captivating or offensive would raise tensions between blacks and whites during the time.
I think the book is a lot more interesting compared to the movie. Since we've already read this part in the book we expect it to be that way, but the movie makers tweeked everything. Atticus and Scout have more of a father-daughter relationship, for one, and in the book it describes him as being not so fatherly towards his children. I also think Jem is portrayed younger than he appears in the book because it shows him throwing fits about the fact that Atticus won't play football with him. Another thing that's small but still different is that in the book, Miss Rachel is Dill's aunt and in the movie it's Miss Stephanie. I really don't understand that mix-up though. Also the locations are different. In the book, it portrays the Radley house being "down the road" but in the movie it's right next to Atticus's house. Also I think Mr.Ewells has something to do with this Tom Robinson case because he seems to be actually upset with the fact that Atticus took on the case. Everyone else just makes rude comments towards him but they're not personally mad in the way that Mr.Ewells is.
Here's a neat song i found on youtube. ITs called scout's song and I like it because it talks about Scout and it kind of reflects this whole 'growing up' theme in the book. Another thing, in the song scout says she wants to live to see the day when people admit that they're just afraid and I think that's going to have a big part in the book as we read further on. :)
My question is: What did Tom Robinson do that make Mr.Ewells so angry? And what does Atticus means when he says if he didnt take on the case, he'd never be able to look at Jem and Scout anymore?
It's not really anything that Tom Robinson did. It's just the prejudice of the time that blacks were considered below everyone else. He felt that since Atticus was defending one, he was just as bad as one.
and i think the second part is that if atticus did not defend Tom, then he would be discriminatory as well. Something like that.
I know it makes him angry but it's like he's personally hurt by it. Like alot of the people in the community are hating on Atticus but only Mr.Ewells (in the movie)is all up in his face and freaking his children out in the car:/
Mr. Ewells probably has a history with blacks, and maybe there's something from his past that makes him so angry and prejudiced. Atticus is a pretty reasonable person and he seems to be the only one in town who does not hate blacks. He probably sees it as his responsibility to promote equality in Maycomb, even if he's the only one doing it.
In To Kill a Mockingbird the movie, it differs from the book in many ways such as different dialogue and scenes cut out and new scenes not from the book. Examples are scenes with miss Caroline, Walter, miss maudie and the gum in the tree. Besides of just stating the many differences i would like to try and figure out why they did this. Was it because of the director and a different screenplay or maybe something else. We have to keep in mind though that the movie was made in 1962, During the civil rights movement. At this time segregation was still going on .http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/african-american-citizens-sitting-in-the-rear-of-the-bus-in-compliance-with-florida-segregation-law-posters.jpg The book at the time was very provocative and maybe a movie would be even more. This could be one reason that they may have changed the screenplay from the book due to the possible negative reaction from society back then. The movie is different but i still get the same main message that the story is trying to convey
The movie and book To Kill a Mockingbird are very different. However, they both present similar themes and ideas. In the movie, they are not shown as clearly. I was surprised to see that they did not include the scene where Dill, Scout, and Jem are playing their Boo Radley game. I thought that was an important scene because it shows the themes of stereotyping and gossip. The people in Maycomb always talk about Boo Radley, but they never show how children mocked and imitated him, when they never met or saw him before.
This picture shows a bridge that allows things to cross from one side to the other. Similarly, Calpurnia served as a bridge connecting the black and white communities.
One question that I had was: Why does Atticus respect Calpurnia so much? Why does he treat her as an equal when many other people would treat her like dirt?
Atticus sees the good in people. His observances give him insight as to how to treat others. He does not pick up racial prejudice just to be going along with the croud, he is the outlier.
In the book Dill, Scout, and Jem play the game of acting as Boo Radley based on their assumptions of him. Yet in the movie they never play this game, but the game was an essential part of the theme of prejudice in the book because Dill, Scout, and Jem assumed Boo Radley was psycho even though they never actually met him. This theme occurs a lot in the book especially when people attack on Tom Robinson just because he is black. However your skin color does not define who you are sadly Atticus is one of the few who understand that.
I am really glad that you touched on the idea of how one's skin color does not define your character because truly, the only one who understands this is Atticus so far. He has Cal as the nanny of his children, almost acting as a mother figure for Jem and Scout. Also, Atticus is defending Tom, a black man, against Maycomb's prejudice based wishes.
The book and the movie have many differences. For example, they didn't show the scene with Mrs. Cunningham and Scout. Also, in the book Scout tried to help Walter, but in the book she doesn't have a good relationship with him. I think the director had emphasized the wrong parts of the story. He/She may have misunderstood the important parts of the book. question: Why do you think the movie keeps trying to point that Boo Radley is a "crazy guy" when they don't know him personally? http://www.google.com/imgres?start=20&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=fA9x8PazquJQrM:&imgrefurl=http://kilala04.deviantart.com/art/The-Ugly-Duckling-Final-Proj-103533147&docid=IGlyySQwunfN5M&imgurl=http://www.deviantart.com/download/103533147/The_Ugly_Duckling_Final_Proj_by_Kilala04.jpg&w=1729&h=1275&ei=_toPT9haw46IAtqt9NgN&zoom=1 just like how the ugly duckling was made fun of by the other ducklings because of how he looked, the movie showed the discrimination between the blacks and the whites. I believe to "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it." means that to think about how Jem feels about something. Trying to see something in Jem's perspective. I think that Atticus was saying that she needs to widen her view of things.
A comment about the movie: Everything was really..rushed. scenes were forced together. Without reading the novel, it seemed that this movie had no purpose and did not teach anything. Scout was, in my opinion, obnoxious and uncourageous and, during part one, would not be able to cope with Atticus's "nigger-loving" case. Jem was..more or less accurately played, and Dill was about as unentartaining as a plate.
I completely agree with you. Several major characters in the movie had been faded out and minor characters had basically been ignored. This takes away from the intensity of the actually story presented in the book.
The director of a movie made from a novel understands that he/she has to cut out scenes, the hard part of that is deciding what scenes to cut out. In the movie To Kill a Mockingbird, i think that they made poor decisions on which scenes to cut out. I think that they made a bad decision to cut out the scene where Miss Caroline whipped scout, this adds on to the anger and hatred the audience feels, with this scence gone, the movie appeals less to its audience. However, the movie did do a good job on expressing the themes and ideas the books showed. My question is: Why do people bother to judge people before they even meet them? http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wheels-of-life-comic-old-baby-man-bike-car-rv-trailer-scooter-yea...jpg This picture shows character development as the chracter grows older. Scout starts to gain courageas she gets older, Jem starts becoming a young man as the story progresses, and Atticus grows wiser with age.
The novel version and the movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird have many differences. For example, Miss Caroline was not shown in the movie, and neither was Miss Maudie’s fire. In the novel, all these events added to the atmosphere of prejudice and tension that seems to surround Maycomb. I think that even though the themes of the novel could be seen in the movie, many of the parts of the story that were left out were important to the plot overall. I believe that maybe some of the scenes left out of the movie would have been necessary for the development of characters and themes. My question: How is the way prejudice is shown in the movie different from that in the novel? Which way is more effective? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/immigration/immigration-courts-prejudiced-and-unfair The themes of racial tension and prejudice could be seen in the novel and movie through Atticus, his case, and the actions of the people. Even today, racial tension has a role in our society, and this article talks about the prejudice held against immigrants.
