Aaron Sorkin's TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Adaptation to premiere on Broadway December 13, 2018- Page 4

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:21pm

Aaron Sorkin is an Oscar winner.....

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:24pm

haha yeah the West Wing was SO low-brow lol

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:30pm

Lots of people have won Oscars. It may be controversial to say so, but the award doesn't convey infallibility. I've found all his work (including A Few Good Men and The West Wing) to be rote and rather stupid.

And he dated Chenoweth, which is evidence of some sort of cognitive problem.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:31pm

newintown said: ""Casting adults as the children is not a gimmick, it is a viable directorial choice..."

You say "eether" and I say "either."

Personally, I have no objection tothe actions here of this(problematic) estate; I confess that I also have absolutely no interest in an "adaptation" of thisgreat novel by a low-brow TV writer like Sorkin, attempting to "fix" the novel's "problems." If you wantTo Kill A Mockingbird, try picking up the book and reading it. If you want a play that's only somewhat similar toMockingbird, write your own story."

I'm curious what you mean by "problematic." As to the rest of what you write, it's basically irrelevant , and I'd also note that the estate has never suggested the issue has to do with the age of any actor. 

 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:32pm

So now that we know that newintown has some weird personal beef with Aaron Sorkin...

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:35pm

The estate has no argument on changing the perception of Atticus after they published GO SET A WATCHMAN.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:40pm

"I'm curious what you mean by "problematic." As to the rest of what you write, it's basically irrelevant , and I'd also note that the estate has never suggested the issue has to do with the age of any actor."

I meant that the estate is "problematic," due to the issues surorunding the posthumous publication of the "sequel," which many thought was directly counter to Lee's wishes.

The child actor thing was merely a response to dramamama's comment. I wasn't conflating the actors'ages with the estate's wishes; those were two separate topics in one post.

Updated On: 3/15/18 at 01:40 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:40pm

IdinaBellFoster said: "The estate has no argument on changing the perception of Atticusafter they published GO SET A WATCHMAN."

Well... sure they do. Go Set a Watchman is a different property by the same author. Not a direct adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird by someone contracted to be faithful to it.  

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:44pm

KAd wrote: "Well... sure they do. Go Set a Watchman is a different property by the same author. Not a direct adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird by someone contracted to be faithful to it."

I think the point of that comment was that many people (including those close to Lee) believed that the estate was essentially robbing Lee's grave, against her stated wishes, in order to fill their coffers.

This is that same old conversation that pops up here frequently; there are some who seem to believe that, because creative artists' estates have the legal right to do whatever they want with the work of the dead, then that automatically bestows not only a moral right to do whatever they want, but aesthetic quality and integrity as well.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:46pm

"So now that we know that newintown has some weird personal beef with Aaron Sorkin..."

Never met the guy. I don't think I even know anyone who has met him. My "beef" is purely aesthetic. If you are able to comprehend such an idea.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:47pm

BroadwayConcierge said: "So now that we know that newintown has some weird personal beef with Aaron Sorkin..."

And Cheno, it would seem.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:48pm

Oh, yes, with Chenoweth, it's definitely personal.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 1:54pm

It's also bizarre to me that if Rudin's stated goal was not to “present a play that feels like it was written in the year the book was written in terms of its racial politics," that he got Aaron Sorkin- the ur-example of a white guy- to be the one to revise it and add in more nuanced discourse about race.

Updated On: 3/15/18 at 01:54 PM

[Consistency]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:13pm

I’m mostly immune to Sorkin’s talents, so I’m open to criticisms of his aesthetic—but his writing doesn’t really fit the definition of lowbrow. He’s not doing anything brilliant or revolutionary—but he’s not exactly making “The Big Bang Theory” either. Middlebrow would probably be the most appropriate term for his style.

His writing is often intelligent, the characters he creates are convincingly articulate and cultured, he has a distinctive voice, and his work generally doesn’t appeal to the lowest common denominator. That they're usually not my cup of tea is beside the point.

I’d use lowbrow to describe the writers of most sitcoms and most of those endless crime/forensics shows. Some of them are decent entertainment, but they never make any attempts to deviate from the formula or elevate the material.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:14pm

OK let's set a few things straight.

1. Watchman was NOT published posthumously. There has been a robust discussion of whether she was taken advantage of because of her age, but she was very much alive and engaging actively with people (including Rudin, as it happens) during this period.

2. The contract (and that's what this is about) grants rights to exploit ONLY Mockingbird, and not Watchman, which had not even been published at the time of the contract being signed.

3. How the estate or, more specifically, its executor, might feel about the substance of watchman is irrelevant. The estate has a job, which is to enforce Lee's wishes, as expressed in that contract, not to follow its own wishes. Consequently, the executor cannot be estopped from enforcing the contract, regardless of what her own sentiments might be. The two are unrelated in that sense. 

4. We seem to have devolved into lots of side agendas. It is always well to remember that it's not about us.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:28pm

1) Ah, yes, Lee was still alive upon the publication (dying 6 months later); however, she was not in full possession of her faculties, and the controversy about that situation is well known to all, and there's no need to revisit it here. Suffice it to say, there is undeniable controversy about the actions of those who were handling her between her sister's death and her own, and who now control the estate.

