Aaron Sorkin's Tedious and Disrespectful Adaptation of "To Kill a Mockingbird"

The media loves it. I thought it was a mess.

This Aaron Sorkin production of To Kill a Mockingbird has been around for a few years, but it's new to Chicago as far as I know. I saw it on Wednesday with a friend. We're both fans of the 1960 book and 1962 film. I know times have changed, but Sorkin's modernization cut Harper Lee's intelligent and heartfelt story down to familiar tropes, quips, and a political narrative.

Talk about hitting you over the head with the message — sheesh. Writers are supposed to show and not tell, and they aren't supposed to preach, but Sorkin pounded on the themes for the people in the back row, I guess, because he's sure they're dimwitted. Since he's likely preaching to the choir, why break these famous authors' rules against pounding and preaching?

The book and film had exquisite subtleties. The children were young and didn't always know what was happening, so the story moved more gently and heart-wrenchingly to its point. Atticus explained many things to his children, but since he treated them respectfully, he didn't always say, reiterate, and repeat like he was giving talking points to a political phone bank.

Here's an important Atticus quote from the book:

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

Sorkin felt the need to repeat this line multiple times, and in every way it could be said. He also reiterated the to kill a mockingbird is a sin line to the point where it seemed odd rather than teachable.

In one of my favorite scenes from the original, Scout recognized Mr. Cunningham under his KKK hood and asked him about his entailment — something Atticus had explained to her when Mr. Cunningham first came around their house for legal help with a real property matter. The point of the scene was that Scout was a child. She didn't quite understand that this situation was not normal, so she treated it as normal, and with her normalcy, the men grew ashamed. This memorable scene showed themeline of the plot. In Sorkin's version, a much older Scout intentionally picked Cunningham out and pointedly asked him about his entailment to stop the threatened violence. Scout was sophisticated and clever, not innocent, so that book theme went down the drain.

Now, I know that Black people are sick and tired of the white savior character, and rightly so. But did Sorkin have to tear down Atticus so much that in more than one scene, he's either unwise, a creep, or an idiot? When Sorkin put him in a physical fight with Bob Ewell — something that did not happen in the book or film, he eliminated a significant part of Atticus' character and some very famous lines and themes about nonviolence from the original.

Sorkin's Atticus snarked at Calpurnia, "You're welcome." Calpurnia snarked back at him. Their behavior was explained away — they have a brother/sister relationship — unlikely in 1930s Macomb, Alabama.

In the original, Calpurnia and Atticus were not snarky siblings — like Ferris and Jeanie Bueller. They had mutual respect. Lost on Sorkin was this Harper Lee comment about Calpurnia:

Calpurnia is more than a mother figure, she represents what it means to be a civilized person.

In Sorkin's version, Calpurnia not only sparred with Atticus, but she was highly cynical about Atticus' representation of Robinson, more than insinuating Atticus took the case for undescribed ill-intended ulterior motives. Calpurnia concluded that, at best, Atticus was naive to be hopeful about his neighbors' reaction to the charges against Tom Robinson and the trial (or perhaps too optimistic over glimmers of change). Still, looking at the original material, he wasn't all that hopeful. The book shows how Atticus acted respectfully and fairly and taught his children to do the same — demanding that of them. He defended Robinson to set an example, to do what lawyers are supposed to do, and to be able to live with himself. When asked why he took the case, he replied:

Scout, simply by the nature of the work, every lawyer gets at least one case in his lifetime that affects him personally. This one's mine, I guess.

The main one is, if I didn't, I couldn't hold up my head in town, I couldn't represent this county in the legislature, I couldn't even tell you or Jem not to do something again

Then, there's this quote Sorkin deemed unworthy to keep:

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

Further, Calpurnia gave, commanded, and demanded respect. She once admonished Scout:

Hush your mouth! Don’t matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house’s yo’ comp’ny, and don’t you let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so high and mighty!

In the original, the Black community appreciated Atticus' defense of Tom Robinson, and Atticus was loath to let them down, yet reasonably certain he would. And here's where Sorkin failed. He could have eliminated the white savior, kept Atticus' character intact, and capitalized on Atticus' original and more meaningful fault.