I also agree with your statement that the missing elements in the movie are of extreme importance to the overall plot. When Scout and Miss Caroline's confrontation was not shown, the audience missed out on witnessing how familiar Maycomb county is with one another and how this information affects a citizen's interaction with another.
One of the differences I found between the movie and the novel of To Kill a Mocking Bird is Jem's characterization. In the beginning of the film, Jem refuses to come down from the tree house. showing his defiance towards Atticus. However, in the novel, Jem is portrayed at as an extremely obedient child who serves as a role model to his younger sister, Scout. For example, "'Atticus ain't ever whipped [him]...'" (56). This slight difference, in my opinion, may be very detrimental to the plot of the movie considering Jem's crucial role.
This next song is a modern twist on events that took place in the time period of this novel. There was a lot of discrimination against blacks and prejudice. This song captures this essence.
the book, To Kill a Mockingbird, paints a heavy picture of a society that creates its own facade. the people of Maycomb find an excuse to remove any unwanted "blemishes" from their society. In the movie, this theme is not as well portrayed. The movie is more of an account of Scout and Jem rather than the lessons created by the book.
This image of a giant shoe represents the improvement our society needs and has potential for. It also represents the way we need protection from the shards of lies, discrimination, and evil that we are stepping on. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44315000/jpg/_44315728_shoe_ap416.jpg
To Kill A Mockingbird (Book Vs. Movie)
ReplyDeleteThere are many differences between the movie and the book for To Kill a Mockingbird. For example, in the book Miss Caroline is shown as being a very strict teacher by hitting Scout with a ruler. However, in the movie we do not get a glimpse of Miss Caroline. Instead, we jump to the playtime in which Scout beats up Walter Cunningham. Additionally, in the book, the knothole in the tree is filled up with cement when both Jem and Scout are not there. Unlike that, in the movie the knothole is filled up right in front of Jem and Scout. Lastly, in the book the dolls are made of soap, but in the movie the dolls are made from wood.
The Image Shows the Equality that we have today that we did not have previously.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1222&bih=562&tbs=itp:clipart&tbm=isch&tbnid=qTIfkewBerYhFM:&imgrefurl=http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html&docid=Vc1dN1s8csMgBM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4VkwKnL8Tdc/TuARe4gUgXI/AAAAAAAAEFc/LnGpKXoKYBM/s1600/Handshake%25252Bhurts%25252Bhand%25252Bshake%25252Bpainful%25252Bpain%25252Bbad.gif&w=407&h=364&ei=P3APT4ngKqqRiQKZm-2lDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=658&vpy=186&dur=14&hovh=212&hovw=237&tx=155&ty=101&sig=102113554856278864100&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=176&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0
Rohun, I agree with your picture because blacks were heavily discriminated back then, with lynchings and blacks being referred to strong slangs such as n----- and also making them slaves. However, in the 21st century, we now have a black president and African Americans are treated equally among society.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe picture that you posted shows the tolerance of everyone that is now here. This only started because we have learned from our mistakes, and we have seen how bad prejudice can really be.
Deletei also agree with your post because skipping Miss Caroline's scene with Scout especially made me very confused because I was confused at the fact that Scout beat up the Cunningham child.
DeleteRohun, I agree that skipping the scene of Miss Caroline whipping Scout was not good. Miss Caroline in the book is a teacher who whipped Scout for various reasons. In the book, it makes the readers feel angry at Miss Caroline's ignorance. But in the movie, skipping the scene altogether has no impact against the viewers and makes her seem as a regular teacher who whipped a student for misbehavior.
DeleteI agree with your post that instead of showing the scene where Miss Caroline whipped Scout, the movie skipped the event and continued on. This takes out the anger and emotions that the readers felt in the book. There were many specific details that were in the book but not shown in the movie.
DeleteWhen a book is made into a movie, many adjustments must be made because movies can only be a certain time and run on a specific budget. In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee there are many major differences between the book and the movie. Firstly, the conversation where Jem and Scout argue about retrieving the pants takes place in the bedroom, but in the movie takes place in front of the Radley place. Also, the discussion about who snuck into the Radley house is deleted from the movie and brings up no mention of poker.
ReplyDeleteThe following clip relates the the book because of it's long standing theme of racism and how not to discriminate against others. I found this about a month ago, and I hope you guys can establish a connection between this and the movie. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG0rc21au0I
I also believe that when Atticus told Scout to walk around in his skin, he meant to try his shoes on; to realize the differences of others around us. It may also mean to just simply get to know him better. The more you talk to someone and know him, the better you will understand his actions or his thoughts.
Deletehowever I believe that the movie did a good job at obtaining the major details however we do miss out on the smaller things that could make a big difference later in the novel.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJonathan, I also agree on that fact that they missed out on many details. I feel that a lot of the details that they missed were quite important, like the burning down of Miss Maudie's house.
Delete(sorry for the double post, still getting the hang of blogspot xD)
I agree with you Jonathan on the numerous inconsistencies with the book. I also observed another unusual difference. The timeline of what happens in the book plays no role in the making of the movie as the events are all scrambled up. For example, Dill doesn't cover for Jem about his pants because manages to get them back before Atticus questions him.
DeleteAgreed Jonathan, it is very difficult to change a book into a movie and still keep its essence, but as Alan said, though minor details are removed or changed, the basic message and story is still conserved so overall good job to the writers of the script for not doctoring to much
DeleteThe Moderators,
ReplyDeleteI feel like Atticus told Scout to view things from his point of view and to try and understand his feelings. I think as people we can all try different point of views and try and empathize with those around us.
I also think that he meant for her to try to understand others and deeply see what her counterparts were experiencing.
DeleteThere are several differences in the book and the movie. Many parts of the book were skipped, and many parts from the movie weren't in the book. Also, the first item in the knothole was a spelling bee medal instead of the gum that Scout found. Also, we do not see Scout talk to the teacher about the Cunninghams but we see her beating up Walter. My question is, why would they skip parts of the book and why would they add to the movie instead of sticking to the original? During this time period, Scout must grow up and mature faster in order to understand what is going on between the racial differences of that time period. It's hard growing up, especially during those times where you just want to be a child and enjoy your childhood. The link below leads you to the song "We Don't Want to Grow Up" where the kids don't want to mature, but later realize the need to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7Add8EUbU
ReplyDeleteDaphne, although the music has straightforward lyrics, I feel that a lot can be learned from the beginning instrumental, and how to light chirpy sounds add on the the feeling.
DeleteI agree with your post that the movie was missing many details that the book originally contained. This reduces the impact on the audience as some of the events in the book that filled the reader with emotions were missing.
DeleteI agree with William when he says that the details in the book filled the reader with emotion, because in the movie, some of these important scenes were taken out. If these scenes were added in, it could have completely changed the audience's view of the movie.
DeleteHere is a thought provoking question for you all. Why did Jem cry in the book, but not show him crying in the movie? What does this have to do with ego? How does this make the movie and book differ from each other in terms of emotion?
ReplyDelete*Scout I do not recall Jem's crying.
DeleteI think they show her crying because they wish to develop a certain type of character that is willing to back their words with brute strength to cover the fact that she is an emotionally weak girl.
I believe the movie is trying to depict scout as the weaker one and Jem to be strong. This may have to do with the theme of growing up. Maybe scout becomes more mature and surpasses Jem. I don't know. However a lot will change when the lynchings start, maybe this has something to do with that.
DeleteActually I just checked the book and it is Jem who cries over the concrete filled tree. Jem was probably shown crying because the author wants to show that the tree meant a lot to Jem and maybe Jem felt that it was more than gifts that he received. Maybe Jem felt that with each gift he was getting closer to Boo, but when Mr. Radley filled it up, the connection was broken.
DeleteI agree with Alan when he says that Jem not crying had to do with the theme of growing up. To add on about the difference of emotion in the book and movie, I would say that the book gives more feeling than the movie does because the movie merely shows the main ideas. The book shows all the ideas and themes put together to make the feeling much more profound than in the movie. I guess you don't notice the importance of the details until they aren't there...
DeleteThe movie totally omits Scout's instruction in school and the conflicts between her and Miss Caroline. It also does not include the snowfall in Maycomb county and consequently the burning of Mrs. Maudie's house, two aberrations that seemed to foreshadow the supernatural and unusual time the story was in. This adumbration serves to show the uniqueness of the upcoming trial and that bad things can come from good things, like the destruction of Maudie's house came from trying to stay warm from the snow. Similarly, injustice and deep persecution can come from "good" or white people.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs
Here, a tree, which bears nutritious and giving fruit, can also be like poison. If this media was not sufficient, here is a picture. http://lh6.google.com/anthony.easton/R2ID9zrAVkI/AAAAAAAAA0w/h-E4EwZ7hzo/s800/SledBurnOnTracks-01.JPG
Notice the juxtaposition.
Now for my thought provoking question:
Does society's approval justify an injustice?
Please let that marinate.
*sorry for listing my full name; I couldn't find the option to only put my first name, but I take full responsibility for this choice and will not hold Whitney High school or any of its employees liable for any damages that result from the showing of my full name.
When Atticus told her to "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it." I think that he meant her to not only try to see the other person's perspective, but also to broaden her view. Although she is academically precocious, she has not developed the social skills to help her function smoothly in life. This was also for her to see things in a boy's view. Women were seen as somewhat of an inferior at that time and could not see the full picture unless they thought like a man.
DeleteThere are many differences between the book and the movie. This is most evident in the change of the order in the events. We learn about the Cunningham's problem in the book much closer the middle then in the movie. We aren't introduced to some of the minor character within the book that affected the story line. We miss out on Scout's teacher and problems inside the classroom. We also missed out on the acting scene's from Boo Radley and the confrontation about his missing pants. However the book does add in a black humming bird drawing that could mean something. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=qJEIIeVO3_2bAM:&imgrefurl=http://omcbride-ahebee.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&docid=Kq3BeRW2MTrOWM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pI860Wu1Nb4/TFN8f7QySmI/AAAAAAAAAHw/yhkOboTP2bI/s1600/mockingbird.jpg&w=450&h=295&ei=35QPT_ecJemciQLXqYDgDQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=318&sig=107879849404782474960&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=195&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=114&ty=62
ReplyDeleteAlan, I totally agree with you on your mention of the minor characters. In my opinion with the missing out of the minor character we miss out on some of the story line of the movie. However, the movie still makes the story a bit more interesting.
DeleteI agree with you. we missed out on an important scene, which was one with the children acting as the Radley's. This helped to better show what the children thought of them. Not to mention that we only got to see a small part about whist the children think of the Radley's, which seems to be a big part in the book so far. It also shows you that Atticus doesn't "judge a book by its cover".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you guys: Why does Jem know that Scout will fight, because he is quick to pull her off of Walter? Also, Atticus did not seem surprised when Scout told him that she had fought. Do you guys maybe think there are some traces in her past that show her fighting?
ReplyDeleteI think that Jem has the exact same feelings that Scout has, he just does not present them in the same way as Scout. Jem may also have better control over his emotions and feelings, and how he expresses them. I also do think that there are traces from the past that show her fighting, and that Atticus had, to some extent, expected that something would happen.
DeleteA lot of books and movies differ, and this was no exception. In the book, I felt that the way Atticus was described was different. I felt that in the book, he did not stand out as much. Though he is a lawyer, he still had some of the characteristics of a Maycomb citizen.In the movie, he stood out a lot, with his suit and just his attitude in general.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference was the fact that so many parts were skipped over in the movie. For example, Scout did not find the gum in the knothole. It seemed like Jem found everything, and Scout only found the carvings.
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_707/7073455/file/race-equality-message-prejudice-small-85118.jpg
This picture relates to the theme of racism as well, because it shows that no matter what the outside is, everyone is the same, and we must all stick up for each other.
Generally speaking, movies are always made differently than books. Sometimes movies leave out certain conversations that were said in the book, or they leave out scenes. In the movie To Kill A Mockingbird, they skip the scene when Jem and Scout make a snowman using Miss Maudie's hat. They ignore other scenes such as the scene when Francis and Scout have their fight, or when Uncle Jack has a talk with Scout about inappropriate language. The movie also mixed up the fact that Scout was running by the knot-hole tree and discovered it first, not Jem.
ReplyDeleteThe book also focuses on discrimination and prejudice. Not only do the townspeople show discrimination towards African Americans but they also show discrimination towards Authur "Boo" Radley. Everyone in the neighborhood believes that Boo Radley is a monster.
The picture shows how the everyone in the neighborhood is together and close, but Boo is not wanted. He is the 'monster' no one wants to be near.
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1152&bih=761&tbm=isch&tbnid=m1bJvZ3GdXC7XM:&imgrefurl=http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/school-district-in-north-carolina-accused-of-discrimination/7588/&docid=Lg7KT9u4fXtDgM&imgurl=http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/uploads/images/article-images/discrimination_NOrth_carolina.jpg&w=781&h=553&ei=jZ8PT4SDK6OpiALKnvy2DQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=442&sig=108859274357244952261&page=5&tbnh=126&tbnw=193&start=94&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:94&tx=178&ty=46
I also think the books focuses of rumors. Like how the people of Maycomb are just assuming that Boo Radley is this crazed monster and how Miss Caroline just assumes that Walter Cunningham was being ignorant not accepting the money without knowing the truth behind his family.
DeleteEveryone thinks that Boo Radley is a monster in the beginning, but as time goes by, Scout and Jem discover some things about Boo. First, Jem discovers the medal in the tree. The medal could mean that Boo is actually like everyone else because he won awards at school. Boo also was able to make models of Jem and Scout out of rocks, further proving that he can be a nice, civilized human. Last, Jem finds his pants neatly folded on the gate. Boo was probably trying to help him get away fast and show that he is not a bad person. Over time, Scout and Jem learn that Boo Radley is a normal human being and that he should be treated as one.
DeleteI agree with your picture that you presented. Boo is seen as the odd one out, but I don't think that can always be seen as a bad thing. Like Andrew said, Jem and Scout find that Boo Radley isn't such a bad guy. He may make a few mistakes, but that's what everyone does. This picture is ironic because Boo does stand out, but at the same time he is just like everyone else because everyone makes mistakes.
DeleteI agree with the picture that you had. People in the neighborhood didn't want anyone going near his house. Like what Kimberly said, they were making rumors about him, when he could be a different person inside.
Deletethe difference between the movie and the book was that the book did not mention Atticus going to town in order to talk to the person he is defending on the case. In the scene, it showcased many foreshadowing where Mr. Ewell staggered onto the car, looking at Jem very barbarically. This might foreshadow Mr. Ewell's involvement on the case that Atticus is defending.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=mHzf4k0kYmVp3M:&imgrefurl=http://stockfresh.com/image/348037/one-standing-out-from-the-crowd&docid=IK94U2z5XVpoXM&imgurl=http://stockfresh.com/files/i/iqoncept/m/71/348037_stock-photo-one-standing-out-from-the-crowd.jpg&w=400&h=400&ei=TKEPT-y3N8aqiQLk6YiPCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=541&vpy=63&dur=4535&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=114&ty=159&sig=102127557791870205876&page=4&tbnh=127&tbnw=127&start=62&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:62
this photo represents Atticus because he lived in a seperated society in which the "white" people were on top of the pyramid and the african americans were at the bottom. Atticus is the different one because he believed in equality of the people.
I agree. Atticus seems to be the only one in the neighborhood who believes in equal rights, liberty, and justice. I think this makes Atticus stronger as a person because with all the people around him feeling that they are superior to either the poor, like the Cunninghams, or superior to another race, like African Americans,Atticus still keeps his beliefs.
DeleteI feel that the movie and the book of To Kill A Mockingbird was too different from each other. I understand that changes must be made in movies because of movie length problems and other irritations, but the changes in the movie weren't just adjustments, the producers missed many huge, important details that cannot be taken out.
ReplyDeleteSome few examples of alterations from the book to the movie were, first, that Mrs. Calpurnia does not seem as scary and strict as Scout describes in the book. I mean, from Scout's interpretation of her, I would imagine her screaming at the children when they have done something wrong. But in the movie, compared to how I would think of her, Calpurnia actually seems nice.
Also, to my opinion, I think that the movie does not quite explain the Radleys enough. They are an important factor to the movie, but there is too much lacking from the story of the Radleys in the movie.
Lastly, Jem and Scout never receive their B.B. Guns.
What Jem means when he says that Scout must "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it" is just like the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover." Scout was think Jem of one way without fully understanding what is going on. She cannot just get the whole picture while looking at only her point of view. Scout must be able to sit in Jem's position and let everything marinate.
This picture shows the huge differences between black and whites in the story of To Kill A Mockingbird because, for example, people were calling Atticus a nigger-lover for helping a black man in a case. This shows the hatred from the whites.
Deletehttp://images.google.com/imgres?q=black+and+white+differences+racism&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=aceCz2xSbmDoOM:&imgrefurl=http://jimcrowmuseum.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html&docid=GMPGqBGJ3gcQ5M&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yY4BXlYMYeA/TAf3LGRKG4I/AAAAAAAACrs/7HL3z8tDyrs/s1600/interracial_hands.jpg&w=640&h=427&ei=maIPT4f7I4eniQKX8oDcDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=308&vpy=253&dur=1463&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=191&ty=68&sig=113260913733717167959&page=3&tbnh=128&tbnw=171&start=42&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:42
Justin, I agree with the fact that Calpurnia is shown to be very scary in the book because of the intense description. It was very necessary to have more description of Calpurnia because that way, the Filch's may see how the "colored" people see the world. After all, Calpurnia is the bridge between the "colored" people and the "white" people.
DeleteI agree with you Justin. The fact that the Radleys weren't described as much takes a toll on the plot of the movie. They weren't able to correctly show the children happy to receive gifts the the hole in the tree and how they were thankful to the anonymous person, which i think will later on move the plot. Although showing the spelling bee was a plus. They also didn't show Mr. Nathan Radley's lie about cementing the tree because it was dead. They just portrayed him as an angry person.
DeleteLike most movies based on books, the novels are more detailed and in depth while the movie leave out many scenes from the book. For example, in the novel, the conflict between Miss Caroline and Scout about Walter Cunningham not accepting the money was a more major incident and was much more detailed. While in the movie, Miss Caroline does not even appear and all that is shown is the fight between Scout and Walter.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference was that in the novel, Scout sees some tin foil in the knothole of the Radley's tree and later on finds two Indian head pennies. In contrast, the movie shows that Jem found the spelling bee medal, pocket watch, and others.
Also in the movie, Jem and Scout are there when Mr. Radley is filling the knothole with cement. While in the book, the children don't.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&tbnid=WWp4jZ9pyx90kM:&imgrefurl=http://bakarov.deviantart.com/art/no-racism-153496006&docid=FbxZUjhk7D2ZtM&imgurl=http://www.deviantart.com/download/153496006/no_racism_by_bakarov.jpg&w=7087&h=4724&ei=OqEPT_vPFevZiALXwtSjDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=67&vpy=193&dur=898&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=157&ty=116&sig=117587756686985897728&page=1&tbnh=99&tbnw=129&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1138&bih=473
This picture goes with the theme of racism between blacks and whites that is shown throughout To Kill a Mockingbird.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=0-tctI2w4mLhjM:&imgrefurl=http://tundeswriting.wordpress.com/&docid=XuDgbRUTTOnmdM&imgurl=http://tundeswriting.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/racial_prejudice3.jpg&w=862&h=1626&ei=aaEPT_H2HcnciQLqpOnkDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=87&vpy=32&dur=1494&hovh=309&hovw=163&tx=121&ty=231&sig=117587756686985897728&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=63&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&biw=1138&bih=473
This picture show a face made up of different people of different races. It shows that it doesn't matter what races you are or what you look like from the outside, but on the inside a person is a person.
I agree with your example that Miss Caroline was not thoroughly introduced. I also think that since she isn't shown at all, people who would only watch the movie and not read the book would not get the feeling or knowledge as to why Scout would hurt the kid in school.
DeleteI agree with your second picture. Everyone should be able to be treated equally, and not discriminated because of your outside image.
DeleteWhen Atticus says "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it," he means Scout should look at things from a person's point of view. Not just Jem's point of view but others including Miss Caroline, Walter Cunningham, and even African Americans. This leads me to beluve that another reason why Atticus is defending Tom Robinson is because he believes he needs to see things from Tom's point of view. Atticus seems like the only one in the book who "[doesn't] judge a book by its cover."
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thinking but i want to add that Atticus wants Scout to understand how one feels as well instead of only looking at a different point of view.
DeleteI agree as well, but I would also like to add that besides wanting Scout to understand one's feelings, he also feels obligated to efend this man. I believe that he feels that if he did not listen to what Tom Robinson had wanted, that he would be setting a bad example for his children. That if he did not listen to one man, his children would question why they would have to listen and obey him.
DeleteOne of the major differences between the book and the movie of To Kill A Mockingbird is the order of scenes. The movie starts with Mr. Cunningham delivering something to Scout's house, but that scene occurs later on in the book. Also, many scenes in the movie were skipped, like how Miss Caroline was not shown in the movie. Instead of showing the part when Scout gets in trouble, it skips to Scout beating up Walter. The story about Scout's school day is revealed when Scout tells Atticus about what happened.
ReplyDeletehttp://allmandlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Hands-Tied1.jpg
This picture represents how Scout is tied down by many things. Miss Caroline doesn't allow her to read and Atticuz stops Scout from fighting. Scout's freedom is bound and she can't do much. Even though she sneaks out a lot, whenever Atticus sees her, he tells her to go home.
I definitely agree with your picture and description. But also, the reason for this is because of the fact that she is very young and still needs to be taught. Nice JOB!
DeleteI agree. She has many things stopping her from doing what she wants. However, Scout is still very young and Atticus is a wise father. It is his responsibility to keep his child in check just like how any father would.
DeleteI believe that Atticus is stripping Scout from her freedom, like you said, being tied down, because with more freedom in your hands, there comes more responsibility. This has to do with the theme of growing up. Atticus doesn't think that Scout has matured yet and can't handle being out by herself.
DeleteIn a person, skin is a very sensitive organ in which one can feel almost anything that brushes past it. The fact that Atticus told Scout to climb into another's skin instead of shoes is to stress the importance of being considerate of others. Instead of looking in another perspective, Atticus wanted Scout to understand and realize what others feel in the same situation
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=19shdbmt81e9VM:&imgrefurl=http://www.anthonymillerphotography.com/2011/02/understanding/&docid=14sJQFG2bJji5M&imgurl=http://www.anthonymillerphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Understanding.jpg&w=1440&h=960&ei=W6YPT4eeHMGviQL17rW9DQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=673&vpy=349&dur=2393&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=177&ty=130&sig=102127557791870205876&page=4&tbnh=131&tbnw=179&start=67&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:67
this photo shows that one needs to be taught about understanding another and how they feel.
Athena, I completely agree that climbing into one's skin and being in another's shoes are two totally different things. My post was almost like yours, except I didn't read yours before I posted mine, so I didn't copy. Climbing into one's skin is much more than just putting yourself in one's shoes.
DeleteA question:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Atticus, as a character, is more like a father to his children or more a wise lawyer who believes in equality?
I feel as though Atticus is more of a wise lawyer who guides Jem and Scout, and admonishes them when they make mistakes. Even Scout once described her father in the beginning as "courteously detached".
DeleteActually I disagree with you (Elijah). Atticus is more like a father since he isn't afraid to help Scout and Jem understand their feelings. Not only that, but Atticus also puts his children before him in many cases. For example, he came running with he heard a mad dog was near his children. Although Atticus is "courteously detached," Atticus' love for Jem and Scout is obvious.
DeleteI think that between the book and the movie his character is different. I believe that in the book he is more of the wise lawyer that believes in equality for all, but in the movie he is presented more as a fahter first and then a wise lawyer would stands for equality within society.
DeleteQuestion:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think would've happened to the case if Atticus did not believe that all people are equal? Would Atticus still try to defend the person or would he go against his orders to somehow prove the man guilty?
In my opinion, I think if Atticus didn't believe in equality, he wouldn't even think twice about turning the African American man down in defending him. Think about it, all government workers at the time, including the judicial system, were white and probably racist, so Atticus probably didn't get paid much either for defending him. In fact, it would be a lot easier for Atticus to just try to do a bad job as a lawyer and prove him guilty instead because everyone else would be on his side to back it up. Strength is in numbers, and unfortunately, this ment African American's were forced to submit to the whites.
DeleteIn the book, Jem and Scout seemed really comfortable around Mr. Radley and they didn't have problems talking to him. Why do you think that Scout and Jem are extremely scared around him in the movie?
ReplyDeleteWhen Atticus says to "climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it" I think he means to not judge people without truly getting to know them. From your perspective, it may seem different, but you should try to look at the situation in that person's perspective and not jump to conclusions because you may not know the entire part of the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that Atticus meant that Scout should stop acting like her way is the only way and that others may be in different situations that affect their actions. His quote not only applies to Scout looking from Jem's perspective, but from everyone's. When Scout sees something that she doesn't like, Atticus doesn't want her to get mad, but to try and understand why they did it. He wants her to ask herself, "What would you do in their situation?"
ReplyDeleteAtticus explains to Scout that a compromise is "an agreement reached by mutual consent". When did Scout ever show her agreement and disagreement to what Atticus' definition of compromise?
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss the effects of the book vs the those of the movie. Personally, I really dislike movies of books in general. The book shows the thoughts and emotions of the character in a more provoking and personal way. In books, we are able to feel what the characters feel. We may pity, sympathize, and loathe others with them. We may admire, appreciate, and love with them. However, in the movie, everything has to compacted and scenes are left out, as you guys have already mentioned above. Doing this, especially after reading the novel, is really..disconcerting. What happened? How could they (the movie producers) do that? Why did they leave that important part out? Everything is rushed through and the audience are literally not able to leisurely collect and experience all the emotions of the characters.
ReplyDeleteHere's an SAT word for you guys: VICARIOUS. It means to feel and experience an incident yourself though it has happened to someone else.
Since the rest of you have already mentioned many examples of scenes left out in the movie, I encourage the audience to read the above posts (and below ones) so as I do not need to repeat what has already been said by someone else. Thank you.
In "To Kill a Mockingbird", Atticus advises Scout that to understand how other people think and feel she needs to "climb into his skin and walk around in it". Skin is like one's coat; it would feel different if you took someone else's. Each coat is unique, worn to different events, treated differently. Coats also have color: white, black, yellow, etc. Shoes are the same; some are more comfortable, more suitable to a certain event. worn for different occasions. Also, some are more valued than others. Our skin, our coat, and our shoes..they very much represent us in a way that they've been wherever we've been. They've seen whatever we've seen. They take us places and prepare us for future ventures.
Delete“You never truly know someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes.”
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--9HTmMH1FDY/TwgODYhRPjI/AAAAAAAAS_4/TiAtGyeFyj4/s800/007%252520Karasburg_037%252520%252528Large%252529.jpg
The movie does not do a good job of using vital details from the actual book to the story. Many small details in the book contribute greatly to the overall plot and theme. For example, the unfortunate burning of Miss Maudie's house was not included in the movie. That event in the book is hugely significant because it is one of the few times where Boo is revealed. Boo putting a blanket around scout is a contradiction to all the rumors and myths about him. Boo's actions change the children's perspective about Boo, and they do not bother Boo Radley like they did in the past.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slugsite.com/archives/1004
This is an article by someone who reviews something that may look expensive, but it is a cheap fraud. Boo may seem like a scary individual, but in reality, he does have a heart and is human.
