Hendricks 1
Mackenzie Hendricks
6/26/14
English 350R – Hartvigsen
Book/Film Review
Critical Analysis of the Novel and Film To Kill a Mockingbird
Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, as well as Horton Foote’s film translation of this
novel, received national acclamation at its release, and they both currently remain as classics in
their separate and distinct forms of art. However, Harper Lee’s book underwent serious criticism
around a decade ago, and some continue to question the integrity of the book. The film version,
while regarded as a classic film, is lessening in popularity due to age and change in culture.
Despite signs that Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Horton Foote’s film translation of
this novel are fading in influence, the integral meaning and essence of this classic novel will
ensure that they both remain as timeless, successful works in their separate categories of
literature and film.
When Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird was first released in 1960, the public
responded with relatively mixed reviews, but her book soon won the Pulitzer’s Prize and
continues to stand as a classic today, despite signs of its lessening influence on modern readers.
At the release of the book in 1960, the initial mixed reviews did not suggest that Lee’s book
would be classified as literary genius. Rather, while critics held appreciation for Lee’s writing,
they also expressed skepticism over the story as a whole. In a 1960 review published in the New
York Times, Herbert Mitgang describes Lee’s story as “beautiful,” “interesting,” and “a winning
first novel,” although he also expresses discontent over the “improbable and sentimental
moments in the story” (33). However, some critics, such as Robert Kirsch, could find nothing
Hendricks 2
noteworthy in To Kill a Mockingbird. In a 1962 review for the Los Angeles Times, Kirsch
negatively describes the book as being “as deserving of a Pulitzer’s Prize as the Fanny Farmer
Cookbook” (61). Despite some of the book’s contemporary criticism, Lee’s story earned the
Pulitzer’s Prize in 1962, and current reviews of this novel demonstrate its enduring literary value.
In a 2010 review for the Los Angeles Times, Annette John-Hall highlights the book’s impact on
individuals and the nation as a whole, arguing that, despite controversy over its use of racist
language, “nobody can argue … the influence Lee’s storytelling had on readers” (8). After
bestowing upon Lee the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November of 2007, Former President
George W. Bush congratulated Lee for her contribution to society. In that address, Bush states,
“At a critical moment in our history, To Kill a Mockingbird helped focus the nation on the
turbulent struggle for equality.” Bush concluded his address by referring to Lee’s book as a “gift
to the entire world” (Flynt 6). Lee’s book, which in conception experienced mixed reviews, now
receives international accommodation from the majority of readers, although there have and will
continue to be sceptics.
Regardless of current acclaim and being named a great American classic, To Kill a
Mockingbird has been carefully scrutinized and criticized. In fact, Lee’s story is one of the most
banned books in the United States (Flynt 11). The source of complaints resides in the idea that
the book promotes the very racist notions it claims to argue against, as it uses vulgar terms and
supposedly characterizes African-Americans (John-Hall 6). Currently, most have acknowledged
that the integration of racist language and stereotyping in the book are necessary in order to fully
address these moral dilemmas, and the incorporation of this elements does not mean that Lee is
condoning such racist behavior. In an article for Alabama Heritage, Wayne Flynt explains that
the novel “has become the primary literary instrument worldwide for teaching values of racial
Hendricks 3
injustice and tolerance for people different from ourselves, and the necessity for moral courage
in the face of community prejudice and ostracism” (14). Without these racist elements within the
story, the moral dilemma that Flynt is praising the book for would be absent. While critics on
this controversial issue are fading, John-Hall explains current criticism of the novel has shifted to
the supposed glorification of Atticus Finch, which University of Pennsylvania English Professor
Herman Beavers argues is implemented in order to make the story “easier for white readers to
digest” (7). Similarly, critic Malcolm Gladwell, in his article “The Courthouse Ring” published
in The New Yorker, asserts that Atticus Finch’s approach “is about accommodation, not reform,”
meaning that Atticus does not actively pursue equal African-American rights but rather practices
blind acceptance of others, such as Walter Cunningham, regardless of their racist behavior (4). In
response to this criticism, Lance McMillian’s article “Atticus Finch as a Racial Accommodator:
Answering Malcolm Gladwell’s Critique” explains that Finch would not persecute others in
order to fight prejudice, as that would only be hypocritical and contrary to what he represents
(11-23). Even more, McMillian states that “racism has become less palatable after To Kill a
Mockingbird because Atticus Finch’s example shames those who cling to racist views,” even if
Atticus “did not immediately change the hearts and minds of the citizens of Maycomb County”
(23). Therefore, Atticus does not accommodate, but rather he shows tolerance to every individual
and stands as a firm example to the audience of an anti-bigot. Overall, despite some criticism
concerning the book’s language and its use of a supposed accommodating main character, most
view the book as a fixed opponent of inequality and bigotry. Just as the controversy over the
book’s racial slurs and stereotypes has lessened over the years, it is likely that the book will
continue to endure as a classic, regardless of any individual criticism that is introduced.
Hendricks 4
Soon after the book received the Pulitzer’s Prize, Horton Foote’s film translation was
released, resulting in national acclaim that has continued despite the years that have passed,
although there remains some concerns on whether or not the film will remain in high standing.
