To Kill a Mockingbird - Book vs. Movie

The book most definitely feels different to the movie—it’s got more depth, more meaning, more personality. Omitting minor characters and minor events from the story is like taking off all the icing on a cake. But personally, I hate lemon icing so I guess it just depends on your own preferences for things.

In the movie, there didn’t seem to be enough people on Team Non-prejudice. It was like the entire town was on Team Prejudice, while the Atticus, Scout and Jem were the only ones on Team Non-prejudice. It made the Finches seem unrealistic and abnormal, being the only ones in the whole nation who seemed to think ‘Racism ain’t right.’ I mean, sure the prejudice should’ve out-numbered the non-prejudice at that time, but it seemed strange that the only strong examples of non-prejudice were the Finches.

Link Deas, to me, was a necessary member of Team Non-prejudice. He was one of the few people in the book—and not in the film—where the fact that someone is black doesn’t factor into their opinion of them. His interjection during the trial and making it his duty to help out Helen Robinson after Tom’s death, kind of shows that prejudice-free people do exist in people other than the Finches. His appearance in the novel made me realise that not everyone at that time was racist against Negroes. Whereas the movie gives you the impression that everyone was a I’m-white-so-I’m-better-than-niggers retard.

And I suppose Dolphus Raymond was also another vital member of Team Non-prejudice that was omitted from the movie, with him preferring to live with his African-American mistress and his half white and hald black kids.

Watching the movie after reading the scene where Calpurnia brings Scout and Jem to the all black church was omitted is like watching a spider trying to walk after four of its legs had been yanked off. It lost half of its necessities. Seeing Lula confront Calpurnia to demand that Jem and Scout be removed from the First Purchase M.E. Church, gave us the first taste of the black’s response to white racism. And that Blacks could’ve been racist to Whites in return.

Also, Dill’s role change from the book to the movie became so insignificant, I can’t imagine why they didn’t bother just erasing him completely. Leaving him there to appear and disappear—besides the fact that he’s a character of To Kill a Mockingbird—doesn’t make sense to me. The scene where he cries during the Tom Robinson’s trial showed that he understood more than he let on. He understood Tom’s situation, he understood Tom’s fear and helplessness, he understood that what the jury were doing wasn’t right.

Even tiny microscopic details omitted from the movie formed major differences between the book and the movie. It made them seem to focus on different things. The movie set more on Tom Robinson and racism between blacks and whites and the novel focused on portraying all different kinds of prejudice—classes, gender, race. Also, the novel seems to cover more themes than the book—especially character growth in Dill and Jem after witnessing the trial.

Though the movie had less of an impact on me, I admit that it kept my attention much longer than the book did. But the movie’s just missing too many little details that’s meant to make the story radiate ‘Oh my gosh, that’s horrible.’

So yeah, if the movie and the book were to have a wrestling match, I reckon the book would win. I mean the book is just that dense and tightly-packed. A plastic DVD wouldn’t stand a chance.

Like

Unlike