TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Previews- Page 4

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 6:04pm

Parade3 said: "I tried to post this earlier on my phone, but I don't think it went through. I am new here, though I have read on and off for years. I registered last night after seeing To Kill a Mockingbird.

I cannot agree with the high praise that has been posted on this thread for To Kill a Mockingbird. I thought the play was awful. I thought it failed in every single way - as a play, as an adaptation, in its acting, in its story. There is too much for me to cover here, but I'll start here: Atticus Finch is a nonviolent character. He classically turns the other cheek. That is Atticus Finch 101. This play takes that premise and laughs at it. In this play, Atticus Finch begins a physical altercation with Bob Ewell. The play begins in the middle of the trial. Boo Radley is practically an afterthought. Scout can't recall who actually killed Bob Ewell despite the text making that clear at the end of the novel (she definitely knows). Calpurnia, Tom, Jem, and Scout all speak with 2018 voices, not those Lee wrote for them, not those you would have found in 1930s Alabama, and certainly nothing you remember from the book. All the characters are presented as caricatures of themselves, and the play as Aaron Sorkin writes it seems like To Kill a Mockingbird fanfiction, or a book that Aaron Sorkin wished had been written but wasn't so he "fixed" it. Link Deas and Dolphus Raymond are unsuccessfully merged into one character who shares superficial traits with both and then adds in some more, new traits for bad measure. When Dill, who for some reason is from Louisiana instead of Mississippi in this version, leaves town after one summer, Scout says she never saw him again, despite the fact that this is not hinted at in the book, Lee and Capote stayed in each other's lives well into adulthood, and Scout lives in the same town as Aunt Rachel, who presumably could inform the Finches about her nephew's whereabouts. In the novel Atticus NEVER thinks he will win the trial. He may think they have a good chance on appeal, but he never thinks he will win the first trial, saying, memorably, that just because you're licked before you begin is no reason not to start. In this play, Sorkin creates an Atticus Finch who unrealistically wholly believes he will win the trial on the first go-round. If any of these ideas are from Watchman, I have blocked thatfirst draft of a novel that was never intended to act as a sequel or serve as 'canon'from my mind, having read it once and then never again. That draft (not novel or book) should have no impact or influence on a dramatic adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird. It's not related, it's a first draft. The "win" in the novel at the trial is the fact that the jury takes the whole day to decide Tom is guilty; in the play, Atticus says it took just 37 minutes. I could go on.

Sorkin, Sher, Rudin, and I'll throw in Daniels here, too, have a lot to be ashamed of here. They gut Lee's work, Sorkin replaces Lee's own fine sense of storytelling (and humor) with his own version, telling a story he wishes was true.

The fractured way the play is told never captures the vigenette style Lee employs in the first half of her novel. The actors (particularly all the 'children,' Calpurnia, and, of course, Jeff Daniels as a parody of Atticus Finch) are smug and sanctimonius in their roles. I felt preached to all night long. The genius of Lee's novel is imparting heavy truths in ways children can understand. Instead I felt like a finger was wagging in my face all night.

No merchandise. Thank God. I would have bought it as I walked in and trashed it on my way out. I don't understand the adulation seen thus far on this thread for this play, nor the comparisons to The Ferryman, which is a finely structured and acted play, and which I loved last week when I saw it. To Kill a Mockingbird is my favorite novel. It is an American classic. It is relevant today in its original form. I am sorry for the myopia that prevented Sorkin, et. al., from seeing that.

I waited 25 years or thereabouts from my first reading of TKaM as a child for it to come to Broadway. My disappointment is profound. I hope to see it honorably adapted within my lifetime."

But did you enjoy it? 

[Sauja]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 6:26pm

I mean...I’m not optimistic about this show, but some of the complaints in the last post are simply that an adapter...adapted. Of course it’s bit exactly the same as the novel. We already have the novel for that.

[bk]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 6:34pm

That is everything one suspected following this adaptation's journey and prayed would not be true, but of course it's true because Sorkin is about Sorkin not Harper Lee.  Of course people on this board were raving about it - one specifically who attended the dress rehearsal so someone who probably knows someone involved with the show.  If the description here is accurate, those changes are abhorrent and completely unnecessary.  But that's what you get from cocky people who think everything has to conform and "speak to" today's generation.  The wonderful thing about Ms. Lee's novel is that from the day of its publication it has spoken to EVERY generation - it is a perfect book that needed no help from Mr. Sorkin or anyone else.  Starting the show in the middle of the trial???  Right there this is a massive fail.

