Statement: Producing The Play

A problem posed by the text that any production would have to address would be the fight scene with Bob Ewell, Scout, Jem, and eventually Boo Radley. This fight should be believable, and might be hard to stage. I have seen a production in which they used complete darkness with flashes of lights to suggest lightning and it made the fight extremely dramatic and easy to stage. Another issue would be the age of the kids playing Scout, Jem, and Dill. If cast at the age stated in the text, or close to this would mean casting extremely young children. I do not doubt there are talented kids out there who can grasp these roles, but it would be hard to filter through to find them. There is also the problem of having to explain the issues of the text to the children, such as rape and racism which could be a bit much for a child that age to comprehend correctly. Some directors have explained these issues to children at the age when they still believe in Santa Claus, with varied success. Some children, such as Catherine Epstein who played Scout in the Huntington Theatre Company’s 1996 production, received much praise for her portrayal. So I think this issue can be handled with very careful casting and a very mature, talented child.

I believe a major problem we would have with a production of To Kill a Mockingbird here in Huntsville would be the language used in the play. The term “nigger” is used several times, and would be something that would have to be considered by the director if they want to use it in the production. I believe that many people might be offended by its use, even though it was common at the time the play was set. I have seen this play performed at U.I.L. and the school chose to eliminate the use of the word. Other productions have used the word and have had no problems. The major concern to me with this word is that Huntsville’s population has a very different mindset than a much larger city located in the Northern United States, and it is very possible that people would be offended. I think it is up to the director, but it also adds to the fuel of the major conflict in the piece.

Most critiques that I have read have favored the text even if not the production they reviewed. A lot of the things I saw online described the play in a very positive light, and stated that the production needed to or did elevate itself to the script’s level.
“To Kill a Mockingbird retains its value for its thematic commentary upon race, gender, importance of family, and reaffirmation of fair justice. The Hartford Stage production honors the novel through Sergel's dramatization and the cast's excellent portrayals.” –Fred Sokol
Fred Sokol for the Connecticut Regional Reviews is only one of many that has praised this work and was pleased with how the production rose to the challenge of presented such a classic piece while retaining its own brilliance. There are however, some cases where the play does not do the script justice as stated by Lynn Jacobson of Variety.
"For the fourth play in its ambitious five-year American Cycle revisiting classic texts, Seattle's Intiman Theatre is presenting "To Kill a Mockingbird," the stage version of the beloved 1960 novel that became perhaps an even more beloved movie. The inevitable comparisons seem almost unfair. Is this play as profound or poetic as Harper Lee's book? No. Are the performances as indelible as those of screen stars Gregory Peck or young Mary Badham? Of course not. But in a fundamental way, the production is a success, insofar as it points audiences back to one of the most illuminating tales ever told of social injustice and coming of age in small-town America."
Overall most critics do not deny that the book and play are extremely well received and should be so, but just want the production to match that greatness.