See it. This is a new, great American play. Long overdue. We saw the first preview. The atmosphere in the theater was electric. Jeff Daniels was born to play Atticus. Sorkin’s reordering of events is brilliant — putting the trial at the center of the play’s action works. The over- and undertones of today’s society and its racism ripple actively beneath the surface of the play. It’s relevant. Oh yeah.
32
The play lost a lot of nuance and authenticity compared to either the novel or the film. From Sorkin’s Vulture article, I suspect that his subtext was to take Atticus Finch off his pedestal. After _Go Set a Watchman_ and #MeToo, that’s not inherently preposterous, but it is awfully divisive. Sorkin lost sight of Solzhenitsyn’s insight: “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart.” The play aims to make Manhattanites feel even more superior than we already do; the novel and film changed minds.
28
I saw To Kill a Mockingbird in previews, after having read this book dozens of times over the years with my students.
This was a powerful timely play. I agree that having adult actors portray Scout, Jem and Dill was very effective and contributed to the pace of the narration.
Jeff Daniels deserves a Tony for his portrayal. He is the new image of Atticus and the only actor from this generation who could represent that ideal with authenticity. Jeff Daniels had the best line which resonated for me and empowered me as a liberal who is living among enough ignorant Trump supporters that I often despair.
Spoiler alert...Unapologetically Atticus said” the only reason I look down on you is because you’re beneath me!” That is the message that I believe we need now as our country is being hijacked by ignorant racists who don’t care about truth , justice, or the rule of law.
47
Interesting and provocative stuff.
I am aware of critics, and their commentaries can consist of simultaneously the laudatory and the opposite, and such complexity is what reality can certainly be, and isn't unusual I readily concede
I suppose there are "scorecards" that contain
plays that have been bashed, and subsequently
shutdown because of negative reviews.
And works bad-mouthed by the critics, while flourishing nevertheless.
If such information exists, then fine.
Political incorrectness apparently kills
art and entertainment.
A "What Makes Sammy Run?" revised
perhaps is too difficult to produce in 2018.
Sensitivity sells.
Bless Mel Brooks by the way.
4
If the characters, language and sensibilities of a classic work are deemed too unpalatable for modern audiences then don't produce it. Or produce it and be ready to defend its offensives as historical artifacts and the authentic voice of its author. Or create something original.
Or I guess you could counter sue a literary estate for $10 million and roll out publicity using an iconic theme. That 60 Minutes infomercial and this fence sitting review do nothing to ameliorate the dangers --or the venality--of this kind of tampering.
I'm all for artistic rediscovery and interpretation. Taking risks is what art is about. This is the opposite.
35
Reading these reviews I fear this is the Politically Correct version, which would be a sacrilege. I realize this may be an impossible undertaking, but nevertheless a sacrilege. My friend and her son will see it in a couple of weeks (his Christmas present), and I will be anxious to hear their verdict, although I suspect I know.
8
I went to a preview of this play in November and it was fascinating to talk with other audience members during intermission. Many of us had come because we dearly love the book. While we appreciated the creativity of plot movement (interspersing the court scene throughout is brilliant), we were less thrilled with other changes. Having Atticus physically fight Bob Ewell did not sit well, changing what we considered the 'spirit' of the character, which was the basis of the lawsuit last spring. While the adult actors who play the children are very good, it was jarring to see them try and play 'child-like.' The eight people in our discussion were all in agreement; from the sounds of this review, nothing was changed. At the end of the play, we felt as if Sorkin took on TKAM because it was a challenge, not because he felt a deep love for the story. At the end of the day, that was a problem for many of us. If he really wanted a challenge, why not blend the two stories of Mockingbird and Watchman - now that would be creative.
13
@Laurie M - I think you'd find this analysis in The New Yorker very interesting, though I don't feel comfortable with all the jumps the author of the article makes (which is not a bad thing!)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/17/the-contested-legacy-of-atticus-finch
"Harper Lee’s beloved father figure became a talking point during the Kavanaugh hearings and is now coming to Broadway. Is he still a hero?"
4
@Laurie M
And don’t miss Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Courthouse Ring,” also in The New Yorker.
3
Wonderfully thoughtful production and equally thoughtful review. As someone who saw the show I believe it is certainly no holds barred in terms of production value , but it does so in a discrete manner. If everything had been mediocre I still would have enjoyed it for the effortless reconfiguration of sets moved by the actors. Just so visually awesome.
And one shout out—the 3 adults as kids were all believable and that is not so easy—and Gideon Glick as Dill was just beautiful to watch and listen to. He and Sorkin created a Dill that was rich, deep, and riveting.