[JBC3]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 6:44pm

people need to get a grip about what happens in adaptations or not see them

[Parade3]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 7:16pm

Hi, that was me. I get what you’re saying. And some of adaptations in this play I understand - the omission, for example of Aunt Alexandra. I like less the choice not to include Miss Maudie, but I understand that characters get cut in adaptations. I understand less things like presenting an Atticus Finch who physically fights or who believes he will win this trial because Tom is innocent; that violates the original text by explicitly going against it. I think an adaptation should keep the original spirit of whatever is being adapted. In that way (and, obviously, from my post, in many others), I think this version fails.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 7:31pm

Parade3, I enjoyed reading your review.  Even if I had an opportunity, I would have probably passed on this.  I'm not a real Jeff Daniels fan and I didn't like the concept of the children being played by adults.  Although I never read the book and only saw the movie, maybe twice, I never knew that Capote was the inspiration for Dill.  Thanks for the info.

[Kelly Flynt]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 7:35pm

Not so fast. An adaptation is meant to make some more suitable for a situation such as adapting a novel into a staged production. However, that doesn't give license to reinvent or substantially change the characters or the narrative. When Ms. Lee sold the rights for Sorkin to right a new adaptation she did so with stipulations. He broke the rules, and got sued. The settlement is closed. People who pay to see To Kill a Mockingbird have every right to expect that they will see To Kill A Mockingbird. I plan to see this production, but I'm bracing myself for something that is not the Mockingbird that I love.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 8:06pm

I think the whole point of this production is to do something different with the story. Purists still have the Oscar winning film version, as well as the dreadful Christopher Sergel stage version.

[persephone88]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 9:29pm

Parade3, I really appreciated the time you took to post that in depth review. (I also appreciated the earlier positive reviews). I have held off buying tickets to this adaption for some of the very reasons that you stated in your review. I also feel that an adoption should keep the spirit of the original text, even if the adapter chooses to leave some things out or supplement the story. But making strong changes to a character's beliefs or actions, particularly in a classic as beloved as To Kill a Mockingbird, gives me great pause. I should say that I also really did not enjoy Go Tell a Watchman, and was astounded that the book was ever released because it is such a pale reworking of the original characters. I often wondered if the people managing Ms Lee's estate somehow manipulated its release purely for the profit aspect. In any case, when you say the play begins midway through the trial, do you mean that there are no flashbacks to what occurred prior to the trial?

[JBC3]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 9:46pm

What we have a right to expect for any show is what the marketing for it describes will take place on stage. We can have all kinds of hopes, wishes, and fantasies based on what we prefer, but to expect that? Nah.

[rclocalz]

Posted: 11/2/18 at 11:03pm

I knew people would disagree with me. I am not a Mockingbird purist and frankly greatly appreciated that Atticus was not this god figure held up on a pedestal. It was much more engaging for me to see a man fighting with his demons and not being so sure of the world. I can see how purists of the source material will battle with the changes made, but to me it made some damn good theater and wasn’t just a rehash of what we have already seen. But I understand how that can bother people who wanted a close adaptation. But it is Sorkin and you are gonna get a Sorkin drama.

I understand how some of you dismiss my post as someone involved with the show because I went to the final dress, but that is not true. Just invited by a friend in the industry. I had a great theater experience and decided to share my enthusiasm with this board. I think you will find people on this board who loved the show and those who will hate it. Perception can partly be based on your relationship to the film or novel. I wanted something new and I got it.

[MarilynMonroeSmash]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 12:05am

Can we maybe use spoilers when talking about the changes made to this adaption? I'd rather not know what happens before going in. Being angry doesn't mean you can ruin things for others. You can be angry, but don't ruin it for other people who haven't seen the show yet. Thanks.

Updated On: 11/3/18 at 12:05 AM

[Graymerchant]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 12:34am

Any reports on the design? 

[bk]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 12:40am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "I think the whole point of this production is to do something different with the story. Purists still have the Oscar winning film version, as well as the dreadful Christopher Sergel stage version."

Then Mr. Sorkin should have written his own play and not an adaptation in which he felt it was okay to change certain aspects of the story and characters that are germane to the novel.  For me, this falls under the heading of chutzpah.  I suspect that people who will love it are the people who finally admit they have no real affinity or knowledge of the novel at all and maybe have seen the film.

[rclocalz]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 12:50am

Meh, I read the novel and have seen the movie a few times... and still liked the show. I liked having something different. Please don’t write off my opinion because it is not the same as yours... let’s leave that stuff up to the politicians.

