A Stage Version of "Mockingbird": What Is the "Spirit of the Novel"?

Lee signed a contract with Rudinplay for a stage adaptation of her novel that gave her approval rights of the playwright, the right of script review and to make comments that the playwright would consider in good faith, and the agreement that the script could not "derogate or depart in any manner from the spirit of the play or alter its characters." Having been notified that Lee believed that the script derogates or alters characters, Rubinplay agreed to discuss it with Lee. Lee died, her estate reviewed the script by Sorkin on her behalf, and raised concerns. Dissatisfied with the response, the estate filed suit.

Attorneys not connected with the lawsuit who have been asked to respond  have mostly suggested that Rudinplay may have the better argument. The agreement clearly gives Lee and her estate veto power as to the choice of playwright and does not give them veto power over the script, only the right to review and comment. Rudinplay has indicated that the agreement is clear that it is the final arbiter as to whether the script derogates or alters characters.

The agreement reflects the fact that those producing a play are prone to avoid being put in a position of having the play production process grind to a halt due to an objection by the author or her estate. The play development process is based on collaborations with actors, set designers and the director. Script changes may result from those collaborations and from initial audience reaction when something in the script just doesn't work.

Sorkin has also indicated that his view of the characters may have changed. When he was first approved by Lee as the playwright, he said in an interview that  he couldn't imagine changing such beloved characters as Atticus Finch, the attorney who defends a black man for murder in the segregated south.  By the time he finished the script, he said in an interview that at the end of the play Atticus isn't the man people may remember from the novel. Sorkin may have been influenced by Lee's sequel to Mockingbird, which was published shortly before her death, Go Set a Watchman  (it was actually written first and put aside), in which Atticus is seen years later as somewhat bitter with mixed views on minorities in the south.

On the other hand, a few attorneys commenting suggested that the contract makes little sense if the producer of the play can say, Thank you very much for telling us you think the script violates the spirit of the novel, but we have decided to ignore you. And nowhere does the agreement define "spirit of the novel," making the phrase, at best, ambiguous, which would require interpretation by a court or mediator. 

The parties may settle, or it could go to court. The play is scheduled to open on Broadway in nine months.

One blogger in a thread in which I participated wrote that Rudinplay's strong position is unworkable from a pr perspective. Will the audience go to see a version of a beloved novel that those representing the author have disowned? When I have given workshops on the topic of my book, Truth a Lives on Film: the Legal Problems of Depicting Real Persons and Events in a Fictional Medium, the question would often come up, Should I contact the relatives of the deceased person portrayed in the film, even though, as I pointed out in the workshop, relatives normally cannot sue for libel on behalf of a deceased person (another way of saying it is that the dead cannot sue for libel)? I usually respond that it's usually a good idea to do so. I remember a young attorney standing up and saying, "That's crazy! You can end up with a brother-in-law telling you what to do!"

I responded that it may seem counterintuitive to seek our a possible argument. But the alternative is if you ignore the family they will get in the internet and say, "Do not see this movie (or play)! It is travesty of our loved one's life!" That will be picked up my the media, and your project is damaged. And even if there is a contract involved--the family signed an agreement but hates the script--they may risk a breach of contract suit to try and push the filmmaker to a settlement.

This is not an easy issue for filmmakers. By an analogy, as the blogger suggested, the producers of the play face the same problem. 

As I've written blogs on legal cases over the years, there has seldom been a legal situation that decides everything. Each situation is different. Sometimes the parties settle and there is no legal decisions. But the situations raised often provide guidance to those entering into an agreement.