They are working on a Broadway version of To Kill a Mockingbird and because of that they are claiming small theater groups cannot do the play now. Seems really over the top to try to stop small groups.
Well, yeah, why would I travel all the way to Broadway to see a play that the Port Tobacco Players are doing just a few miles from home?? :rolleyes:
Sheesh…
Another article, this one from The New York Times. It says, “The [Harper Lee] estate’s lawyers sent several letters to Dramatic [Publishing Company, which sells the theaters the rights to put on the play] over the last few weeks protesting its granting of rights to a number of theaters. The letters invoked a 1969 contract between Lee and Dramatic that blocks ‘Mockingbird’ productions within 25 miles of cities that had a population of 150,000 or more in 1960 (the last census year before the agreement was signed) while a ‘first-class dramatic play’ based on the novel is playing in New York or on tour.”
So it sounds like Harper Lee’s estate is the villain here.
I’m going to guess that Rudin is planning to, down the line, license out his own adaptation of the play to those community and school theaters.
Also, IANAL, but I’m wondering if he’s also being vigilant (if dickish) about stopping theater groups from performing the older adaptation in order to protect his own rights to the work. OTOH, that begs the question of how he can be the exclusive holder of rights to adaptations of the novel, when this other adaptation has been out there for 50 years?
Edit: while I was writing my post, Dewey Finn’s post appears to have at least partially answered that question.
All I have to say about this is, it’s Scott Rudin. He’s known in the Broadway community for his draconian rules and regulations on his shows.
Going off topic: You know the Port Tobacco Players? I had a friend who used to perform with them when she lived in Waldorf; I drove down to see her in two or three plays at that playhouse in your link (although not TKaM).
This kind of thing has happened before. “The Music Man”, in all its forms, was put on some kind of copyright lockdown in the 1990s because of an issue with Meredith Willson’s estate. It wasn’t shown on TV or at film festivals, you couldn’t rent it on VHS or Lazerdisc, the play wasn’t done nor were even school bands allowed to play things like “76 Trombones”, etc.
Scott Rudin can shove To Kill a Mockingbird up his elitist ass.
Taking away that important piece of literature from school and community theatre is unforgivable.
But, there are hundreds more great plays they can do.
To Kill a Mockingbird will be forgotten and discarded on a trash heap. It’s loved * because * so many students studied the book in school and saw it locally. Take that away and it’ll be just another elitist NY play no one remembers or gives a crap about.
The schools need to drop this book from their high school Literature studies. Don’t put one cent in that bastard Rudin’s pockets.
A complete boycott of the book & play by schools will send a powerful message to Rudin and Harper Lee’s estate.
Every year, school boards or the students buy tens of thousands of copies for their Literature classes.
If it can’t be performed by the school theatre dept, then why waste time teaching the book?
The racist language has become a dangerous minefield for current teachers. Why use that language in class and risk your job? Especially for the money hungry estate and Rudin?
Only for those who are trying to perpetuate the racism.
As a compromise, Scott Rudin is offering to let the theater companies present the new, Aaron Sorkin-written stage play adaption of the novel. BTW, he blames Dramatic Publishing Company, the licensing company, which knew of the rights restrictions.
I wonder if audio recordings are banned now by copyright?
My 9th grade English/Lit teacher reserved the final 10 mins of class to play Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities. It took a couple months to get through the book and the teacher had some interesting classroom discussions about it. Back then it was on records. Today I’d assume schools have it on their laptop computers.
Recordings made by actors make books come alive. It’s a lot better than the teachers monotone voice droning on.
They’re ideal for books like Mockingbird that has regional accents.
You’re talking about audiobooks, and I’m not sure how much, if anything, that has to do with the subject of this thread, which is theatrical adaptations of To Kill a Mockingbird.
But, there is an audio version of the novel, read by Sissy Spacek, which is quite good. And, most audiobooks that you buy are licensed for personal listening but not for public performance. I don’t know whether playing one for a school class would be technically legal or not.
mind boggled
I know! What is that supposed to mean, it was a classic novel long before it was a play - I didn’t realize there even
WAS a play version of “TKAM”.
Every other high school play here is ‘Grease’ or ‘Bye Bye Birdie’.
You’d be surprised how many books get adapted into plays. Usually not by the original author. (Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None are two exceptions that come to mind.)
*Quelle suprise! * 
A lot of people would go into heart failure if they knew the original title of “And Then There Were None.”
It’s “Ten Little Niggers.” There. I said it.
And for decades before that, in Hollywood, he was known as a major-league prick/asshole/bully/take your pick.
Unless I’m missing something, Rudin doesn’t own the rights to the book and doesn’t get any money from sales of the book. And he certainly doesn’t get any money from the pockets of students who read the book.
No. Every year, school boards hand out the same copies of the book they handed out the year before and the year before that. In my school, the copies we used were easily ten years old and maybe more.
In other words, a complete boycott of the book by schools will not even be noticed by Rudin (at all, ever; see above) or Lee’s estate for many years, if at all.
Another note from a sample of one: At my high school, each English class, of which there were probably at least four or five, read five to 10 books/plays a year. We produced two plays a year, plus a kids’ show. I am very glad we weren’t limited to only studying books we would also produce the theatrical version of.
I just noticed that my second reply and my third/fourth replies were to the same user — I apologize if it seems as though I’m piling on.
I don’t know how well that’ll translate to the smaller school auditoriums which don’t have a few hundred yards for walk-and-talk.