[nycward]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 1:20am

I'm not seeing this production until mid January so I can't comment about what's currently onstage, but for those who don't feel it's appropriate to rethink Mockingbird, I urge you to read Go Set A Watchman, which is Harper Lee's original novel about Atticus and her adventures. It takes place as Scout is a grown woman working as a writer in New York City who goes back home to find out that much that she believed about Atticus is far from black and white. Calpurnia also has a large role in this text. Her editors didn't think it was very strong so she agreed to get back to the drawing board and created To Kill A Mockingbird. It is an inferior text compared to her only other published novel, but I believe that much of that original conception may have led Sorkin to take a fresh look at these beloved characters and create an original stage creation. That was what the legal battle was about but since all parties agreed I'm looking forward to what I will see on stage.

Hey West Side Story is being reimagined both by Van Hove and Spielberg so let's embrace creativity folks!

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 1:23am

People love drama geez

It’s basically MFL ending all over again

[Sondheimite]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 1:35am

Go watch the movie if you want the movie.

Go read the book if you want the book.

This is an adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird by Sorkin.

If you don't want an adaptation of the work, go read the book or go watch the very fateful movie.

This production on Broadway doesn' null-and-void the book or movie, they still exist and are apt for consumption.  

And certainly don't lampoon an adaptation just because you read a Broadway World review.

If you want to hate this production, at least see it.  Hell, you don't even have to see it.  Read it when it's published.  Listen to or watch a bootleg.  But don't decide this is an abomination just because you read someone on Broadway World who didn't like it.

Okay, goodnight 

[MadsonMelo]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 10:17am

I rushed for Waitress but my friend rushed for us the evening for this show and they sold Orchestra 13 and the next seat for $49. I’m excited!

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 10:25am

nycward said: "I'm not seeing this production until mid January so I can't comment about what's currently onstage, but for those who don't feel it's appropriate to rethink Mockingbird, I urge you to read Go Set A Watchman, which is Harper Lee's original novel about Atticus and her adventures. It takes place as Scout is a grown woman working as a writer in New York City who goes back home to find out that much that she believed about Atticus is far from black and white. Calpurnia also has a large role in this text. Her editors didn't think it was very strong so she agreed to get back to the drawing board and created To Kill A Mockingbird. It is an inferior text compared to her only other published novel, but I believe that much of that original conception may have led Sorkin to take a fresh look at these beloved characters and create an original stage creation. That was what the legal battle was about but since all parties agreed I'm looking forward to what I will see on stage.

HeyWest Side Story isbeing reimagined both by Van Hove and Spielberg so let's embrace creativity folks!"

For me personally, I think considering Watchmsn when creating TKAM for the stage is a huge mistake. Watchmsn was basically a first draft or attempt (whatever you want to call it) and was discarded by Harper Lee in favor of Mockingbird. It was published years later to make money. Period. If Lee has wanted it published she would have done so years before when she was of sound mind and body. 

Whether or not this is good drama is of no interest up me. I would like to have seen a dramatization of TKAM. This is not it. It uses what Lee discarded. It eliminates what Lee created. The fact that there are no children in the production tells me Sorken and company have no feel for the book and what it stands for. I’ll pass.

Doing an original worked “inspired by TKAM” would have been acceptable. Calling it TKAM when it’s not...just doesn’t seem right. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 10:40am

Why this blatant confusion between per se umbrage about changes in adaptations and reasoned objections to particular changes in certain adaptations?

They are two different things.

That's the case whether or not you agree or disagree with those elaborated reasoned objections... if you disagree, say so... hopefully in discourse just as reasoned, paricular and elaborated.   That's what this board is for.

"It's an adaptation, get over yourselves" isn't persuasive.
 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 10:41am

There are very few adaptations that don't change things. Movies, please, it doesn't really matter. Sure, the more familiar you are with the work the more you notice it.

I won't be seeing this for a little while, but I hope I'll still go in with an open mind. Adaptation is about interpretation both from the writer's point of view as well as the audience's.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 11:14am

MarilynMonroeSmash said: "Can we maybe use spoilers when talking about the changes made to this adaption? I'd rather not know what happens before going in. Being angry doesn't mean you can ruin things for others. You can be angry, but don't ruin it for other people who haven't seen the show yet. Thanks."

You could help yourself by not reading comments on the previews if you don't want to know anything.

[billyelliotfan123]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 11:49am

Okay, I saw it last night. First DO NOT sit in the balcony rush seats. I stood the entire show. That is really one of my only complaints though. And even standing up the run time went by really fast. I thought it was great and depressingly relevant in today's society. To the people who complaining that the show starts in the middle of the court case, the whole play is told through memories. The court case is presented in about 5 different parts throughout the play. I thought it was very successful. I've only read the book once when i studied it in an english class so i am not by any means a mockingbird purist but I thought the play made for a great evening in the theater. 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 11/3/18 at 11:58am

So how's the design and the music?