When Atticus tells Scout "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it," he means you do not know what a person's going through until you have fully experience their lives yourself. Climbing into one's skin, I believe, is going far beyond than putting yourself in one's shoes. Atticus says climb into Jem's skin and not "put yourself in his shoes" for a reason. Scout has to live his life the same exact way and feel the same exact emotions as Jem, not just think about how she WOULD feel if she was Jem. It's not the same thing. Climbing into someone's skin is much more complicated.
DeleteI agree. I feel as though they've left out some vital scenes that occurred in the book. In the beginning of the story, Scout was talking about how they discussed the events leading to Jem's accident, and how she insisted that it was the Ewells' fault. I don't recall Burris Ewell being introduced into the story, as they cut the school scene from the movie.
Deletehttp://rippleeffects.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/can-a-movie-adaptation-ever-be-as-good-as-the-book/
Question: Do you think the children's and the neighborhood's thoughts about Boo Radley may be wrong after all?
DeleteI agree with you Don. I also think that since the movie skipped the part where Miss Maudie's house burns down it leaves Boo Radley's character sort of undefined because of the usual gossip about him.
DeleteWhen Scout couldn't understand why things couldn't be done her way, Atticus tells her that she should "climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it". I think that Atticus means that Scout should try to understand what it would be like to be Jem in that certain situation, and see things from a different perspective other than her own.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between TKAM the book and movie are great and as I have commented before especially in the way they make you feel. Nevertheless, all the apparent importance that would be expected from the book is in the movie. One example are the quotes used. One of them is posted above.
ReplyDeleteI would compare the quote above to a quote made by Don Freeman explaining that you won't know someone until you think like they would. Atticus meant for Scout to look at herslef in Jem's place. What would Jem do and think? What kinds of things might Jem know or feel that might affect his judgement?
This article shows what Jem might've felt that Scout hadn't about losing their mother.
http://www.articleslash.com/Self-Improvement/Grief-Loss/314250__After-The-Sympathy-Card.html
This leads me to propose a question: What would you do if you were in Jem's skin (so to speak)? Would you let Scout go wild at anyone who makes even the sightest insult to Atticus and join her in the act or would you stop her and console her at such incidences knowing not the reasoning beyond your father's actions and simply listen to your father?
Being the oldest of the siblings, both in my family and as Jem, I'd do my best to adhere to Atticus' wishes and keep Scout in line for it is my responsibility to do so.
DeleteMy question for To Kill a Mockingbird is that through part 1, how have Jem and Scout changed?
ReplyDeleteJem and Scout have both lost some of their childhood innocence, and have become aware of the prejudice and discrimination in their society. Although they are both having a hard time adapting to this new world, they are slowly becoming less puerile.
DeleteI agree with Allison when she says that they have started to notice the tension between the blacks and the whites. Also, as the story progresses, their feelings toward Atticus grow stronger as the story progresses.
DeletePOST: Although many others that have commented on this blog believe that the movie does not portray the characters in To Kill a Mockingbird well, I have to disagree. Many quotes in the movie actually come straight out of the book, and many scenes are perfectly redone in the movie except for a few minor differences. For example, although the argument between Miss Caroline and Scout isn’t shown, Scout’s fight with Walter Cunningham and the dinner with Walter are shown according to the book. Actually I was surprised how closely the director followed the storyline of the book.
ReplyDeleteQUESTION: Mr. Radley covered the hole in the tree that often held gifts with cement even though Atticus said that it wasn't necessary. Why and What does this symbolize?
PICTURE: http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1639&bih=769&tbm=isch&tbnid=q_zdM9lakF4-yM:&imgrefurl=http://photo.mattjonesblog.com/2007/04/30/loner/&docid=8SEY7xggsWtB I believe the red flower in this picture symbolizes Atticus since he is different and stands up for Tom Robinson.
I completely agree with you Allison, the movie actually helped me visualized the characters better, I dunno, maybe that's just me. I think so far, this movie had done a pretty good job of not completely screwing the storyline up as most movie remakes of books and/or series do. My answer to your question would be that, the hole in the tree symbolizes the open story of Boo Radley. The hole can be filled with whatever trinkets (thoughts or rumors) that people put in it. However, after the children kinda see him for themselves, they can begin to unravel the truth, so their ignorance of him is sealed up. :)
DeleteThere are many differences presented between the book and the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. From the minor characters, sequences of events, and details that have either been added or taken away from the book, each version of this story has different meanings and perspectives that can be understood. I find that the most noticeable and thought provoking difference between the movie and the novel is the relationship between Atticus and Scout.
ReplyDeleteAs is presented in the book, their relsationship is very informal and there is a wide gap dividing them from a typical father-daughter relationships, whereas in the movie they seem to share a deeper connection. In the movie, Atticus seems to play a more fatherly role towards his two children.
The article attached explainsn the importance of a father-daughter relationship, and how the daughter can be affected by the role model her father is presented as.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Importance-of-Father-Daughter-Relationships&id=1681381
My question involving this topic is: Why does Atticus have a more fatherly role in the movie compared to the book?
Yeah, another thing I noticed was that Atticus is very sad and it shows on his face when Scout is asking Jem about their mother. In the book it seems Atticus is always just reading the newspaper and overall, I think the movie shows that the family is somewhat close even after the death of the mother, but in the book I think it's trying to show that their whole family falls apart after her death and the Atticus is barely struggling to hold it together...maybe that has something to do with what he feels about taking on the case.?
DeleteYeah, also in the movie it shows Atticus sad when Scout is asking Jem about their mother. One thing I want to know is why Atticus feels like he has to take on the Tom Robinson case otherwise he can't face Scout and Jem.
DeleteIf you look at the book, after the scene that Scout, Jem, and Dill run from the Radley house Jem loses his pants in the process. After they are called back Atticus wants to know why Jem lost his pants. Dill is quick on his feet to say that he won them in a game of strip poker. In the movie this scene does not exist. I think that this scence should not have been removed because it shows character traits in Scout, Jem, and Dill. It shows how in times of pressure, Dill is quick-witted. It also shows how in order to protect a secret Scout and Jem are able to lie to their beloved father, Atticus, to whom they always obey. It also shows a connection between the three children in the sense that Dill lied, the other two were able to quickly pick up on that and go along with Dill. Possibly because they trust him.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?q=character+development&hl=en&biw=1455&bih=878&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=527Li3mDt7rj3M:&imgrefurl=http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/morchr/morchr.html&docid=Bme9M0I09dkNuM&imgurl=http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/morchr/morchr1.jpg&w=582&h=525&ei=2LYPT_WzAoWfiQL5svTqDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=182&vpy=184&dur=5504&hovh=213&hovw=236&tx=98&ty=133&sig=113896129902599696219&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=159&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0
This chart shows some of the instantaneous subconscious things that may have gone on in the children's minds. It shows that maybe in their subconscious that they may have trusted each other
I agree, the chart does show some of the moral and development in children. some children grow up without or a mother or father or even both and cannot live by themselves. they cannot do everything themselves so they might stick together and trust each other. Jem and Scout dont really have someone watching over them all the time because atticus is usually at the courthouse. This can lead to children not being able to gain good morals and grow up properly http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/The_Outsiders_book.jpg/200px-The_Outsiders_book.jpg
DeleteIt seems that today's debate has centered on whether the movie portrays the characters well or not. I have to side with those who say it does a good job overall of capturing the essence of the character. Being a movie, it will almost by definition not be able to fully capture the complexity of the characters as seen in the book, but overall it does a fantastic job for what a film can do. However, the one thing that has me wondering is, why did the movie choose to make Mr. Radley the old version not Nathan,in other words, why make him the old mean Grinch and not at least a half decent person like the book tried to do?
ReplyDeleteAlso, though it may seem that discrimination is lessened in today's world it is not quite so. Discrimination is still a major part of society just more subtle, for example we still have the age old anti black bigotry, but a new prejudice on the horizon is the anti Muslim and/or Middle Eastern fear in today's world as the following video shows
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-5-2012/the-elephant-in-the-room
I agree with you discrimination is still here in our world ,but no matter how hard we try to stop it, it's always going to happen because discrimination starts off with an opinion and we do not have the right to take someone's opinion from them. If we try to make this utopia of no discrimination we'll end up making a dystopia because we're restricting freedom of minds making a lifeless world.
DeleteTrue its not going to go away, and we may end up with a Fahrenheit 451 type environment. Also you are correct that a person's opinion is sacred and we can' take it from them
DeleteReply to Post: I believe that Atticus was trying to say that not everyone was the same and in order to understand others it is essential to think in their perspectives by "pretending to be them" aka "be in their skin."
ReplyDeleteJust a question to ponder, but why would the movie change around the order of events so much? What was the point in doing that if there was any point at all?
ReplyDeleteI know i was wondering the same thing, and also why'd they skip the scene about the fire? I thought that was an important part in the book because it could symbolize the innocence burning away because that's around the same time when Scout starts cussing and 'growing up'.right?
DeleteI also think that the movie does a good job in capturing the personality and essence of the characters especially ones with strong personality such as Scout, Atticus, and Dill. The movie itself definitely leaves some details out, but for the most part the main points are still there. We have to take into take into consideration that, unlike books, movies have a certain time limit, contrary to the actual story, which can keep going for seven books if it wanted to. Anyway, just like the book, the movie also gives us an un-gilded look on how life was like during this time. It still captures the themes of the story too, like being the better person, growing up, and facing discrimination.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESSpXnDxlDQ
So the difference that I noticed was that in the book Atticus explained the sin about killing the mockingbird to Jem and Scout after they have received their guns. however in the movie it is explained at dinner with Jem, Scout, and Walter Cunningham, I think the movie weakened the effect of the moral.
ReplyDeletehttp://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/91/b8/swag,creative,bird,tattoo,on,hand,black,and,white,hands,tattoo-91b83b42ccbae6856640f35683caacd8_h.jpg
I think Atticus meant to respect people's actions and not to judge anyone just as Atticus is being judged for defending an African-American.
DeleteI agree, morality is definitely underdone in the movie. Since things are mashed together into scenes just to put them in, the message is smothered.
DeleteA question for you to ponder on.. deeply:
ReplyDeleteIf the people of Maycomb did not gossip about Boo Radley, and instead they dared not to speak a word of him, do you think the children would be more or less afraid of him?
I think the children would be more afraid of him. A quote that I often hear is "people are afraid of the unknown". If the children didn't know about Boo Radley, they would be more scared of him. Although they've heard stories about him, if they didn't know anything about him, he'd be mysterious and scary to the children.
DeleteI think that the children would actually be less frightened of him. Because everyone talks about him, and his story has been passed on and changed so many times, Boo Radley is typically thought of as a lot more frightening than he really is. If no one spoke about him, there would be fewer rumors and speculations about him, and there would be fewer lies about his past, which would keep people from being so afraid of him.
DeleteThe movie TKAM had several key differences from the book itself. For example, the gum that was found in the tree mentioned in the book was not shown in the movie. Also, Mr. Radley filled up the hole in the tree with cement in the front of Jem and Scout rather than doing it at some other time, as written in the book. I believe that the movie does a poor job of the plot because many specific details in the book are left out. My question for TKAM is how does Jem and Scout's view of Boo Radley change throughout Part 1 of the novel?
ReplyDeletehttp://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part/
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part2/
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/diversity-harmful-effects-of-discrimination-part4/
These articles explain the long/short-term effects of discrimination and how it can "leave many parents childless or many children parentless".
I have read the articles on the harmful effects of discrimination and agree with its relations to violence and hate. i commend your points and the movie does leave out parts of the novel but it could be because maybe something too captivating or offensive would raise tensions between blacks and whites during the time.
DeleteI think the book is a lot more interesting compared to the movie. Since we've already read this part in the book we expect it to be that way, but the movie makers tweeked everything. Atticus and Scout have more of a father-daughter relationship, for one, and in the book it describes him as being not so fatherly towards his children. I also think Jem is portrayed younger than he appears in the book because it shows him throwing fits about the fact that Atticus won't play football with him.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that's small but still different is that in the book, Miss Rachel is Dill's aunt and in the movie it's Miss Stephanie. I really don't understand that mix-up though.
Also the locations are different. In the book, it portrays the Radley house being "down the road" but in the movie it's right next to Atticus's house.
Also I think Mr.Ewells has something to do with this Tom Robinson case because he seems to be actually upset with the fact that Atticus took on the case. Everyone else just makes rude comments towards him but they're not personally mad in the way that Mr.Ewells is.
Here's a neat song i found on youtube. ITs called scout's song and I like it because it talks about Scout and it kind of reflects this whole 'growing up' theme in the book. Another thing, in the song scout says she wants to live to see the day when people admit that they're just afraid and I think that's going to have a big part in the book as we read further on. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8djaUWWL68
Payal I agree with your idea about Miss Stephanie being Dill's aunt, I think that has to do with all the gossip that the whole town is involved in.
DeleteMy question is: What did Tom Robinson do that make Mr.Ewells so angry? And what does Atticus means when he says if he didnt take on the case, he'd never be able to look at Jem and Scout anymore?
ReplyDeleteIt's not really anything that Tom Robinson did. It's just the prejudice of the time that blacks were considered below everyone else. He felt that since Atticus was defending one, he was just as bad as one.
Deleteand i think the second part is that if atticus did not defend Tom, then he would be discriminatory as well. Something like that.
I know it makes him angry but it's like he's personally hurt by it. Like alot of the people in the community are hating on Atticus but only Mr.Ewells (in the movie)is all up in his face and freaking his children out in the car:/
DeleteMr. Ewells probably has a history with blacks, and maybe there's something from his past that makes him so angry and prejudiced. Atticus is a pretty reasonable person and he seems to be the only one in town who does not hate blacks. He probably sees it as his responsibility to promote equality in Maycomb, even if he's the only one doing it.
DeleteMy question is why didn't the director of the movie show the part where Miss Maudie's house burns down?
