Theatre 2023: To Kill a Mockingbird

It has been many years since I read the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Harper Lee’s classic coming of age story about six-year-old Scout and her ten-year-old brother Jem, growing up in small town Alabama during the Depression.  They lead a carefree existence full of childlike escapades until their widowed attorney father Atticus Finch is called upon to defend Tom Robinson, a gentle black man falsely accused of raping a 19-year-old white girl. This results in a loss of innocence for the children, as they gain first-hand experience of the deep-rooted racism that exists in the South. Told in flashbacks, an adult Scout (aka Jean Louise Finch) recalls the events of her childhood, sometimes gleaning clarity regarding situations or discussions that she could not fully comprehend at the time.

To Kill a Mockingbird won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature in 1961 and the character of Atticus Finch is considered one of the most beloved heroes in literary history, his name synonymous with honour, fairness and courage.  Some aspects of this book are based on Lee’s own life.  Her attorney father represented black defendants in a high profiled trial, while Scout and Jem’s childhood friend Dill is based on Harper’s best friend and neighbour Truman Capote.  The children’s fascination with the neighbourhood recluse Boo Radley is also based on a family who lived in a boarded-up house down the street from Lee’s home.

It has also been a long time since I first watched the equally famous 1962 movie “To Kill a Mockingbird” starring Gregory Peck as attorney Atticus Finch and newcomer Mary Badham as young Scout.  While cutting out many peripheral characters and storylines, the movie followed the plot of the book quite faithfully.  The movie was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning three including Best Actor for Peck.  Although it lost Best Picture to Lawrence of Arabia, it is still listed in the top 100 movies of all time.

Recently we watched a touring version of the 2018 Broadway play adaptation of “To Kill A Mockingbird”, written by  acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin.  By comparison, this rendition definitely does not follow the trajectory of the book. Sorkin is known for creating scripts for the TV series “The West Wing” and movies such as “A Few Good Men” (with now well-known lines such as “You can’t handle the truth!”).  Coming from the Hollywood world, he is used to injecting heightened drama and big dramatic speeches into his works.   It is therefore no surprise to hear that he took so many liberties with the beloved novel that the estate of Harper Lee sued lead producer Scott Rudin for contract violation for “not remaining faithful to the spirit of the book”.   According to reports, the estate objected to about 80% of the script. Before the lawsuit could go to court, it was settled between the two parties with Sorkin addressing half of those issues.  It was extremely interesting to see what was taken out of the original script and which deviations remained.

One of the biggest points of contention was Sorkin’s portrayal of Atticus Finch.  In Sorkin’s mind, Atticus would be a more interesting and realistic character if he had the traditional (Hollywood trope?) character arc where he starts off as a flawed character and grows throughout the play until he ends up as the saintly hero of the book.  Sorkin wanted Atticus to begin as a “naïve apologist” trying to explain away or justify the racism of the town, as well as a man who cursed, drank alcohol and kept a gun in his closet.  This was such a departure from the spirit of the iconic literary character that I think the estate would have had a case in its lawsuit.  At any rate, Sorkin backed off on this change for the most part, in order to trade for the changes he wanted the most.

As we settled in to watch the play, the first major difference was noticed immediately.  In the book, the first 8 chapters are devoted to describing Scout and Jem’s lives in their small town. In addition to Atticus, we are introduced to their extended relatives, their black maid Calpurnia, neighbours, classmates and their friend Dill who joined them in their adventures.  The case against Tom Robinson is not brought up until the 9th chapter, and while the events are seminal and significantly impactful, they serve as just one part of Scout’s recollections from her childhood, albeit a major part.

By contrast Sorkin’s script made the rape trial the main event and Atticus, played by Jeff Daniels on Broadway and Richard Thomas (aka “John-Boy Walton”) in the touring production, the central character.  I read that Sorkin wanted his play to be staged in an actual Federal courthouse as opposed to a traditional theatre.  This did not happen.  The play kicks off with a scene in the courtroom with not just Scout but also Jem and Dill acting as omniscient narrators, roaming in front of the action to provide additional exposition.  Atticus is attributed lines that he did not have in the book, including the story about why it is a sin to “kill a mockingbird” (since they are totally innocent and only give pleasure with their song). Sorkin co-opted these lines from Scout’s recollections and included them in Atticus’ extended and powerful closing statements for the trial.  These changes seem reasonable given that the biggest star in the cast is the actor playing Atticus, so he should have the best lines.

