Aaron Sorkin reinterprets "To Kill a Mockingbird" for Broadway

You don’t try and re-interpret for Broadway what is considered (by a recent poll) to be America’s most beloved novel without a lot of trepidation. Playwright Aaron Sorkin called it a “suicide mission”. People have a hallowed place for the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" and they are not asking for it to be altered, let alone challenged. Sorkin, in true Sorkin style, chose to do just that. He thought, why just reflect this great work? Why not take it to a more provocative and currently relevant level?

Atticus Finch is one of literatures most unchallenged heroes. He is portrayed as omniscient. He has it all figured out; Christ in a linen suit. In the book and movie Harper Lee doesn’t use Atticus as the protagonist. A protagonist needs a process of discovery, an arc of revelation. Atticus doesn’t change at all in Lee's book or the movie. He is beloved. He is virtuous and thoughtful from the opening scene to the last. He is the rigid reminder of how to behave and how to see the world, or so we thought. Atticus’ young daughter, Scout is the protagonist from Lee’s perspective. Scout is the one whose life changes throughout the story. She is the one who is taking in the ideas and actions and she is processing and forming realizations, and growing.

After a few failed drafts Sorkin thought that current events required that Atticus be more complex and, perhaps, misguided, and if not searching, on the precipice of changing. Atticus, not Scout, would be the protagonist in Sorkin's play. He is still the gentle, understanding, compassionate man and father that we all know and love but in this effort by Sorkin Atticus’ demeanor is challenged. Atticus’ notion that “everyone has good in them” and that we need to “walk around in other peoples skin” in order to understand them is revisited. Atticus is seen as highly respectable but much too timid to characterize people as “bad”. In an effort to not be too judgmental he tolerates far too much hatred and racism in his community. It’s as if Atticus is in denial. Sorkin clearly wants him to point fingers and he is motivated by his view of current society to try and challenge the notion that we can just remain passive and not draw lines in the sand. It is clear that Sorkin has a perspective of the Trump presidency that has him pointing fingers, not only at the Trump White House but at the 40% of the people who stand behind Trump unapologetically, and at anyone who fails to stand up for justice and Truth.

The characters who take Atticus to task in the new play are unlikely suspects; one is his son Jem, who, in the book and movie, would never challenge Atticus. Jem was in awe of his father. The second person who rejects Atticus’ perceived passivity is Calpurnia, the family's black house keeper and nanny. In the book Calpurnia has no point of view. As Sorkin says, “she makes cornbread and makes sure the Finch children have clean clothes and food on the table but not much else. She is anonymous. Sorkin felt that this passive position was a “lost opportunity”. His critique of "Mockingbird" from a present day perspective was that the black characters in the book were background characters. They were almost props. They didn’t speak for themselves or show any resistance to the injustices that they endured. They relied on white people to make changes in society on their behalf. It may have been a credible way to depict the black characters in 1960 when the book was written but it was not good enough for 2018. The black characters were not going to accept their designation without some resistance. Calpurnia thinks that Atticus needs to be much less apologetic about the behavior of his racist neighbors in the community and more critical. These are not good people to Cal and they shouldn’t be given any excuses. This behavior is unacceptable and it’s tolerance by people like Atticus comes at the expense of people like Calpurnia. Sorkin thinks that this is a zero sum game. To let the bad behavior off the hook allows the racism and bigotry to continue. She wants Atticus to pull up his sleeves and throw up some metaphorical punches. She doesn’t like the gray distinctions that come from Atticus. She demands black and white.

