In most cases, the movie almost never matches the book, but when it does it usually has subtle changes. The novel and movie of To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee are one of those films that had subtle changes. Throughout the book and movie, they used characters, plot, and setting to complete those changes. The one that would be the best would be the book because it had a better way of showing the audience characters, plot, and setting.
The movie and novel both used characters to attribute to the story. The film left out some critical details about different characters that needed to be introduced. On Scouts first day of school, Miss Fisher didn't get shown. She plays a vital part in the story because during this period it was important for children to learn to read and write. Miss Fisher also played a crucial role in Scouts coming of age, which was one of the leading parts of the book. Another character(s) they did not show was the scene at the Baptist Church. When Calpurnia took Scout and Jem to the church, they met all the fellow churchgoers even the rude ones. In the movie, it didn't showcase that, leaving an empty spot in the film. This event showed how racism was playing a huge part in everyone's life at the time. This situation was also essential to Scouts coming of age.
…show more content…
The movie made the book come to life, minus a few details. One thing the film was missing was the church scene. During the Tom Robinson trial, Scout and Jem sat with the reverend. Since he was the reverend, you can assume he came from the church, but in the movie, the church is not specified. Not showing the church scene left a hole in the film, but not as much as leaving significant parts of the plot