In the book and film, Atticus was a pacifist who valued peace and quiet, neighborliness, and acceptance of people's flaws. He believed he could lead by example rather than words, knowing that his neighbors did not take his example seriously and probably never would. Had Sorkin explored Atticus' mouth shut and hands-off attitude toward his racist white neighbors, and had Sorkin kept the Rev. Sikes as a speaking character, the good Reverend could have made the point to Atticus. Here's my addition:

Atticus, we’re grateful you took up Tom’s case, but we all know it won’t change anything. No Macomb jury of your peers — not Tom’s peers— yours — will acquit a Black man accused of raping a white woman. For all of your kind words and politeness toward our community over the years, and for all of your courage and good intentions now, you’ve lived here your whole life and never found the time or mustered up the courage to speak up and school that jury of your peers.

See. It's not that hard to address Atticus' real failure in a few lines of dialogue that get to the heart of why Atticus was no white savior. Sorkin found it easier, or more politic, to make Atticus a snarky and sometimes violent jerk.

Having eliminated Rev. Sikes, Sorkin also eliminated one of the most heartfelt and famous lines from the original, a line showing how respect is taught. In the original work, Rev. Sikes tells Scout, who is watching the trial with the Black people in the gallery where they were permitted under the hateful laws of that time and place,

Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father’s passing.

In Sorkin's version, Rev. Sike's lesson on respect couldn't make the update. That's a mistake. We're short of respect these days.

On the other hand, Sorkin added the Trump trope to the town's ruling white class. While Harper Lee depicted American racism against Black people in the typical Southern fashion of the depicted era. Sorkin added Trumpian language and anti-Semitism not displayed in the original. Fair? Maybe because of the jury’s thoughtless guilty verdict and what we see now from modern communities. But wasn't Bob Ewell bad enough, a racist and a child abuser? Why diminish his original racism and bad behavior by adding more?

I didn't like Sorkin's older Scout, Jem and Dill. He wrote the adaptation as Scout's flashback, Scout being either in or past law school as she tells the story with help from Jem and Dill. In the flashback, the children were older than in the original. Older Scout and Jem lost everything that made them interesting, including Jem's new maturity and growth at the end. Also, their new, older selves looked ridiculous spying on "Boo" Radley. Dill was a funny yet tragic character from the book and film. Sorkin's updated Dill was a 1990s sitcom one-liner.

Why would Sorkin's Atticus quote Men in Black? A person is smart; people are dumb. The original quote is:

Those are twelve reasonable men in everyday life, Tom's jury, but you saw something come between them and reason. You saw the same thing that night in front of the jail. When that crew went away, they didn't go as reasonable men, they went because we were there. Something in our world makes men lose their heads — they couldn't be fair if they tried.

Sorkin put women on the jury — wishful thinking for 1930s Macomb.

Atticus's big moment speech ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶o̶r̶a̶b̶l̶e̶…. Sorry, I don't remember it. But the original speech can be found here.

Sorkin wanted a clever 2020s sort of ending, so he decided that Tom Robinson made a "big mistake" at trial. I think that big mistake 1. was another hammering of a famous line, 2. didn't make much sense to the narrative as a big mistake, and 3. destroyed the point from the original material that Atticus knew he'd lose the case right from the beginning. Sorkin tells us Robinson was convicted because he said in open court that he felt sorry for Mayella. The point from all the story material is that a Black man could not feel sorry for a white woman. That sort of sympathy was unacceptable to white Americans. However, the ultimate point of the story was that nothing Robinson said at trial and nothing Atticus proved at trial mattered. Robinson was going to be convicted from the minute Mayella screamed. The community wanted to kill a Black man over Mayella's problem with her father, and the trial was beside the point. That's the indictment of American white people from the original.

On the bright side of this production, Arianna Gayle Stucki as Mayella Ewell, Jacqueline Williams as Calpurnia, Yaegel T. Welch as Tom Robinson performed well. Richard Thomas' performance could have been better, but I give him the benefit of the doubt because the adapted script and the direction might have hampered it.

If you want to watch To Kill a Mockingbird, here's the film on PBS. The film gives the characters their due dignity. It can also be found (or so they say) on iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Amazon Instant Video.

If you like West Wing-style liberal (but not progressive) schtick with all the right boxes checked and snarky television banter while using only liberal-approved language and beating people over the head with the negotiated point of the altered version of the story, this tour company production is for you.