ReplyDeleteIn To Kill a Mockingbird the movie, it differs from the book in many ways such as different dialogue and scenes cut out and new scenes not from the book. Examples are scenes with miss Caroline, Walter, miss maudie and the gum in the tree. Besides of just stating the many differences i would like to try and figure out why they did this. Was it because of the director and a different screenplay or maybe something else. We have to keep in mind though that the movie was made in 1962, During the civil rights movement. At this time segregation was still going on .http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/african-american-citizens-sitting-in-the-rear-of-the-bus-in-compliance-with-florida-segregation-law-posters.jpg
ReplyDeleteThe book at the time was very provocative and maybe a movie would be even more. This could be one reason that they may have changed the screenplay from the book due to the possible negative reaction from society back then. The movie is different but i still get the same main message that the story is trying to convey
The movie and book To Kill a Mockingbird are very different. However, they both present similar themes and ideas. In the movie, they are not shown as clearly. I was surprised to see that they did not include the scene where Dill, Scout, and Jem are playing their Boo Radley game. I thought that was an important scene because it shows the themes of stereotyping and gossip. The people in Maycomb always talk about Boo Radley, but they never show how children mocked and imitated him, when they never met or saw him before.
ReplyDeleteThis picture shows a bridge that allows things to cross from one side to the other. Similarly, Calpurnia served as a bridge connecting the black and white communities.
http://www.asiagrace.com/photos/h/arch-red.jpg
I agree with you I think they should have added that part to the move because it supports the whole theme of "Don't judge a book by its cover"
DeleteOne question that I had was: Why does Atticus respect Calpurnia so much? Why does he treat her as an equal when many other people would treat her like dirt?
ReplyDeleteAtticus sees the good in people. His observances give him insight as to how to treat others. He does not pick up racial prejudice just to be going along with the croud, he is the outlier.
DeleteIn the book Dill, Scout, and Jem play the game of acting as Boo Radley based on their assumptions of him. Yet in the movie they never play this game, but the game was an essential part of the theme of prejudice in the book because Dill, Scout, and Jem assumed Boo Radley was psycho even though they never actually met him. This theme occurs a lot in the book especially when people attack on Tom Robinson just because he is black. However your skin color does not define who you are sadly Atticus is one of the few who understand that.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.miller-mccune.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/mmw_discrimination_041108_article.jpg
DeleteI am really glad that you touched on the idea of how one's skin color does not define your character because truly, the only one who understands this is Atticus so far. He has Cal as the nanny of his children, almost acting as a mother figure for Jem and Scout. Also, Atticus is defending Tom, a black man, against Maycomb's prejudice based wishes.
DeleteThe book and the movie have many differences. For example, they didn't show the scene with Mrs. Cunningham and Scout. Also, in the book Scout tried to help Walter, but in the book she doesn't have a good relationship with him. I think the director had emphasized the wrong parts of the story. He/She may have misunderstood the important parts of the book.
ReplyDeletequestion: Why do you think the movie keeps trying to point that Boo Radley is a "crazy guy" when they don't know him personally?
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=20&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&tbnid=fA9x8PazquJQrM:&imgrefurl=http://kilala04.deviantart.com/art/The-Ugly-Duckling-Final-Proj-103533147&docid=IGlyySQwunfN5M&imgurl=http://www.deviantart.com/download/103533147/The_Ugly_Duckling_Final_Proj_by_Kilala04.jpg&w=1729&h=1275&ei=_toPT9haw46IAtqt9NgN&zoom=1
just like how the ugly duckling was made fun of by the other ducklings because of how he looked, the movie showed the discrimination between the blacks and the whites.
I believe to "Climb into Jem's skin and walk around in it." means that to think about how Jem feels about something. Trying to see something in Jem's perspective. I think that Atticus was saying that she needs to widen her view of things.
A comment about the movie: Everything was really..rushed. scenes were forced together. Without reading the novel, it seemed that this movie had no purpose and did not teach anything. Scout was, in my opinion, obnoxious and uncourageous and, during part one, would not be able to cope with Atticus's "nigger-loving" case. Jem was..more or less accurately played, and Dill was about as unentartaining as a plate.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Several major characters in the movie had been faded out and minor characters had basically been ignored. This takes away from the intensity of the actually story presented in the book.
DeleteThe director of a movie made from a novel understands that he/she has to cut out scenes, the hard part of that is deciding what scenes to cut out. In the movie To Kill a Mockingbird, i think that they made poor decisions on which scenes to cut out. I think that they made a bad decision to cut out the scene where Miss Caroline whipped scout, this adds on to the anger and hatred the audience feels, with this scence gone, the movie appeals less to its audience. However, the movie did do a good job on expressing the themes and ideas the books showed.
ReplyDeleteMy question is: Why do people bother to judge people before they even meet them?
http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wheels-of-life-comic-old-baby-man-bike-car-rv-trailer-scooter-yea...jpg
This picture shows character development as the chracter grows older. Scout starts to gain courageas she gets older, Jem starts becoming a young man as the story progresses, and Atticus grows wiser with age.
The novel version and the movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird have many differences. For example, Miss Caroline was not shown in the movie, and neither was Miss Maudie’s fire. In the novel, all these events added to the atmosphere of prejudice and tension that seems to surround Maycomb. I think that even though the themes of the novel could be seen in the movie, many of the parts of the story that were left out were important to the plot overall. I believe that maybe some of the scenes left out of the movie would have been necessary for the development of characters and themes. My question: How is the way prejudice is shown in the movie different from that in the novel? Which way is more effective?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/immigration/immigration-courts-prejudiced-and-unfair
The themes of racial tension and prejudice could be seen in the novel and movie through Atticus, his case, and the actions of the people. Even today, racial tension has a role in our society, and this article talks about the prejudice held against immigrants.
I also agree with your statement that the missing elements in the movie are of extreme importance to the overall plot. When Scout and Miss Caroline's confrontation was not shown, the audience missed out on witnessing how familiar Maycomb county is with one another and how this information affects a citizen's interaction with another.
DeleteOne of the differences I found between the movie and the novel of To Kill a Mocking Bird is Jem's characterization. In the beginning of the film, Jem refuses to come down from the tree house. showing his defiance towards Atticus. However, in the novel, Jem is portrayed at as an extremely obedient child who serves as a role model to his younger sister, Scout. For example, "'Atticus ain't ever whipped [him]...'" (56). This slight difference, in my opinion, may be very detrimental to the plot of the movie considering Jem's crucial role.
ReplyDeleteThis next song is a modern twist on events that took place in the time period of this novel. There was a lot of discrimination against blacks and prejudice. This song captures this essence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc&ob=av3e
Question: What other individuals have been characterized differently in the movie compared to the book? Do you agree with these changes?
In your opinion, how is the difference in Jem's characterization, book vs movie,"detrimental" to the plot?
ReplyDeletethe book, To Kill a Mockingbird, paints a heavy picture of a society that creates its own facade. the people of Maycomb find an excuse to remove any unwanted "blemishes" from their society. In the movie, this theme is not as well portrayed. The movie is more of an account of Scout and Jem rather than the lessons created by the book.
ReplyDeleteThis image of a giant shoe represents the improvement our society needs and has potential for. It also represents the way we need protection from the shards of lies, discrimination, and evil that we are stepping on.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44315000/jpg/_44315728_shoe_ap416.jpg