2) No one but you is talking about Watchman having anything to do with the contract for this show; you're conflating two different topics.

3) No one seems to think otherwise, as far as I can tell.

4) "Side agendas," whatever they may be, are as much a part of this site's raison d'etre as anything else.

Updated On: 3/15/18 at 02:28 PM

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:40pm

newintown said: "1) Ah, yes, Leewasstill alive upon the publication (dying 6 months later); however, she was not in full possession of her faculties, and the controversy about thatsituation is well known to all, and there's no need to revisit it here. Suffice it to say, there is undeniable controversy about the actions of those who were handling her between her sister's death andher own, and who now control the estate.

2) No one but you is talking about Watchman having anything to do with the contract for this show; you're conflating two different topics.

3) No one seems to think otherwise, as far as I can tell.

4) "Side agendas," whatever they may be, are as much a part of this site'sraison d'etreas anything else."

In regards to point 2, if the new play is about Atticus as a bigot growing into the Atticus that we see in Mockingbird, then if has everything to do with Watchman..where Atticus is presented that way. So I understand the executors problem and why this needs to be challenged. 

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:47pm

newintown said: "KAd wrote: "Well... sure they do. Go Set a Watchman is a different property by the same author.Not a direct adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird by someone contracted to be faithful to it."

I think thepoint of that comment was that many people (including those close to Lee) believed that theestate was essentially robbing Lee's grave, against her stated wishes, in order to fill their coffers.

This is that same old conversation that pops up here frequently; there are some who seem to believe that, because creative artists' estates have the legal right to do whatever they want with thework of the dead, then that automatically bestows not only a moral right to do whatever they want, but aesthetic quality and integrity as well."

I should have been more precise, but newintown is correct. Obviously the estate has the rights to whatever their contractual agreement is with Sorkin/Rudin, but in regards to the character's integrity, they were the first to tarnish it.  

[newintown]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 2:51pm

"In regards to point 2, if the new play is about Atticus as a bigot growing into the Atticus that we see in Mockingbird, then if has everything to do with Watchman..where Atticus is presented that way. So I understand the executors problem and why this needs to be challenged."

Valid point.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/15/18 at 5:16pm

newintown said: "1) Ah, yes, Leewasstill alive upon the publication (dying 6 months later); however, she was not in full possession of her faculties, and the controversy about thatsituation is well known to all, and there's no need to revisit it here. Suffice it to say, there is undeniable controversy about the actions of those who were handling her between her sister's death andher own, and who now control the estate.

Even a minor amount of effort on your part would reveal that there is NO consensus on this, your absolute pronouncement notwithstanding. 

2) No one but you is talking about Watchman having anything to do with the contract for this show; you're conflating two different topics.

The response was to #80. Read that and I think you'll correct yourself.

3) No one seems to think otherwise, as far as I can tell.
see #2 above.


4) "Side agendas," whatever they may be, are as much a part of this site'sraison d'etreas anything else."

Agree but I don't have to like it.

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/16/18 at 11:36am

HogansHero said: "OK let's set a few things straight.

1. Watchman was NOT published posthumously. There has been a robust discussion of whether she was taken advantage of because of her age, but she was very much alive and engaging actively with people (including Rudin, as it happens) during this period.
 

Whether or not she knew she was actively engaging seems to be the real question. It has been reported that she spent her final years at an assisted living facility in a wheelchair, nearly deaf and nearly blind. 

 

[darquegk]

Posted: 3/16/18 at 11:40am

If they put the kibosh on this and insist on production only of the banal "licensed" adaptation without allowing a new one, the production will fail, and people will likely assume the story "just can't be adapted well."

Then, in a few decades, expect a "Wild Party" situation of multiple dueling adaptations released simultaneously when the book lapses into public domain. (As a matter of fact, expect that in a couple years over "Great Gatsby." I wonder which luminaries are already working on adaptations in secret as we speak?)

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/16/18 at 11:46am

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the Christopher Sergel adaption is the alternative script for Broadway. What will happen is: if the estate dislikes this adaptation by Sorkin, this production will likely be scuttled and eventually, some day, the estate will work out a deal with a different producer and a different writer for an adaption they feel is suitable both for Broadway and the legacy of Lee’s novel. It will be a very long time before To Kill a Mockingbird enters public domain so that isn’t really a factor to consider at this moment.

Updated On: 3/16/18 at 11:46 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/16/18 at 11:50am

10086sunset said: "Whether or not she knew she was actively engaging seems to be the real question. It has been reported that she spent her final years at an assisted living facility in a wheelchair, nearly deaf and nearly blind."

Yes there are those reports and there have also been reports from people who engaged with her during this period that she was not impaired. (As I stated earlier, these people include Rudin.) But regardless, that is not the "real question" because if she was not competent to enter into a contract, then the contract is void and Rudin gets back his $100k and has no rights to the property. Stated differently, I am certain that is not a position Rudin wants to pursue. 

[alliez92092]

Posted: 4/16/18 at 8:42pm

And the saga continues...

https://t.co/IE3M6jcfTz