Sorkin is not a fan of creating heroes. He never depicts any of his characters as heroes. “Hero” is an unnecessary aspiration. He is satisfied if people are trying to be good. In his screenplay of “Steve Jobs” the film he juxtaposes Jobs marketing and innovative genius with his insensitive and narcissistic behavior that left his daughter and his colleagues ignored or derided and often in the dust. Steve Jobs felt that “decency and genius were binary”; that is to say, you can’t be both. Sorkin thought that ridiculous. Jobs is an antihero in Sorkin’s screenplay. He is careful to include all the sharp edges, he serves no one when he rounds them off for the sake of storytelling. In the end, in spite of the creation of iphones and the Mac, Jobs was not a “decent” person in Sorkin’s view. In the end, if it (is) “binary” …unless you are curing cancer choose deceny. If all you are doing is making a phone, choose decency.” (Charlie Rose show 2015). Sorkin similarly points out the flaws in Mark Zuckerberg’s character in “Social Network.” He balances the successes of Facebook with repeated acts of recklessness and social indifference. In that way Sorkin is not your typical film writer. He keeps people on the ground. He keeps them human. A storyteller needs to have his characters go through a transformation. Superheroes don’t have an arc of transformation. He doesn’t find them interesting or particularly relevant and, he doesn’t find them in the world we live in.

I left "Mockingbird" thinking even more deeply about things that have recently captured my mind: What is the best way to treat people in the face of all the variables? In most situations the rule is simple: be kind and decent and respectful. Convey a feeling of respect and grant dignity to those you interact with. But, what about those circumstances where it is important (perhaps) to convey a point of view or judgment regarding the behavior of a person, or group of people, with whom you are interacting? What if there are circumstances between people that require you to take a stance between “right and wrong” (as you see it). What if you are a party to racist, misogynistic, or hateful behavior? What if you witness a friend or colleague being exploited or demeaned and you feel that they need to assert their own dignity? What is your responsibility? What should you do? Those are difficult decisions. The Atticus you find in the book is much less likely to take a stand outside his duties as a lawyer. He gives everyone the benefit of the doubt. By contrast, the Atticus in Sorkin’s play is challenged to feel personal responsibility in creating more civility, more dignity, and more justice. By the plays end, He will get in your face, or at least stare into it.

Colin Kapernik took action. He refused to stand for the national anthem as a protest to the historically unjust treatment of blacks by law enforcement and the courts. There were very, very, few other black players in the NFL who joined him, who showed support. None in the largely black NBA and none in Major League baseball. The lack of unity was surprising, even shocking. They backed down out of fear. It was a decision that Kapernik made. Most people weren’t willing to take that level of assertiveness. They weren’t willing to risk that much to stand up for something important. It’s always a personal decision. Some people are indifferent, some lack enough courage, and others are fearless in the face of a chance to show conviction, or to support justice. Sorkin's play made me ask myself the question: Which one am I?

My personal feelings on Sorkin’s point of view are mixed. I definitely embrace the original slogan given to Atticus by Harper Lee:

“You never really understand a man unless you get in his skin and walk around in it”.

That perspective seems undeniably true. It is a great prism from which to view people. Equally, though, I think we as individuals and a society need to identify and confront bad behavior, cruelty, corruption, lies, racism, misogyny, etc.. We must hold people accountable. Sometimes we need to show up with torches. We must put people who exhibit “bad” behavior “on the hook”, but we also must try and understand the possible causatives, the back story. Yes, we must be on the side of society that helps define what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

We know that a lot of behavior that was totally accepted decades ago in our society is now not accepted. Homophobia and misogyny were completely accepted decades ago. No one turned a head. Now, fortunately, to one degree or another, there is much less tolerance for those levels of disrespect. The change/evolution only happened because enough people contributed to drawing a new line in the sand; enough people stood up to horrible acts of hatred and exploitation. Without agitating the perpetrators of these injustices….nothing changes. Unless enough people start thinking and acting differently, nothing will change. The status quo has to be challenged and confronted.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" has always been one of my favorite films. I have seen it dozens of times. It is brilliant. Somehow though I made room for this new interpretation. Like all great Art this new play challenged my thinking. It was highly provocative and it has inspired me to revisit my catalogue of interactions and responses to the people around me. It has prompted me to think about how I want to leave the people I am exposed to….my conclusion: Leave people feeling respected, dignified, inspired, motivated, enlightened, and in some abstract way……loved. Those are very challenging objectives but they are very worthy of the thoughtful effort required.

"The summer that had begun so long ago had ended, and another summer had taken it's place, and a fall, and Boo Radley had come out." From the movie

To Kill a Mockingbird is appearing now on Broadway at the Shubert Theatre starring Jeff Daniels as Atticus Finch.