u/American_Citizen41

Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird are two films that I associate closely because they were released the same year and were competitors at the Oscars, yet they both hold a special place in my heart. Lawrence of Arabia was one of my late grandmother's favorite movies, so watching the film reminds me of her. To Kill a Mockingbird is based on one of my favorite novels; both the book and the movie inspired me to be an attorney. (I wish more lawyers were like Atticus Finch!)

Even though these movies are completely different in terms of scale, theme, and style, they have quite a bit in common. Both films focus on eccentric protagonists who find themselves out of step with a conservative social structure. (Lawrence and Scout Finch.) When they rebel against it, they make enough of an impression to stand out, but inevitably that structure overwhelms them.

The Academy made the right choice in awarding Best Picture to Lawrence of Arabia. It's simply one of the greatest cinematic achievements in history. I've seen it in the theater twice; the first time was in the DC area two years ago and the second time was in Paris this summer. The movie gets even better the more you see it on the big screen; you keep noticing details that you didn't before. The cinematography is literally breathtaking, and the famous edit from a match to a sunrise is awe-inspiring to see in a theater. T.E. Lawrence is one of cinema's most fascinating characters: an illegitimate Englishman who takes on an Arab persona and becomes a war hero, only to find that he can't truly escape his mother country, which uses and betrays both Lawrence and the Arab rebels. By the end of the film, Lawrence is a legend who hates his own legend.

Peter O'Toole was brilliant as Lawrence; you look at him and you don't see an actor, you see Lawrence. But it's hard to fault the Academy for giving the Best Actor Oscar to Gregory Peck. On rewatching the movie after several years, I was surprised by how little of To Kill a Mockingbird actually revolves around the trial of Tom Robinson. That only takes up one sequence. Most of the plot simply deals with how Scout Finch learns lessons about racism, violence, and judging others. We remember Atticus Finch as a saintly figure now because of his place in popular culture, but Peck plays him with nuance. We see him brood over the death of his wife and how Scout never knew her mother. We see him have doubts over Robinson's case; you get the sense that Finch took the case because he felt ashamed over having doubts to begin with. Peck has to be both a loving father and an intimidating lawyer who can cross-examine vicious racists; he does so convincingly.

Like Lawrence of Arabia, To Kill a Mockingbird is shot beautifully. Whereas Lawrence of Arabia captures the amazing colors and textures of the desert, To Kill a Mockingbird has rich black and white cinematography that creates a Southern Gothic atmosphere. It's both charming and eerie at once. Both films feature excellent supporting casts, with the late great Robert Duvall making his film debut in To Kill a Mockingbird. Although he has no dialogue, Duvall commands the screen.

I want to respond to a review of To Kill a Mockingbird written by my favorite critic, Roger Ebert. In 1991, Ebert wrote a review of another Robert Mulligan film indicating that he liked To Kill a Mockingbird. But when he revisited Mockingbird ten years later, he gave it only 2.5 stars. In his review, Ebert ridiculed the film as a naive liberal fantasy that ignores Black people in service of Atticus Finch. He accused the film of deemphasizing Scout Finch in favor of her father, supposedly betraying the novel. He mocked the scene where a lynch mob nearly kills Atticus and his children, calling it absurd that a child would magically stop a lynch mob.

Ebert was a brilliant man and a great champion of film, but he both misunderstood and mischaracterized the film. I didn't get the impression that the movie was a liberal fantasy or a white savior movie. Finch actually loses the case and we see his guilt over having failed Robinson. The fact that Robinson would rather risk his life by fleeing police custody than take his chances on an appeal says everything about how little Black people trusted sympathetic white people. Scout is clearly the film's main character, in fact I was surprised by how Atticus is really more of a supporting role, even though Peck has top billing. As for the lynch mob scene, I don't think the movie was portraying it as some kind of magical moment where a child's innocence washes away racism, which is how Ebert portrays it in his review. Instead the lynch mob is shown on the verge of killing the Finch family. When Scout pleads with the mob, saying she recognizes one of them and is friends with his son, they leave because they feel ashamed that they nearly murdered an innocent girl. Whether or not an incident like this ever occurred in the Deep South, it works from a cinematic standpoint. (Since Ebert defended the historical inaccuracy of Oliver Stone's JFK and poked fun at those who said it wasn't true to "real life," it's strange for him to then turn around and accuse this scene of lacking realism. It's more true to heart than any of the conspiracy theory nonsense in JFK.)

Ebert was certainly entitled to his opinions, but not to his own facts, and he inaccurately described the film in his review. I also find it odd that he would lower his rating of To Kill a Mockingbird for its "liberal" portrayal of racial issues when he gave four star reviews to The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will. (I've read his reviews and I understand he was praising those movies for their technical prowess and not their politics, but he applies an odd double standard to Mockingbird. Did Ebert think that those movies were any more realistic depictions of race or history? If not, then To Kill a Mockingbird didn't merit a thumbs down.) Although To Kill a Mockingbird would've rightly had more of a focus on Black characters if it was made today, for a movie made in the 1960s (an era where Mickey Rooney got away with a racial stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's) the film is forward-thinking. The Black characters are portrayed as real, complex people rather than as stereotypes. Are there better movies about race in America? Sure, just last year I saw Do the Right Thing in the theater. But unlike many movies from its time, To Kill a Mockingbird holds up.