Cool show. All I missed was a gun and a dog. Gregory Peck got that one right!
19
Jeff Daniels is a Michigan boy who has gone from Dumb and Dumber to Atticus Finch, with lots of interesting stuff in between. And he has not forsaken flyover country, creating and maintaining a wonderful Theater in a great, little Michigan town. In short, he is the Drew Brees of the Entertainment world.
20
Pretty sure this was a bad idea, I am now convinced by this review.
Doubting it would be something I would want to see, I am now certain.
Some things are not meant to translate, to change or be changed. If they are, they become something else and are diminished.
13
@Carl Zeitz I haven't yet seen this production, but this review does not suggest that this material was "diminished." If anything, Mr. Sorkin tackled this story because he believed it was durable enough to accommodate his voice. And let's not forget that the movie already reinterpreted Harper Lee's original, and it did so without issue.
13
@Carl Zeitz
Sounds like this drama is a good play just like Lee’s narrative is a good novel.
7
Harper Lee lived in NYC for a long portion of her adult life before returning home to Monroeville. She gave maybe one or two interviews since To Kill a Mockingbird about it and one was to Casper Citron of the Times owned WQXR radio station. She never felt it should be anything but a novel and a film. Very late near the end days in a nursing home,she agreed to the play and To Set a Watchman. There is no need to see Mockingbird on Broadway if you have read the book or viewed many times the classic Gregory Peck film. She wrote Mockingbird as a tribute to her lawyer Daddy and to make a bold statement in a quiet way about injustices. Her very private life aside from the troubled friendship with Truman Capote was mainly about helping Alabama students and her estate continues to honor that wish. We could learn a lot from her example aside from the late in life drama about this play and Watchman.
11
This May I was at last crossing a few things off a bucket list - one - seeing “To Kill a Mockingbird” done by locals in Monroeville, Alabama. They have had done this production for quite a few years and it was an honor to be there, hometown of Harper Lee. (I know about differences between this play, Sorkin and Tonya Carter - but let bygones be bygones)
I have battled with myself in terms of seeing this NYC production. The reason? The age of Scout.
I mean, what is the purpose? She was a kid, an impressionable young girl. That’s how she was portrayed in the book, the movie, the Monroeville production.
Time will tell. I loved this classic story. I know the Broadway production has a mind of its own, and ok, I guess.
Still contemplating, but on the other hand, I can’t picture really picture letting myself miss this production, when in town from Wisconsin. I mean, if we can’t interpret things with changes sometimes, can we really believe in the arts as a healer, a gatherer, a means to make our minds work in wondrous ways?
11
I would assume from some of the terms she signed and accepted (like letting the stage folks taking the multi-million dollar risk have exclusive rights over doing the work in some types of media for a surprising number of years), Harper Lee likely was not expecting she would pass away before the Broadway opening. Maybe she really wanted to see the show on Broadway, maybe even wondered why Broadway had never happened over the decades, despite play versions being around. It certainly feels that way from the terms she accepted, assuming she understood those terms.
4
How about Denzel Washington as Atticus?
6
'Not guilty' but not 'innocent' and then a positive review? or only 'accommodating'?
5
Is Boo Radley in the play?
7
Yes, at the very end, his reveal is handled very well in my opinion, and is very effective. Lots of tears in the audience, including a few of my own.
11
Faced with an impossible task, Mr. Sorkin appears to have acquitted himself well. I applaud our artists that have the bravery to take on difficult works. I was fortunate to see A Few Good Men opening night on Broadway. I've seen many plays, but few that electrified the air like that one. I'm glad to see Mr. Sorkin has continued to make full use of his talents in the nearly 30 years since.
14
The book, obviously, deals with the issue of the barely ended and still potent effects of slavery through the prism of the time, in its case, the time of the author’s childhood. In that context, racism was hardly a thing that could be ended simply because it wasn’t right. Harper Lee clearly experienced racial animosity as a social reality that seemed stubbornly intransigent. She clearly believed in a society that was colorblind, but when she wrote the book that society was still not fully realized.
A lot, though certainly not enough, has changed since then. The kind of egalitarian social environment that Lee wished for can be and is imagined regularly and robustly. Lee’s book was, at the time, aspirational, but now, because we have viewed those aspirations as much more attainable, the book seems more quaintly behind the times.
That’s a mistake. A modern view of the racism portrayed in the book is, clearly, imbued with a “Why isn’t this fixed yet?” sensibility, but that was not the case when Lee lived it nor was it when she wrote it. More importantly, the tribalism, the sense of otherness that humans use as a defense against the unfamiliar, is still with us and still a threat. It doesn’t simply disappear because we express high ideals and long for a more egalitarian world. We have progressed, yes. Is it still not enough? Yes. That said, the human issues that Lee wrote about are still rich and compelling and worth experiencing through her art.
