Aaron Sorkin's TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Adaptation to premiere on Broadway December 13, 2018 — Page 6

Tom5 said: "Two questions. 1. How could someone as smart as Rudin have entered into a contract which left him with such exposure? 2. The judge really doesn't know how to read a script? What is he, a producer?!"

In my career I've negotiated and written a lot of contracts. I'm speculating here, but sometimes the two sides go back and forth and settle on ambiguous language that neither side is happy with, but agree on to get the deal done. Most times the contract is completed without incident. Obviously Rudin isn't so fortunate here.

Can't help you with the 2nd question. I don't understand why the judge needs a performance either.

GeorgeandDot wrote: "Sorkin's version of Atticus isn't a man entirely free of prejudice and does question what he's doing. It seems like a bit more of a realistic approach to a liberal man of that era."

I won't pretend to define "realistic" (although most people seem to think they know what is and isn't "real," generally based upon the limitations of their personal experiences), but no matter if this is or isn't "realistic," it definitely isn't "To Kill A Mockingbird."

Personally, I think that if Sorkin wants to write a narrative about a lawyer who is in touch with his racist tendencies, he should write it, and avoid taking advantage of using the famous and beloved title of someone else's significantly different work.

Updated On: 5/2/18 at 09:42 AM

A few quick points:

1. This is all going to be moot because proceedings in SDNY only move forward if the Alabama District court dismisses the case down there and that is never going to happen.

2. Asking for a performance is not crazy and does not mean the judge can't read the script. But theatre is a live art form and judges are not necessarily skilled at processing scripts the way actors and directors do. It should not be necessary to explain here that we have class after class in drama schools about script analysis; it is not a part of the curriculum of any law school.

3. Asking to film it is essential because what is on film is permanent and can be objected to or appealed from. It might also be played for a jury, were there ever one. A live performance as Rudin suggested would be ephemeral and would lead to all sorts of problems down the line.

4. There are suggestions here that Rudin is being forced to do this, and to do it in some extravagant way. That is not the case. He has the burden of proof and would logically want to do this and do it as effectively as possible to make his point.

I hope this production comes to fruition. The memory aspect and more complicated Atticus would add layers to a great, if a tad problematic piece.

Phew!!!

Worth noting that piece announces the Shubert.

Updated On: 5/10/18 at 03:36 PM

I also think this is a wrong choice of house (come to think of it, might’ve been the only choice). It could easily make high numbers in a smaller house, but I see this being one that’s hard to fill. Maybe they’ll close off the balcony?

Updated On: 5/10/18 at 03:43 PM

Yes! Hope it doesn't dissappoint! (My favorite novel!)

I just bought a ticket for My Fair Lady via LincTix. Does anyone knows if To Kill a Mockinbird will also have tickets available? If so, when?

Licensing rights acquired by Concord Theatricals