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy was the last of John and Jackie Kennedy's four children. Their first child, Arabella, was a daughter who was stillborn in 1956. Caroline was born in 1957 and John Jr. was born three years later. Patrick was born on August 7, 1963, but it quickly became clear that the child's health wasn't good. He started developing breathing problems, the result of an illness now called infant respiratory distress syndrome. After only two days of life, he succumbed to the disease.

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy's tragic death inspired new research into diseases affecting newborns, resulting in technological advances that have saved many lives since then. While the death of a child often drives couples apart, John and Jackie grew closer. As you can see in the first photo, they're holding hands, which they rarely did before. John became less unfaithful and he developed more of a bond with Jackie. The couple even planned to renew their wedding vows in 1964.

This sub often complains that "JFK is overrated." You'd be right to say that he made plenty of mistakes or that he didn't accomplish as much as LBJ domestically. But how he and Jackie responded to Patrick's death is an example of why they're well-liked by most people. They were a young couple carrying themselves well when faced with the worst possible thing imaginable for a parent. The fact that JFK seemed like he was on track to being more mature in his second term makes people think about what might've been if not for a coward with something to prove. That doesn't mean we should mythologize the Kennedys, but it also doesn't mean that we need to go in the opposite direction. John and Jackie Kennedy chose to respond to tragedy with both strength and empathy. I respect that and I appreciate why they're so popular even today.

When John Adams was president, he clashed with the founder of his own party: Alexander Hamilton. Adams may have been the president, but Hamilton was the true leader of the Federalist Party, directing policy both in Congress and in Adams' own cabinet. Adams disliked Hamilton, seeing him as arrogant and immoral, while Hamilton saw Adams as too independent for him to control. Hamilton went so far as to sabotage Adams' electoral campaigns in both 1788 and 1796. 

After Adams was elected president, he was cordial towards Hamilton, and he worked with him on most issues. He even carried over Washington's cabinet, which was made up of Hamilton loyalists. But the Adams-Hamilton relationship soured over time. In 1798, Hamilton wanted to declare war on France. Following the Maria Reynolds scandal, Hamilton hoped that a war would be his chance to reclaim his lost honor, and he was made second-in-command of the army under former President George Washington. But Adams favored a more limited Quasi-War, rather than declaring war on France outright, and in October 1799 he sent a peace mission to France. Angered, Hamilton showed up to Adams' office unannounced to protest his peace policy. Adams politely refused Hamilton's advice. Both John and Abigail Adams feared that Hamilton was a wannabe Napoleon who might use the army to usurp power. I doubt that this ever would've happened, but Hamilton did show authoritarian tendencies during this period, such as when he suggested that John Jay rig the New York elections so that the Federalists would win. (Jay refused.)

In 1800, Adams fired two cabinet officials for their disloyalty. Adams lost his temper during this meeting, which Hamilton revealed to the public in a pamphlet attacking Adams just before the 1800 election. Hamilton had some legitimate criticisms of Adams, namely his temper and vanity. But on policy grounds, Hamilton was in the wrong. Historians widely agree that Adams was right not to wage all-out war on France. Additionally, Adams was right to pardon the leaders of Fries' Rebellion, whereas Hamilton wanted them to be hanged. Hamilton also complained about not getting a military commission that he wanted, but this made him look petty. While Adams should've kept his cool while firing disloyal cabinet members, the bigger issue is that those cabinet members were undermining the president and they needed to be removed. Adams set an important precedent that the president has the right to fire cabinet members. 

That said, I understand why someone would find Adams difficult to work with. This was a consistent issue with him, going back to the Continental Congress. He locked horns with Benjamin Franklin when they were diplomats in France, and he quarreled with senators as vice-president. As president, Adams insulted Hamilton, accusing him of leading a British faction and denigrating his background. Hamilton was correct that this behavior was inappropriate. But having dealt with unprofessional people myself, I know that the best way to deal with them is grace and dignity rather than getting down in the gutter with them. Hamilton got down in the gutter with Adams, and as a result he split his own party in an election year, contributing to Thomas Jefferson's election and the downfall of the Federalist Party. According to Ron Chernow, Hamilton actually wanted Jefferson to win because he would rather see Adams lose than let the Federalists be controlled by someone he disliked. This ruined Hamilton's own reputation, and he was a pariah in his party for the rest of his life. 

Ultimately, both Adams and Hamilton were right and wrong. Hamilton was right that Adams' temperament wasn't what we should expect from a president, but Adams was right on the broader policy questions. I think Adams made a big mistake in not switching up his cabinet in 1797, the year that Hamilton had been humiliated by the Reynolds Affair. Hamilton was politically vulnerable in that moment and Adams should've taken advantage of it to at least fire Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, the author of many of the evils from the Federalist Era. Had Adams stood up to Hamilton in 1797, the political fallout would've been more limited and Adams might've won the 1800 election. This is an example of why checking enemies and building up a political base are important for a president. Even so, I'm glad that John Adams was president in the late 1790s because he mitigated the excesses of the Federalist Party, which would've taken the country into a potentially disastrous war had Hamilton gotten his way. 

