Representatives from Harper Lee’s estate have forced Broadway Producers of the most recent version of To Kill A Mockingbird to reconsider the way they portray the iconic leading character Atticus Finch.
The newest adaptation of Lee’s perception of racist oppression in America’s South, written by Aaron Sorkin, famous for writing The West Wing, portrayed the novel’s protagonist as an alcohol consuming, gun owner who swears when provoked.
The estate claim that these qualities sit in direct opposition to the calm, considerate and well-respected Atticus from Harper Lee’s 20th century classic.
Litigation ensued which has forced the producers of the new stage production to alter the presentation of Atticus Finch.
Amongst some concerns from the estate was the fact that the script, including language used by Atticus in the stage production, was considerably altered from the book’s original dialogue.
The suit was filed by Lee’s long-term lawyer, Tonja Carter. According to the documents released by producer Scott Rudin, the estate complained that Atticus resembles a “sitcom dad” rather than a “model of wisdom, integrity, and professionalism,“ represented in the novel.
Harper Lee’s Estate commented that the representation of Atticus: “is more like an edgy sitcom dad in the 21st century than the iconic Atticus of the novel. for this classic, it is really important that any spin put on the characters, not least Atticus, does not contradict the author’s image of them.”
Furthermore, the estate contested around 80 separate sections of the modern script. Subsequently, over 40% of the concerns have been omitted or amended to appease the estate’s wishes.
Scott Rudin, the play’s Producer, commented: “This is exactly the play we want to present … A small handful of issues were simply not important to us, and out of deference to the estate’s wishes, we agreed to them.”
Whilst the play version of ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ has hit the stage running, garnering a wide array of critical applause, the issue has highlighted concerns about intellectual property of a deceased and the importance of respecting their express wishes.
Have you seen any similar cases where modern interpretations may overstep the wishes of the deceased’s estate?
