Intiman's Mockingbird and the search for the Perfect American Dad
There's an uncomfortable amount of innocence and ignorance in this revival of the Harper Lee novel, starting with that Perfect White Guy, Atticus Finch.
When David Bishins took the stage as Atticus Finch, in Intiman's new production of Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird, he looked to me like a stately Bruce Willis from the 1999 psychological thriller The Sixth Sense. After the play, I saw a poster for the Mockingbird movie and realized the physical appearance of Intiman's Atticus was modeled on Gregory Peck. How funny, I thought. Because my romantic awakening happened in the era of the '80s detective/romance TV show Moonlighting, my Gregory Peck is Bruce Willis. Willis is my Perfect White Guy.
Wondering whether I was totally off base, I Googled for movie stills and posters from Mockingbird and Sixth Sense. On the surface, the movies have nothing to do with each other. Willis' character doesn't even have kids. But the imagery is similar: the dark, gently receding hairlines; the stills with Peck/Willis looking children in the eyes and listening to their innermost fears; the posters featuring the enlarged faces of Peck/Willis staring off into the distance at an unknown dark problem, their 5 o'clock shadows just barely visible, their wisdom about our bogeymen turning their mouths into determined, manly pouts. Sort of a macho Jesus thing. They do the dirty work, devoting their lives to those who freak us out the most – at their own risk and peril.
OK, this is supposed to be about Intiman's revival, so I'll stop with the Bruce Willis stuff. It's kind of absurd. But do it yourself: Think of your own examples of the Perfect Dad in American literature, TV, or film. Do they have sculpted hair? Heroic jobs? Athletic physiques? Do they Believe That Children Are Our Future? Are they white?
Probably!
Why are we attracted to these mythical, perfect guys? Why have our tastes changed just enough that we can make fun of the American Dad in our cartoons and TV commercials but a play that features Him is still so popular that it gets a double extension of its run at Intiman, even in progressive, intellectual Seattle?
I've spent a couple days thinking about it. The simple and obvious thing is, well, simple and obvious: The problems addressed in the play (poverty and racial hatred) remain unsolved. Duh. Digging beyond, why is it satisfying to watch Atticus deal with our problems so adeptly and heroically? Even though he loses?
His loss is realistic. (Spoiler alert! For the few who don't know: Atticus fails to convince a jury of his peers that his black client is innocent of a rape he clearly didn't commit. In 1935 Alabama.) Atticus knew he would lose, as did everyone in town. They all show up for the trial, but it's like a train wreck with an outcome pre-ordained by the laws of physics. The defendant, played by Sean Phillips, shakes with the terror of someone who knows his fate.
The only ones who believe that Atticus – and justice – will prevail are his kids (played with pluck by Nick Robinson and Keaton Whittaker). They're ignorant enough to use the "n" word just because their classmates do – a trend that, pathetically, has seen a resurgence. At the same time, they're innocent enough to believe everything will be OK. They have a right to that ignorance and innocence. They're kids. They have that '50s-'60s TV-kid combo of peskiness, cuteness, and occasional wisdom known to anyone who's seen Leave it to Beaver.
But what right do we have to that innocence and ignorance? In most American cities, those can be deceptively easy qualities for grown-ups to cultivate. In Seattle, if you have enough money for a car and a home north of the ship canal, it's a snap. If you must ride Metro, pop in your earbuds and it's still pretty cake. The richer this town becomes, the easier it gets – unless you're among those who are forced down and out.
So when we see an Atticus, on stage or in real life, we can let ourselves off the hook. We are not guilty by association. "I like that guy. I am like that guy. I would never behave like the townspeople of Maycomb. I'm a good person."
If you get pleasure from movies and plays that give you that feeling, Intiman's Mockingbird is probably a great way to get it. If race dramas make you feel guilt, anger, or discomfort, I still say you should see it. Sure, Mockingbird is full of stock characters. It can be embarrassing to find comic relief in the black mammy Calpurnia (played with dignity by Josephine Howell) and the privileged white kids who sass her. I found it more sad than funny, but I respect the actors for playing those roles with gusto, and the director (Fracaswell Hyman) for not shying away from those choices. Harper Lee wrote those characters to reflect how people interacted at the time, from her perspective. The truth of that power dynamic is shameful. But that shame is part of our legacy as a country, and it's right for us to remember it. Seeing it on stage may prompt you to recognize how those dynamics are still portrayed in contemporary TV and film – and in our offices, bus rides, and streets.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 2:54 p.m. inappropriate
Excellent review.: Ms. Fletcher brings her original outlook to this complex subject. I appreciate her comments on society as well as her close observation of the elements of Intiman's production.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 4:13 p.m. inappropriate
Gee, thanks, MOM!: Yes, SMullen is my mom. But hey, if you can't get a nice comment from your mom, who can you get one from, really? Thanks, Mom, for helping me develop my. . . original outlook. . . and comments on society!
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 8:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: xcellent review.: No, no, I agree. Fletcher broaches this topic with a candor unfamiliar in a region where such issues are simultaneously under appreciated and over-appreciated.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 9:03 p.m. inappropriate
Great Review: Thank you. I agree with your mom- wonderful insight to the play, its origin, and our present day.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 9:03 p.m. inappropriate
OK; now this is downright silly!: Knisely is my husband. I thought for a second he was being facetious with his comment. But I just consulted him in our livingroom. He says he was being serious; that we sometimes underappreciate how race issues affects us, and are at the same time too sensitive to deal with them honestly.
Well-put!
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 9:07 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Great Review: Thanks, Demondoll. I encourage you to see the play and tell us what scenes made you feel the most, and what those feelings were!
P.S. If I know you, too, tell us! ;)
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 9:43 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Great Review: I caught this play 9/21, and I thought it was a good production. Having read the book several times in college in addition to seeing the film to which you alluded, I have a response to a question you posed in your piece:
"Why are we attracted to these mythical, perfect guys? Why have our tastes changed just enough that we can make fun of the American Dad in our cartoons and TV commercials but a play that features Him is still so popular that it gets a double extension of its run at Intiman, even in progressive, intellectual Seattle?"
First of all, I think we are attracted to these mythical, perfect white guys as epitomized by Atticus because they represent the ideal to which we all hope our society could realize. In the 1960s there were several figures that one could argue the character of Atticus channels: MLK and JFK in particular. It was the possibility of Just father figures that would bring some light to a dark and ugly world.
However, I wouldn't say that our tastes have changed. I would say that our hope has diminished. Atticus represents the possibility of Justice--Justice towards humanity in character as well as law. The American Dad that we see in TV and cartoons is our collective disappointment with unrealized potential. The 1960s was a decade of possibility. The 1970s, 80s, 90s, and our current decade has seen our hopes dashed not only by injustice (which was present in Atticus' world, too), but by the children of Atticus not living up to their father's example.
Generation X--defined as "generally marked by its lack of optimism for the future, nihilism, cynicism, skepticism, alienation and mistrust in traditional values and institutions"--by its very nature seems unwilling if not incapable of overcoming cynicism long enough to actually _believe_ in the possibility of Justice.
As a 26 year old, I see in my generation a lack of faith in the possibility of Justice being realized. It is no wonder, because we haven't had an Atticus figure to inspire us.
This translates directly into current events in American politics. What is the BIGGEST knock against Democrats in general? That they're weak willed. What is one of the biggest obstacles that Hillary Clinton will need to overcome in her candidacy? That she supported the Iraq War, which by all accounts is a fiasco and does little to futher Justice in the world.
People go to see this play, even in cynical Seattle, because deep down we're wishing that an Atticus would come back and remind us that Justice (even if futile) is not just something you read about in plays.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 11:35 a.m. inappropriate
cwesley: hope for the future!: Cwesley: my mom and I are impressed with your observations! Particularly your observations about the hopefulness of the '60s. Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments.
My grandfather was a politician, one whom we would now consider a progressive Republican. He would get extremely angry when I would mention figures in black history whom we consider inspirational. (He was black also.) He seemed to feel that inspirational figures didn't actually inspire people to meaningful action. That their label of "inspirational" was a way people would let themselves off the hook for their personal responsibilities. (His "thing" was economic development; his belief was that one could not and should not depend on attitudes, but rather access to capital, for justice to prevail.) (Most people have not heard of him; only a few consider him inspirational.) (He was frustrated by that.)