9
I suggest everyone read the review in today’s WSJ. Completely different perspective. Compels one to want to see the play in order to see who is right.
There is no need to alter the play to fit today’s climate. There is no reason to portray Atticus as flawed or have the housekeeper admonish him. How many books or movies took on racism especially at that point in time and reached such a wide audience. To take anything away from that is wrong and a slap in the face to Harper Lee. Don’t we wish we had more Atticus’ today?
19
For me, this production of "Mockingbird" is drama of the highest order. The last scene in each act tore at me emotionally and brought tears to my eyes. This moving take on the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" of our time portrays Atticus Finch as a deeply flawed man who Calpurnia devastatingly calls out for the collateral damage he causes by publicly respecting those who are hard-core racists, and even those who would kill out of pure bigoted hatred. Jeff Daniels and company provide us with a rare theatrical experience that reminds us of the terrible immoral stain and blight still on the soul of America.
25
Adults as children? Sorry, wrong choice. You couldn't find talented 12 year olds to tackle these roles? I will stick with the novel and the superlative, peerless 1962 film adaptation.
27
Frank—did you see the show? Many performances were great, and to say an adult can’t play a child is just not the case. They were engaging and delivered their parts with more ability than any 3 kids I have seen on broadway including Annie. All it takes is a little suspension of disbelief and isn’t that what this is all about to start with?
20
The play will never be the novel or the movie. They are different art forms with different conventions and demands on presentation. But when you change the dynamic of the story to fit the current political climate then the creative staff is in dangerous territory.
18
@marrtyy Your first two sentences are spot on. As to the third, it depends. Lee's novel was timeless in certain ways and deeply wedded to a particular moment in history in others. The ability of theatre to capture the moment and still speak to the ages is part of what makes it a unique art form, and no doubt what drew Sorkin to this project.
8
@WGC
I see your point. But my concern is that we learn who we are through our history and not erase it out of convience.
12
Haven't seen the play, probably won't, but the review is superb. Thank you Ms/Mr Green.
3
I've read the book and watched the movie several times, and I don't care how much the play deviated from the book or movie. I thought it was brilliant, and I loved it! It had me in tears and made me laugh at times.
20
The producers wanted a financially successful play, so they took advantage of a famous and popular title and then wrote their own play on the bones of the original.
If they didn't like what Harper Lee wrote, they should not have taken her book. They should simply have written a completely new play.
28
After reading this synopsis/review, I have one question: what happened to Boo Radley?
I read the novel (and have seen the movie) multiple times over my life, as a (precocious) Southern child from near it's publication date to present (age 64). To me, the trial was just another, albeit major, background element to the more "political" themes of forced/societal isolation (Scout as a girl-child, Dill as the odd duck/sissy, Tom as a minority/historically perceived less-than-human, Boo as the mental ill/unknown boogey-man), ignorance/intolerance (and its results) exemplified by almost every other white, adult character in the novel, and the helplessness/inability and prohibition to speak/defend one's self (children, minorities, the mentally ill).
What is heart-wrenching in the novel (and movie) is that, though you (as the audience) know how much much they want/need to speak their minds, they cannot or if they do they get shut down. The only relief is knowing that somewhere down the road of history things will change. Or will they?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that Sorkin (and the producers) has gone for the most obvious and simplistic story line, just as Lee treated Atticus as a non-conflicted "perfect" character. And, BTW Mr. Sorkin, in a small Alabama town of the period (and well into the 1950s/60s), 99.9% of the population would live their lives without the word "Jew" or "Jewish" ever crossing their lips.
40
Seems to me that the play does not address or acknowledge in any way the revelation in "Go Set A Watchman", also by Harper Lee, that Atticus Finch had a racist streak himself, and for that reason the production represents a missed opportunity for a more nuanced reevaluation and restaging.
5
@Alan D
We're not talking about an actual human here. Atticus is a fictional character.
Lee wrote "Watchman," then put it aside and wrote "Mockingbird." The two books aren't part of a series. It isn't even necessary to view them as part of the same world, though they have names and settings in common. You can make a "Mockingbird" adaptation that is separate from "Watchman."
15
@Marc Yes, "Watchman" was put aside...and then published, and with the author's blessing, indicating an interest in adding to the Atticus Finch character puzzle. If authors' notes assist understanding of a character, then "Watchman" certainly does, but ignoring it is obviously not an offense against an actual human being, just, as I said,"a missed opportunity" to round out a character many people consider totemic.
2
@Alan D
But where did Lee say she intends for us to see the Atticus in "Watchman" as the same creation as the Atticus in "Mockingbird"? Or that she wanted aspects of the "Watchman" Atticus retroactively inserted into our understanding of the "Mockingbird" Atticus?
8
Scout, with her mature face and heavy jaw just looks wrong. Why not have children in the role of children. Why attempt a stage production when the movie was perfect. I guess the theatre needs theater, and I hope the production succeeds financially.
23
@an observer I know it looks strange, but Celia Keenan-Bolger really nails the part- you forget she's not a child almost immediately. She's so exuberant! It just works, somehow.
20
@an observer "Why not have children in the role of children."
Jeff Daniels, in a late-night tv interview, expressed disdain for working with children. "Been there, done that," he sniffed.
8
The adults playing children shocked me at first, but the suspension of disbelief took over right away. The structure is changed, but the chilling relevance of the story is not. Judging the play from a written deconstruction seems cheap to me. The farther I get from the night I saw it, the more it seems to have an importance to it beyond words. How can we be living in these chaotic times, have chosen this tale as America's favorite, yet have not learned its basic lessons?
56
@Kathleen Mulcahy - "How can we be living in these chaotic times, have chosen this tale as America's favorite, yet have not learned its basic lessons?" That would be an excellent lead in question for a follow up op-ed. You should pen one!
30
My son wanted to see this, but we couldn't get tix the weekend we were in the city. (We saw the enchanting 'The Band's Visit' instead.) No regrets now. The book is a classic, not to be messed with. The film, an astonishingly perfect realization of the book, from cast to script to score. Utter perfection. It's a coming of age story as much as it is about racism. I do not want to see adults in the children's roles. Can someone just tell me, though, are they using that sublime Elmer Bernstein score?
20
@Marathonwoman "Can someone just tell me, though, are they using that sublime Elmer Bernstein score?"
No--that would have been an unusual choice in general for a Broadway adaptation, but especially in this case, given the distance it's trying to create from the book and film that preceded it. If memory serves correctly (I saw it in previews over a month ago), there is some sparse music throughout that's meant to evoke the rural Alabama setting.
7
I'm looking forward to seeing it - glad I got my tickets last week! Before I see this play, I'm going to re-read the book and see the movie, and I will urge my teenage kids to do the same.
Change and new interpretation aren't bad - they keep the essential story fresh. I would rather a thoughtful re-examination of TKAM than a excessively faithful telling.
It's good that we're all talking about it!
14
@Cousy I'd skip re-watching the movie. What you're going to see onstage will bear zero resemblance to it. I'll withhold further comment.
3
@Cousy
Wouldn't it be better to see this fresh so that you can judge it more or less on it's own terms and then go back to the source material?
4
This play, excellent though it was, left me feeling quite conflicted. I understand that the complexity of the acting required the roles of the children to be played by adult actors, but in forcing the actual characters of the children to become adults as well a sense of impending loss of innocence that helps make the book so powerful was not there (for me). And while the trial is only part of the book I felt that this production gave it more weight (brilliantly done, again, though it was) which in turn and almost by necessity lessened the weight of the Boo Radley element. But the biggest thing for me was that I couldn't shake a sense of the carriage coming before the horse on the whole production. That the conception for the whole project of turning TKAM into a huge blockbuster play didn't come from an artist but a producer. That somebody knew if they got the very best people in the world to execute every aspect of an adaptation, which they did, it would turn into a money making a freight train. In the end I just couldn't shake the distant wafting far off aroma of a cash grab.
51
Since when is blockbuster and artist mutually exclusive? How do great artists assemble to create something together if this is the case?
6
If Aaron Sorkin were asked to help with a Broadway production of Macbeth, Lady Macbeth would sound like C.J. Cregg. Yes, the play has to sell tickets. Yes, the confines of the theater require changes from the extraordinary movie version of the novel. Yes, the acting is excellent. But there is an element of "pandering" in some of the changes made. And the grand speech at the end on decency--where was Martin Sheen.
36
Atticus Finch is a fascinating and laudable character -- one for the ages. Little did I know he enjoyed reading his newspapers upside down!
7
@Justin
He has the paper folded. The portion he is reading is right-side up. I give Mr. Daniels far more credit as an actor.
41
@Justin
I guess if you reallllly want to stretch to have something to say.
The bottom half of the paper is upside down to you, the viewer. Mr. Daniels is reading the top half of the page - which, as folded, would make it right side up.
19
I believe the newspaper is still folded and he is reading above the fold. Stippled portrait does make look like a pretty modern day Wall Street Journal though. Good catch!
3