Scenes reflecting the children’s escapades are scattered throughout the play, including their relentless hunt to catch a glimpse of Boo Radley, and Jem destroying the flowers belonging to mean old Mrs. Dubose after she disparages Atticus.  In a nice touch, Mrs. Dubose is played by Mary Badham, the former child actress who played Scout in the movie.  Yet the driving narrative relates to the trial and the other episodes seem peripheral.

The changes that Sorkin was most adamant about keeping were in the depictions of the black characters, namely the accused Tom Robinson and the maid Calpurnia.  Both characters are given more agency to speak their minds about the racism that they faced, either overtly or implicitly.  Calpurnia is visibly miffed when Atticus tries to preach that there is goodness in all men, even the blatantly hateful and racist ones around town.  When he espouses the need to always show respect for people, she observes that “by respecting them, you disrespect me”.  In Sorkin’s version, Tom understands clearly that his chances at a winning a jury trial are slim to none and wants to accept the original court appointed lawyer’s deal of 18 years in jail if he pleads guilty.  He does not want his children scarred with the thought of him being electrocuted if found guilty in a trial.  Atticus convinces Tom that he can win since the facts are on his side.

In all versions of To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom is found guilty by 12 white men, despite overwhelming evidence proving his innocence.  In the book, Atticus knows that he is taking on an unwinnable case yet does so anyway.  At least he will be giving Tom a chance to tell his side of the story and as a man of high principle, Atticus has to at least try.  After the trial, one of the neighbours explains to Jem that “Atticus won’t win, he can’t win, but he’s the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like this” and that this is a small step in the right direction.   In the play, by adding the (possibly historically inaccurate) option of allowing Tom to plead guilty to avoid a trial and having Atticus talk him out of it, Sorkin is still subtly giving the attorney a “fatal flaw” that leads directly to his client’s death.   Perhaps the goal was to make the death all the more tragic given that there was another option.  In my mind, this alters one of the major themes of the book and dilutes Atticus’ character, portraying him as either naïve or overconfident.  I’m surprised that Harper’s estate allowed this change to remain.

Another major difference between the play versus the book and even the movie is that the “children” are played by youthful-looking adults who can better handle the intricacies of the heavy subject matter and provide insightful flashback commentary.  In fact, Scout’s voice changes from an adult’s voice when describing her memories, to a child’s voice when acting out scenes from the past.

In one of the most dramatic scenes of the book, Atticus learns that Tom Robinson has been transferred to the local jail and realizes that a mob will show up to try to kill him.  Armed with just a reading lamp and a book, Atticus sits in front of the jail and faces the mob.  Things grow tense until the children race up and Scout diffuses the situation when she recognizes “Mr. Cunningham”, one of Atticus’ clients.  In the book and movie, the mob consists of angry farmers with rifles.  In the play, the men show up in hoods implying that they were part of the Ku Klux Klan.  Perhaps this was yet another attempt by Sorkin to ramp up the drama, but it just made it unbelievable that young Scout could recognize a man she met only once when he is disguised by a hood.  It is interesting that Sorkin chose not to depict the scene in the book where Atticus is forced to take up a rifle to shoot an approaching mad dog, thus revealing to his children that he was actually an expert marksman nicknamed “One-Shot Finch” in his youth.  This occurrence made Atticus' decision not bringing a gun to the jail to protect Tom even more impactful.  As he later remarked, that would have been the surest way to escalate the situation and get shot.

Despite my objections to some of Sorkin’s attempts to reframe a classic story in a modern lens to reflect current social mores and sensibilities and to Hollywoodize some scenes (I’m surprised he did not add a car chase!), overall I did enjoy his version of To Kill a Mockingbird.  His version was fast-paced with good use of set design to move the action from the courthouse to the Finches’ porch to the outdoors.  I particularly liked the initial setup where Scout debated with Jem about how it was technically and physically impossible that “Bob Ewell fell on his knife”, just to finally understand the importance of this statement by the end of the play.  I thought the actors who played Scout, Jem and Dill did a fabulous job of making you believe that they were children.  Richard Thomas did a credible job of portraying Atticus with the gravitas required for the role, even though I felt that his thundering summation speech was a bit over the top.. but that was more about the script than the actor.