I'm not saying he's right; just pointing out that cynicism about racial attitudes, justice, and inspirational figures pre-date Generation X. And maybe some of that cynicism springs from real, hard experiences.
I do share your suspicion, cwesley, that cynicism is more openly prevalent today than in the past. I'm not sure Seattle is particularly cynical, though. In some ways, maybe it's more naive than cynical--? Maybe those aren't opposites, and it's a combination?
How do you think an inspirational figure would help us today? What would that person be like? How possible is that in our "bowling alone" society? Do you have a "personal Atticus?" I would like to know! From anyone! Thank you, cwesley, for furthering the discussion!
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 12:57 p.m. inappropriate
Atticus Slumbers: I appreciate your response, and I find the anecdote about your grandfather really interesting.
I think that his points are valid, as I have often thought that many of the big issues we as a society face share economics as a root cause. Religious Extremists in the Muslim world receive a lot of support because individuals suffer from economic injustice and see no better champion for their cause than terrorists (what kind of an indictment is that on us, by the way).
Ultimately we are all personally responsible for our own action/inaction, however where I believe I differ from your grandfather is here:
"...his belief was that one could not and should not depend on attitudes, but rather access to capital, for justice to prevail."
Economic justice does not happen without leadership. It is because of a lack of leadership that there has been no improvement of the condition of the people who live in the Middle East or Venezuela. Or Bolivia, for that matter.
If it were solely about economics, Alan Greenspan should be in charge of everything.
Societal attitudes are the gears upon which social and economic change move, and it takes true leaders to make the machine run.
I believe the rise in cynicism has developed into a form of social paralysis because our leaders cannot bring a divided nation together.
A leader who transcends binary political or philosophical viewpoints would encourage individuals to look to their Atticus within, and not be afraid of letting those virtues come out.
What MLK or JFK represent to me is are authentic leaders.
As an example, the run-up to the Iraq War is a good analogy to the trial in the play. The war was a foregone conclusion (as the Downing Street and the Spanish memos make clear).
Nearly everybody in a position of power knew it.
But someone find me an Atticus of either party that unflinchingly and consistently stood up to the firestorm anyway.
As a matter of contrast, Martin Luther King had this to say about Vietnam in 1967:
"And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."
A quality that Atticus, JFK, and MLK share is courage, and today both political parties suffer from a lack of courage. It isn't courageous to gut the Constitution and the principles of Justice that our country is founded on out of a fear of Terror, just as it isn't courageous to justify going along with it out of a fear of "bad press" or being "painted as weak on [x]".
I suppose part of my frustration with the world today is due in a large part to the fact that I feel like I don't have a "personal Atticus" that has had any affect on the world during my lifetime. Barack Obama has been called "JFK-like", and his initial splash made me hopeful. But I want to see more from him, or anyone, that makes me believe they are authentic leaders who will positively affect change on the world. Lacking that, cynicism prevails and Atticus slumbers.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 3:48 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Atticus Slumbers: Wesley! I'm fascinated! What do you think it would take to make YOU the next "Atticus?"
Re. leadership, my grandfather was a leader in economic justice. He is credited with having invented Affirmative Action. Part of his frustration near the end of his life was that those who came after him did not do more to protect that part of his legacy. The passage if Initiative 200 in Washington State was a personal heartbreak for him; he flew here from DC to campaign against it.
Also, I know he would have liked to have been more of a household name.
I'm proud of my grandfather. He accomplished a lot. But there's no hiding the fact that he was quite bitter near the end, and it was not only for selfish reasons. He, like JFK and Dr. King, surely hoped we'd be farther along by now!
I also feel obligated to point out that my grandfather told many a story about having launched a civil rights protest when he found out his picture would be in the back of the yearbook. He recognized the value in pointing out right and wrong for its own sake. So I'm not sure you necessarily disagree with him about a need for leadership as it pertains to economic justice.
