To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Based on the classic novel by Harper Lee, this film presents the truth of American race relations earlier in the twentieth century, but sadly, not a whole lot has changed even now.

Attorney Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) lives with his two children, ten-year-old Jem (Phillip Alford) and six-year-old Scout (Mary Badham) in Alabama. The majority of the film is set in the early 1930s.

The two children spend most of their summer vacation with another young boy named Dill Harris (John Megna) who is staying next-door with his aunt for the summer. They mainly spend their time avoiding the Radley house - apparently their son 'Boo' is a maniac who is chained up in his room - and visiting Atticus at the courthouse (also somewhere they shouldn't be).

One night, Judge Taylor (Paul Fix) comes to visit Atticus. He asks him if he would consider representing a defendant named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters), due to be charged by the grand jury the following day.

Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) with Scout (Mary Badham) and Jem (Phillip Alford).

Atticus takes the case and, given that Robinson is African-American, this decision shapes the entire remainder of the film, as most of the townspeople believe him to be guilty purely because of the colour of his skin.

The story is actually told through the eyes of six-year-old Scout - as is the novel it is based on - so the audience can experience the story from her much-more-innocent point-of-view, seeing everything purely for what it is.

The screenplay, by Horton Foote, deals with this very well, and brings the same tone of Lee's brilliant novel across to the screen with apparent ease (I say 'apparent ease' because it probably wasn't easy). The characters of Atticus and Scout are particularly well-written, and their scenes particularly tear-invoking.

Elmer Bernstein's music is perfect throughout, predominantly reflecting the on-screen action. The motifs and developed themes recur at various moments throughout the film, triggering memories in the listener of earlier moments and subtly connecting them together, usually in more of a metaphorical way than a literal way.

Scout (Mary Badham) and Dill Harris (John Megna).

The cinematography is certainly worth mentioning here. Russell Harlan - no doubt in collaboration with the director - has shot the film in black-and-white, which I believe does several things all at once.

Firstly, although the film was made in 1962, it is set some thirty years earlier. The black-and-white gives the film a certain nostalgia of the time, and also more of a documentary feel than a fictional story. Considering the novel was at least inspired by Harper Lee's life as a young girl, there is a 'truth' to the story that you don't get with a purely fictional novel.

But I don't believe that this is the only reason for the decision to shoot in black-and-white (it is clearly a deliberate decision, though, as films were being made in colour before this film was made). Given that the film deals primarily with issues of race, the contrast one gets between the black and the white when filming in black-and-white also suggests this in a more subtle way. However, there is also the wider theme of prejudice dealt with here, with the avoidance by the whole town of 'Boo' Radley. I think too that the film is shot in black-and-white to highlight the idea that nothing in life is ever 'black and white' when it comes to any issues of this kind.

Atticus (Gregory Peck) and Tom Robinson (Brock Peters).

The performances of the cast are fantastic, particularly Gregory Peck and young Mary Badham, who I would call the two protagonists of the film. They cannot be singled out above all the rest of the cast, certainly, but they are probably the most noticeable. For example, Robert Duvall is incredible as 'Boo' Radley, and every other member of the cast is perfectly suited to their own role, too.

Director Robert Mulligan has made a truly wonderful film here, a true classic that will continue to be a classic for decades to come. If you haven't seen this yet - firstly, why not? - then you absolutely must avail yourself of the opportunity as soon as practicable. I believe one should watch this film on at least an annual basis.

10 out of 10.

The Omen (1976)

At 6am on the 6th day of June, a child is born in Rome. It is the son of American ambassador to Rome, Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) and his wife Katherine (Lee Remick). Unfortunately though, and unknown to Katherine, the child died.

Convinced by a resident priest at the hospital, Robert takes another child whose mother he is told died during childbirth, and presents it to his wife as their son.

Several years later, Robert is now the ambassador in London. He and Katherine and their son Damien (Harvey Stephens) live in an enormous house, and Damien has all he could ever want.

But at Damien’s fifth birthday party, his nanny hangs herself from the balcony of the house in full view of all the guests.

And this is where the terrors begin. One by one, mysterious and terrifying things start to happen around Robert and his family. Even the new nanny, Mrs. Baylock (Billie Whitelaw) seems dark and mysterious herself, but Damien seems to like her.

Slowly but surely, Robert comes to the terrible conclusion that his son is in fact the Antichrist, come into the world to bring about the apocalypse. And his son must die before this can happen.

Director Richard Donner does his best with a script by David Seltzer, but I don’t think it’s quite good enough in the end.

The score by Jerry Goldsmith is technically sound and detailed, but to be honest, I think there’s just too much of it. There are so many moments that I feel could have done without being underscored, and yet, there it is underneath everything, often coming too much to the fore, and becoming too distracting to be of any use.

The performances of the main cast, with the exception of Gregory Peck, are nothing spectacular. There are some decent performances however from Patrick Troughton as a harried, anxious priest, and David Warner as a keen, trying-to-be-helpful photojournalist.

The cinematography (by Gilbert Taylor) is interesting in parts, particularly with some interesting high-angled shots throughout. These shots are just the right amount of unsettling to the audience, suggesting something more going on that what you may at first think.

This film was remade in 2006 with a new cast and new director, primarily so that it could be released into cinemas on the date 06-06-06. The new version feels like a shot-for-shot remake, which it isn’t quite, but David Seltzer is still credited as the screenwriter, so that gives you some idea how close it is to the original. However, I find this new version a little better; maybe it’s the higher budget which in turn provides higher production values, maybe it’s the cast who are much better overall, maybe it’s something else.

But this original version feels like it is just lacking a little too much to be a decent film.

3 out of 10.