The film’s contemporary reviews, similar to the contemporary reviews of the novel, either
emphasizes the brilliance and success of the translation and continues to praise its source
material, or they suggest the film is just as poorly concocted as its precursor. For example,
Evelyn Cunningham, in her 1963 review for the New Pittsburg Courier, commended the film for
staying true to its source material in “one of those rare displays of respect for a best-selling
novel,” making it undoubtedly deserving of “as many awards as a film as it did [earn] as a book”
(6). In contrast, a 1963 review by R.M. Hodgens for the Film Quarterly states, “There is nothing
very wrong with this filmed novel, and there are a number of things all right with it, but it is
never very interesting” (60). Despite the initial mixed reaction, the film translation received three
Academy Awards, and Atticus Finch became the greatest American film hero of all time (Flynt
13). Perhaps even most significant is that no other translation has been made based off of To Kill
a Mockingbird, which clearly defends the high regard and respect filmmakers maintain of this
1962 film. Many current reviews support this idea. Bosley Crowther, in a 2003 review for the
New York Times, states that To Kill a Mockingbird has “minor shortcomings” but is undoubtedly
a “rewarding film” (1). Similarly, Wesley Lovell, in a 2011 review for Cinema Sight, states, “A
terrific central performance by Gregory Peck makes for an outstanding big screen adaptation of
Harper Lee's classic novel” (1). Certainly, the film’s endurance is a testament of its high value
and quality, even when comparatively the current filmmaking skills far surpass this 1962 film.
However, some current reviewers are unconvinced whether the film truly possesses
lasting value, as its original audience is from a much different culture and perspective than
Hendricks 5
modern viewers. In an article for The Wall Street Journal, Allen Barra asserts that “it's time to
stop pretending that To Kill a Mockingbird is some kind of timeless classic” when “its bloodless
liberal humanism is sadly dated” (2). Robert Eberg adds in the Chicago Sun-Times that the film
“is a time capsule, preserving hopes and sentiments from a kinder, gentler, more naive America,”
and that the different ideas conveyed in the film may have been believable during its release, but
currently “such stories are met with a weary cynicism” (1-2). The change in modern culture and
viewers suggests, as do Barra and Eberg, that the film will soon be outdated and forgotten.
Despite these critical views, however, Atticus Finch remains the greatest hero in all of film.
Much like the book, the film may receive a barrage of attacks, but it endures due to the greatness
of its message.
Therefore, while the book has occasionally received controversial reviews, and the film
continues to become more and more dated, the integral meaning of these two works will ensure
that audiences will forever regard Harper Lee’s story as a classic. Much has changed in the space
of a half-century, and the audiences have shifted to focus on different concerns and themes, but
To Kill a Mockingbird endures because it presents a timeless message. The book, and its inspired
film, do not only address racism. Rather, they concentrate on what Atticus Finch himself once
told Scout: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of
view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” (Lee 33). The major concern of the
novel’s critics is whether or not it actually addresses racism appropriately, but this passage
clearly shows the novel’s primary focus on fighting bigotry. Furthermore, the film’s critics doubt
that the current audience will remain attentive to its outdated ideas, yet prejudice still runs
rampant within today’s society, meaning that this film is still very much needed and applicable.
Prejudice and bigotry will always endure, and so, as a result, Lee’s story will as well.
Hendricks 6
Works Cited
Barra, Allen. “What ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ Isn’t.” The Wall Street Journal. 24 June 2010: 1-2.
Web. 5 July 2014.
Crowther, Brosley. “To Kill a Mockingbird (1962).” The New York Times. 20 May 2003: 1-2.
Web. 5 July 2014.
Cunningham, Evelyn. "Review: 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' an American Film Classic." New
Pittsburgh Courier (1959-1965), National edition ed. 26 Jan. 1963: 6. ProQuest. Web. 5
July 2014.
Eberg, Roger. “To Kill a Mockingbird.” The Chicago Sun-Times. 25 July 2011: 1-2. Web. 21
June 2014.
Flynt, Wayne. "The Enduring Legacy of to Kill A Mockingbird: Universal Values." Alabama
Heritage. 97 (2010): 1-14. ProQuest. Web. 21 June 2014.
Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Courthouse Ring.” The New Yorker. 10 Aug. 2009: 1-3. Web. 5 July
2014.
Hodgens, R.M. “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Film Quarterly. 16.3 (1963): 60. JSTOR. Web. 21 June
2014.
John-Hall, Annette. “Commentary; an Influence that Persists; Fifty Years Later, Harper Lee's 'to
Kill a Mockingbird' Still Illuminates Race Issues." Los Angeles Times. (2010): 18. ProQuest. Web. 21 June 2014.
Hendricks 7
Kirsch, Robert R. "The Book Report." Los Angeles Times. (1962): 61. ProQuest. Web. 21 June
2014.
Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York City, Grand Central Publishing: 1960.
Lovell, Wesley. “Review: To Kill a Mockingbird (1962).” Cinema Sight. 25 July 2011: 1. Web.
5 July 2014.
McMillian, Lance. “Atticus Finch as Racial Accommodator: Answering Malcolm Gladwell's
Critique.” Social Science Research Network. (2010): 1-24. ProQuest. Web. 21 June
2014.
Mitgang, Herbert. "Books of the Times." New York Times. (1960): 33. ProQuest. Web. 21 June
2014.