He just did not have faith in justice through inspirational figures. In the end, he was a policy wonk! And they're usually not famous. Nor are they considered leaders by the population at large.
Also, and this is just a hypothetical: how likely do you think it would be that Dr. King and JFK would be leaders today? It seems like the first thing that happens to any candidate (or celebrity, for that matter) is a thorough digging through his past for mistakes. They each had their share. Maybe you've seen that famous email that floats around that lists several manly flaws, then points out that those were documented habits of Churchill, FDR, and JFK.
Is our era of inspiration over? Do you (CWesley, or anyone) know anyone who finds any famous figure particularly inspiring? What is that person like?
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 9:48 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Atticus Slumbers: "He recognized the value in pointing out right and wrong for its own sake. So I'm not sure you necessarily disagree with him about a need for leadership as it pertains to economic justice."
Reading your comment, I believe you're right. Not knowing his full story, I guess I was only referring to the particular phrase I quoted. He sounds like a really interesting fellow.
As towards the hypothetical, I believe that Dr. King and JFK would still be leaders today, because we as a country are hurting for one. Both the President and Congress have rock bottom approval numbers, and if someone came along with real leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if the nation rallied around them. I think the reason that MLK or JFK would be able to survive the dirt diggers is because they were substantive figures.
Many figures today are threatened by dirt diggers because they don't have anything to offer, so if they don't even have the illusion of being a certain way, then they're toast. All people are flawed, and I don't think that people hold flaws against someone if they have other redeeming qualities. It all comes back to authenticity.
Currently I can name a few people who have stood out as being personally inspiring for me. Paul Wellstone was a VERY inspirational figure, and having gone to high school in Wisconsin, I have several friends in Minnesota who shed tears when he died and still wonder what could have been had he not left us. Russ Feingold has always been a great example of authenticity. Lt. Cmdr Swift, of late, has really impressed me. As has John McKay.
The era of inspiration can never be over, because there is always potential every moment we all exist. Which is why you can't ever really "make" an Atticus. Atticus figures exist continuously in an authentic state.
They are honest and accountable to themselves in a way that benefits us all, because they choose to believe in what they believe in, and they hold themselves to that same standard no matter whether anybody else knows it or not.
So the way I try to "be" like Atticus is to be honest with myself about what I believe, and to act in accordance with that even if it means being at odds with those around you.
The reason leaders with these qualities are necessary, however, is because it is through their example that the rest of us can be reminded of what that authenticity is. It is easier to hold yourself to a higher standard when there is a high profile example that we can look to to remind us that we're not alone.
Thanks for the fun conversation. It's nice to actually converse in a blog post thread instead of argue. :)
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 10:51 p.m. inappropriate
Wesley sez Wellstone, Swift, and McKay, to name a few:: I'm enjoying your posts, too, CWesley! Hey, if you ever happen to see me out and about doing my "regular job," please say hi.
So, anyone else following this thread: who's a leader in the public eye whom you consider inspirational? Does that person have potential or desire to hold a political office? An elected one? Or to influence policy or justice in some other way?
(as I watch an insanely violent episode of The Sopranos)
. . . and to think this all started with a treatise on Bruce Willis. ;P Thanks for elevating the discussion, CWesley.
Posted Thu, Oct 4, 9:36 a.m. inappropriate
A current leader.: Phyllis asks who we might consider a current inspirational leader. I have wracked my brain and am unable to come up with anyone. I don't know if that means I'm really out of touch with current events, or what.
I know several people personally who have leadership qualities and who inspire me. For example, the woman who started my neighborhood watch program is a real go-getter. She is concerned about safety in our neighborhood, and has worked very hard to make a difference.
I was a young teenager during the Kennedy administration. I remember how inspired people were when President Kennedy started the Peace Corps. I don't know if it was his idea, or someone else's idea that he put into practice. He did have a very strong team. That's something else the best leaders can do -- put a good team together.
Leadership is something I think about a lot. I also think about service a lot. Atticus Finch is a really fine example of a person who sees a need, thinks about what he can do about it, and does it. Our current political scene seems to demand more than that, though. We seem to demand a "show".