And no, he didn't call himself a jelly donut. He used the correct German diction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ha9GJwlus8&pp=ygUfamZrIGljaCBiaW4gZWluIGJlcmxpbmVyIHNwZWVjaA%3D%3D

I attended college in Boston, but a friend of mine told me that growing up in Florida, his teachers called the Civil War the "war of Northern aggression." When I read news articles about school curricula that demonize Lincoln and deny slavery's status as the cause of the Civil War, I was quite surprised, since the positive portrayal of Lincoln and the Union that I was taught was never questioned in Massachusetts. One of my ancestors was a Massachusetts Volunteer who was wounded in the Civil War. The Union forever!

In surveys of historians, John F. Kennedy is usually ranked as one of the top 10 presidents. Polls of the general public rank him as one of the best post-WWII presidents. The Kennedy Center, America's cultural center, is named after him. Based on all these things, you'd think that JFK was a good president. Not the greatest of all time by any means, but a solid president.

WRONG!!!! All of us here on Reddit, the Athens of the internet, can agree that JFK IS OVERRATED!!!! Overratted I tell you! Overatted!

People think JFK was a good president because he got us to the Moon. RONG!!! The Moon landing happened on July 20, 1969. Who was president on July 20, 1969? Nixon! That's right, Nixon got us to the Moon. Nixon the Great single-handedly flew that NASA spaceship all the way to the Moon and planted the American flag on its rocky surface. He only let Neil Armstrong take the credit because he was such a nice guy. Nicer than Fred Rogers! Nixon would be ranked as one of the top five presidents if not for those meddling psuedojournalists Woodward and Bernstein. Nixon did more for the environment than the Lorax and Smokey Bear combined. He was an innocent victim of liberal propaganda, a spotless lamb, pure as the driven snow. Nixon did nothing wrong! JFK IS OVVERATED!

Kennedy was such a wimp. He let the commies build the Berlin Wall! He practically laid the brick and mortar himself! You know who should've been president in 1961? Ronald Reagan. "Ronald Reagan, the actor?!," some of you might ask, incredulously. Yes, Ronald Reagan: the actor. Had Reagan been president, he would've taken up his lightsaber and cut the Berlin Wall in half like Obi-Wan Kenobi! What's that you say, cutting the Berlin Wall in half would've meant nuclear war? Big deal! You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. All America had to do was cut the wall in half like Obi-Wan Kenobi, launch a nuclear first strike against the commies, then let fallout take care of the rest. We could've won the Cold War right then and there. But nope, Kennedy was a chicken and he settled for keeping West Berlin out of Soviet hands. He did the same thing all over again in Cuba: he made a deal with the Russians when he should've attacked! COWARD!!! TRAYTOR!!! OAHVERATED!!!!!

I know that all the bleeding heart liberals are going to start coming out of the woodwork to defend Kennedy. They love him cause he helped create hippie dream projects like USAID, the UN World Food Programme, and the Peace Corps. IDEOTS!!!! Why do my hard-earned tax dollars have to support starving peasants in foreign countries? If those people starve, it's cause they're too lazy to get off the couch and work for a living. JFK was rich, he had so much money he could've bought out Bruce Wayne, another bleeding heart. Why didn't JFK just cut a fat check to help the starving peasants? It's the same reason he brought back food stamps: he was too selfish to use his money, instead he forced other people to pay. SELFISH!!!! OVERAYTED!!!   

Some very stupid people like JFK because they think he supported civil rights. IMBELICLES!!!! JFK did nothing for civil rights. What's that? He created affirmative action? He proposed the 24th Amendment? He integrated Southern universities? WRONG!!!! JFK used his mutant powers of telekinesis to make people think he did those things! That's why Magneto tried to save him, JFK was a mutant! I don't care that JFK proposed the Civil Rights Act, that bill never would've passed if he hadn't been killed NEVER!!! The Civil Rights Movement would've just sat on its hands and let segregation continue until the end of time. Don't believe me? Ask scholar and philosopher Stephen King, known for classic works of history such as Maximum Overdrive and the TV remake of The Shining. He says that if JFK hadn't been killed, then segregation would never have ended! NEVER!!!!!

Now, there's a very annoying lawyer named u/American_Citizen41 who thinks he can prove that JFK was a good president by using my least favorite subject in high school: science. BORING!!!!! u/American_Citizen41 says the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prevented millions of people from getting cancer as a result of nuclear weapons testing. WRONG!!!! You know who invented the atomic bomb? JFK!!!! He plagiarized a study discovering you could split the atom, stole all the credit so he could lead the Manhattan Project, and then built up our nuclear weapons so he could sign the treaty and portray himself as a man of peace. Say it with me everyone, JFK IS OVEERATTED!!!!!