![]() Sorkin may have adhered to the letter of the restrictions placed upon him, but he has violated their spirit, and his play is all the better for it.įlannery O'Connor got it right: "It's interesting that all the folks that are buying it don't know they're reading a child's book," she wrote, back when To Kill a Mockingbird was first ascending the bestseller list. That's because the Broadway To Kill a Mockingbird draws its power in direct relation to how much it deviates from a novel that holds a sacrosanct place on the shelf of American classics. However, watching Sorkin's painstaking, slyly assembled, and altogether heart-wrenching dramatization, it's hard not to feel that the keepers of the Harper Lee flame weren't euchred into giving away the store while holding on to a few unimportant items of merchandise. Oh well Maycomb, Alabama, the setting of To Kill a Mockingbird, was probably dry in 1934 anyway. ![]() If you find yourself at the Shubert one of these nights, you'll discover that Atticus' vocabulary is as pure as the driven snow, his lips untainted by liquor. ![]() Cooler heads prevailed, however, and some old-fashioned horse-trading ensued. So strenuous were the objections to these innovations that the interested parties nearly ended up in court, with producer Scott Rudin holding out the possibility of a staged reading for the presiding judge. Among other things, it was insisted that Atticus Finch, the saintly hero, was never meant to curse or to enjoy a little sip of John Barleycorn. Theatre in Review: To Kill a Mockingbird (Shubert Theatre)Īs you may have read, Aaron Sorkin's adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird had a somewhat fraught birth, what with the Harper Lee estate objecting to some of the changes the playwright brought to the novel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |