"Go Set a Watchman" - Who will portray Atticus & Scout in the sequel? - To Kill a Mockingbird (1963) Discussion

[–] coliver75 10 years ago

Please no Anne Hattaway or George Clooney.

reply

[–] Brimac98 10 years ago

You can bet both of them are at the top of the casting list....

I hope those involved in the original production are involved -- most have passed away sadly, but a few are still with us including Robert Duvall and Mary Badham -- I hope also that Universal is the studio that gets the rights to the book as the original movie was filmed on their backlot and most likely a lot of the sets and props may still be in storage.

Also for the casting of Atticus, they're going to seed someone who is close to Gregory Peck as humanly possible for it to work -- immediately most would consider George Clooney, but it wouldn't work -- he'd be too young.

20 years after 'To Kill A Mockingbird", Gregory Peck was making movies like "The Sea Wolves" and 'Amazing Grace & Chuck" -- if you can get someone of that vintage (60s into 70s) who could pass for Gregory Peck circa 1982, that could be a start. In that case, the usual go-to guy would be Anthony Hopkins, but I think he's played too many similar roles in the past.

For Scout -- Sandra Bullock would be the ideal actress for Scout, but she may be too old for the role now (she played Harper Lee in a movie in recent years), shall leave that one up to the casting experts out there....

reply

[–] gemini2525 10 years ago

I'm calling it right now:

Atticus - Tom Hanks
Scout - Jennifer Lawrence or Shailene Woodley

reply

[–] MannLaw 10 years ago

I think you got it.

reply

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

The mention of Tom Hanks as Atticus Finch made me vomit into my lap.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] potterpanfan 10 years ago

I would LOVE to see Tom Hanks play Atticus. Him or Jeff Bridges, although he might be too old.

At first I thought Jennifer Lawrence or Shailene Woodley were too young but considering Scout is supposed to be, what? 29 or 30? Either of them could work. Otherwise, I don't know who could play Scout. I'm just more curious to see what (if anything) happen to Boo Radley.

reply

[–] FizzyGillespie 9 years ago

Atticus is in his 70s.

reply

[–] barrpub-115-548099 10 years ago

Before discussing casts, does anyone know the ages of Atticus and the rest? Go Set a Watchman was written before TKAM, so it's not really a sequel. From what I read an older Scout is looking back on her life. So, the events of this book may be repeated in TKAM.

reply

[–] doug65oh 10 years ago

Add roughly 20 years to their approximate ages in To Kill A Mockingbird.

reply

[–] cmashieldscapting 10 years ago

Which is why for Gregory Peck or Mary Badham to be considered, Go Set a Watchman would have to have been published no more than twenty years after To Kill a Mockingbird. Mary Badham would be too old for Scout now but might play the role of an older character.

reply

[–] llbfgt 9 years ago

In the book quite a "big deal" was made of Atticus being 50 years old...The children chided him for being too old to do a lot of stuff the other dad's were spry enough to do. The teasing stopped after he pegged the rabid dog at 20 yards (or so) in one shot.
The children, at the beginning were 6 (Scout) and 10 (Jem). Dill was 7 and a half. The book takes place over the course of about 1.5-2 years.

reply

[–] eel2178 9 years ago

The book takes place over the course of about 1.5-2 years.

Actually, it's 3 years. Jem is "nearly 13" when his arm is broken (the first sentence of the book) and Scout is 9.

reply

[–] eel2178 9 years ago

does anyone know the ages of Atticus and the rest?

Atticus is 72, and Scout is 26.

reply

[–] orrdaniel398 9 years ago

It was mentioned in the book that Jean Louise (Scout) Finch was 26 and Atticus was in his 70's. Harrison Ford would be about the right age to play Atticus if a movie were made now.

reply

[–] VValkyrie 9 years ago

Greetings from New Orleans. Last week was Tennessee Williams festival & Mary Badham was a speaker last Wednesday evvening which we were lucky to attend. She is still every bit the pistol Scout is.

reply

[–] barrpub-115-548099 9 years ago

HF would be a popular choice.

I became disenchanted with the whole notion After Lee died, her estate acted to eliminate the cheaper school edition of TKAM, later pulling back somewhat. But it showed their monetary intent, which may have been why Watchman was published in the first place. Harper refused to release Watchman all those years,and it seems her wishes late in life weren't respected.

reply

[–] dvd7 10 years ago

Jena Malone...good idea! .

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 10 years ago

Gadfrey, I sure hope this film never happens. A sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird is needed about as bad as a third stirrup on a saddle.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] geoffino04-1 10 years ago

Agreed 100%

To Kill a Mockingbird is perfect as it is. I don't subscribe to the notion that a sequel/remake ruins its predecessor, but there is no need for TKAM to have a sequel that will inevitably stand in the shadow of nor live up to its monumental predecessor. Just leave it as it is, Hollywood. Don't touch it.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 10 years ago

A sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird is needed about as bad as a third stirrup on a saddle.

Truer words were never written.

reply

[–] asrugan-170-809819 8 years ago

But it could stand with such classics as
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108915/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

reply

[–] BlakAdder 10 years ago

I know hes not that old, but what about Jon Hamm?

reply

[–] stanbrown32 9 years ago

I'm thinking Harrison Ford for Atticus.

I hope Mary Badham and Philip Alford at least have good cameos in it.

reply

[–] stanbrown32 9 years ago

Maybe Mary Badham could even play Miss Maudie or Aunt Stephanie?

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

That's a great idea! Although Alice Ghostly's would be tough shoes to fill.

Edit: Like Harrison Ford for Atticus too!

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nightmare_lady 9 years ago

Can I be a total jerk here and say that I don't even want to think about the movie Go Tell a watchman? Hollywood these days have been majorly botching up the classics (Robocop, for instance... I shudder to think the mess they'll make of Ben Hur). I've read Peck didn't even act for this role, it just came to him naturally... and I can see that! I don't want anyone else playing Atticus. To me, Peck IS Atticus, at least as close as anyone can get.

Hollywood's all about the flash and Michael Bay these days. I just can't imagine them making a movie that lingers in your mind like a proverb twenty years later. I mean, if we're ipicking Atticus for "Go Set a Watchman", technically we should also be able to cast the actor as Atticus in TKAM... and currently, I can't think of anyone who'll outdo Peck.

reply

[–] jaystarstar 9 years ago

Robert Redford would be a good Atticus (he might be a good pick to direct, too). Although he is 78 now and would be near 80 by the time the movie came out, he can still pass for mid-60s.

Hillary Swank could be a pick for Scout.

I would suggest Sandra Bullock for Scout but she has already played Nelle Harper Lee in "Infamous," so she would be pretty much repeating the part.

They should definitely try to find roles for Duvall and Badham.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

I completely agree with you nm_lady. Sadly, it is inevitable. TKaMB is so dear to me, I will not see the sequel. Also, I have serious doubts about the veracity of it's authorship. The "lost manuscript" was found by her lawyer right after Lee's sister and caretaker died. hmmm...

reply

[–] ghostfan 9 years ago

I gotta go with Sam Waterson.

How sad, that you were not born in my time, nor I, in yours.

reply

[–] pjglynndoora 9 years ago

From what I heard about the book, I don't think there should be a film version of the sequel

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

I agree with you, pj since reading the exclusive NYT review. I will neither buy the book now, nor see the inevitable screen adaptation.

Way to take a classic about a beloved and great uniter and morph him into a divider that these times do not need.

No wonder Lee's sister was so protective of this "lost manuscript." If it's even genuine.

reply

[–] Destinata 9 years ago

The first chapter is out, and I started to read it. It's not well written. I remember "To Kill A Mockingbird" was like poetry. Was it all a product of the editing process? That alone destroys Harper Lee's legacy and reputation.

I got to the part where -- with the sort of detachment you'd have talking about seeing a squirrel run across your yard -- she summarily killed off one of "To Kill A Mockingbird"'s main characters, and I decided I wasn't going to waste what's left of my vision on that.

I heard they had 2 million in pre-orders. My guess is that's from outlets like Barnes and Noble and Amazon, and they'll be sending a lot back to the publisher. "Go Set a Watchman" is garbage.

For those of us who read "To Kill A Mockingbird" book as children, and went on to watch the movie, loving both, I can't imagine anything worse than this. Unless it's the "New Bambi," that has Bambi's mother killed in a gunfight -- her bravely wielding an AK-47 -- and Bambi setting out for revenge on gun owners everywhere.

I realize it's her story, but good grief! Way to ruin your reputation and try to ruin our memories. No, I will take my Atticus Finch as a role model, and my Scout as a curious and stubborn little girl who chafed at rules -- just like a little girl I knew all too well.

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

And yes, I realize I'm being lazy, but where did you read it? (She asks after vowing NOT to read it.)

Edit: Just read it and your critique of it was far too kind. What a piece of poo.

reply

[–] Destinata 9 years ago

Just read it and your critique of it was far too kind. What a piece of poo.

It was, wasn't it? And, as I said, I didn't get past that one scene, which wasn't all that far into it.

Here's the deathless question -- was that lyric prose that was "To Kill A Mockingbird" a product of editing, or did they keep sending it back to her with suggestions until she got it right? How much of "To Kill A Mockingbird" should I be admiring Harper Lee for, and how much should I be saying, "My! If only I had an editor like that! I'd always sound like a genius!"?

And whose brilliant idea was this, actually? If it was Harper Lee's, is she still of sound mind? Or did she think she never deserved the accolades, and purposely wanted to destroy her reputation? Because I'm convinced this release will do precisely that.

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

I've read whispers over the years that Truman Capote wrote TKaMB. He was Harper Lee's neighbor and the character upon whom Dill was based. Have you ever heard that rumor?

The voice GSaWM is unrecognizable from TKaMB. Editors don't typically write the whole dang book for a first time author...or anyone else.

reply

[–] jaystarstar 9 years ago

There have been rumors for years that Capote was involved in the writing of TKAMB, in various capacities from light editing to complete rewriting.

However, Capote and Lee had a falling-out in the late 1960s, precipitated in large part by Lee's winning a Pulitzer Prize for "Mockingbird," a feat Capote's "In Cold Blood" failed to equal.

Capote was such an egomaniac and drama-king it is unreasonable to think he would have lived for 24 years from the publication of "Mockingbird" in 1960 to his death in 1984, and not claimed authorship -- if he had really written it.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

reply

[–] nicotinequeen63 9 years ago

I heard that rumor way back when I was a kid, and here's what I thought then, (don't really know what I think now)...what are the odds that 2 great writers, (2 of the best American writers to ever live), would live next door to each other in such a small town? On the one side, you've got Harper Lee, Pulitzer prize winning 1 book and done, (or so we thought), wonder and on the other side, you've got Truman Capote, the writer of 'In Cold Blood' and 'Breakfast at Tiffany's', for starters. Idk, but I will say about the new book...I truly don't think the author of that 1ST chapter is the same person who wrote, 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.

reply

[–] Destinata 9 years ago

I truly don't think the author of that 1ST chapter is the same person who wrote, 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.

I agree. And while it seems unlikely that Capote could have written the book without saying anything about it for all those years, stranger things have happened.

A friend of mine and I were talking about it. I haven't read Capote extensively, but I did read his "A Christmas Memory," as had my friend. "And what was the voice like in that short story?" she asked. My eyes opened wide -- it was that same lyric poetry-like prose of "To Kill A Mockingbird."

The only thing that could happen with the release of this travesty of a book, "Go Set a Watchman," would be to destroy Harper Lee's legacy. I can't imagine why she'd do that unless she thought the legacy was not deserved.

And frankly, it would not have been the first time one friend had done way too much for another, not have gotten the acknowledgment and glory for it, and had a complete falling out.

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] jaystarstar 9 years ago

They have forensic literary specialists who analyze books alleged to be plagiarized -- comparing word usage, structure, style habits, etc etc -- and I would guess GSAWM will be run through the wringer as soon as complete copies hit the streets.

I think "Mockingbird" has already been compared to Capote's other output, with no conclusive results. One problem in this regard, of course, is that Lee really has no other published works -- no other novels with which to compare.

Also, since Capote was the most popular writer in the U.S. in the 1950s and of course Harper Lee had the personal connection, it's certainly logical she might have unconscously, or at least not with full premeditation, modeled her style in some instances after his.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

Yes. Many a plagiarist has been outed. Either they hadn't begun the practice way back in 1957 when President Kennedy won the Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage, or 'they' chose to turn an eye blinded by the pageantry of Camelot.

Sorenson Admits ‘Profiles in Courage’ Role
JAMES JOYNER · FRIDAY, MAY 9, 2008 · 29 COMMENTS
Ted Sorenson has finally admitted that he had a large role in writing Profiles in Courage, for which John F. Kennedy won a Pulitzer Prize as a solo author.
According to a Wall Street Journal review, Sorensen says, for the first time, that he “did a first draft of most chapters,” “helped choose the words of many of its sentences” and likely “privately boasted or indirectly hinted that I had written much of the book.”
In other words, he wrote the book, Kennedy did some very late editing, and claimed it as his own work.
Sorensen also admits that in 1957 — just after the book won a Pulitizer Prize — that Kennedy “unexpectedly and generously offered, and I happily accepted, a sum” for Sorensen’s work on the book.
It was, quite literally, the least he could do.

This from outsidethebeltway.com

Edit: And yes, I realize JFK was a Senator in 1957, but one would think that his becoming president in 1960 would have ramped up the scrutiny.

reply

[–] nicotinequeen63 9 years ago

Idk what happened, but I do remember reading that when he wrote 'In Cold Blood', she got mad because she didn't feel he gave her proper credit for her input...so it worked both ways, it seems. What may have happened was when they were kids, they wrote together so kind of became 'collaborators' without realizing it. When her story was rejected, maybe he helped fix it and when he took on the huge load of researching and writing, 'In Cold Blood', there's no telling what her input was...looks like they might have done their best work together. Idk about these literary forensic specialists, because how can they take into account that these 2 started writing together at such a young age? I read that her dad bought them a typewriter to share. Or maybe their little town just happened to have the best elementary English language arts teacher, known to man. Ha ha, wow! what a teacher.

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 9 years ago

Or maybe it was an earlier draft that wasn't as good. Writers often spend years rewriting their works. The best writers are great rewriters.

Still though I don't think the first chapter was as bad as you say it is. I actually found some things to like about it. I enjoyed the passage where she talked about love and how a person is either in love or not.

As for Atticus not being perfect, I made a post about that. It actually ADDS to the original story in my mind, it's still heroic as he stood up for someone despite his prejudices. And as much as I love TKAM as a novel I always viewed Atticus as being TOO perfect at times. (Someone else pointed out there were hints he could have been a racist, it's been years since I read it though, so I'd have to go back to look for those hints).

I haven't read the book yet, but I look forward to it.

Joseph Chastainme
www.twitter.com/sinnersbible

reply

[–] scissorhands__emily 9 years ago

I think some of GSAW actually fits. In TKAM Atticus is seen through Scout's eyes as a child who views her hero as someone who does no wrong. If you've actually idolized someone as a kid and then later realized their human flaws you can understand this. In releasing GSAW so many years later it actually helps us feel the way Scout does, betrayed, angry, confused. Also people have lots of layers when it comes to racism and things of that sort. A lot of people still have racist mentalities and people will say racist remarks in private but in public you would not know they felt this way. I can see why people are angry about this new book because it took a beloved character and changed how we view him but I don't think the book is without its merits.

reply

[–] pete32782 9 years ago

People are angry about the new book's release because not only was it merely a draft of Mockingbird but also because the circumstances surrounding its release are suspicious. There is not enough of a separate plot here to make a movie adaptation inevitable. I hope this never sees the big screen.

reply

[–] airborne3502 9 years ago

Way to take a classic about a beloved and great uniter and morph him into a divider that these times do not need.

That is indeed unfortunate. No, it's heartbreaking.

In changing the narrative point of view from that of a child, to that of an adult, Go Set a Watchman forces us to put aside that childish point of view, and take that first honest look at Atticus Finch from the point of view of an adult Scout.

Taking that first honest look at a parent is uncomfortable. While some would praise this novel for coaxing us out of our own naive childhood, I would not. I think race is an issue where children have it right. They play together, laugh together, and don't think much about each other's differences, until adult influences start to mold their world view.

I don't want to read about Atticus attending a Klan Rally or speaking out against desegregation. That Atticus doesn't interest me.

I want the Atticus from my childhood.

As DanceAnitra astutely pointed out, that is the Atticus that society needs.

Internet courage is such a yawn.

reply

[–] DanceAnitra 9 years ago

I think race is an issue where children have it right. They play together, laugh together, and don't think much about each other's differences, until adult influences start to mold their world view.

Perfectly put Airborne. I can add nothing to that statement but more applause.

reply

[–] Destinata 9 years ago

Taking that first honest look at a parent is uncomfortable. While some would praise this novel for coaxing us out of our own naive childhood, I would not. I think race is an issue where children have it right. They play together, laugh together, and don't think much about each other's differences, until adult influences start to mold their world view.

I don't want to read about Atticus attending a Klan Rally or speaking out against desegregation. That Atticus doesn't interest me.

I want the Atticus from my childhood.

As DanceAnitra astutely pointed out, that is the Atticus that society needs.

I know that we can all look at our parents with rose-colored glasses. But this Atticus is a complete 180° from the Atticus of "To Kill A Mockingbird." This isn't our first honest look at that Atticus from an adult's perspective -- this is a glimpse into the character of a completely different man.

What was so beautiful about both the book and the movie was that it gave the experience from the point of view of a child, but adults could see all the things the children couldn't. Atticus wasn't anything special to the children -- but we could see the countless little things that make up a good man's character. And the black community knew they had a champion in that man: "Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing."

No, we're not seeing the same Atticus Finch. And for my money, Miss Harper Lee can keep this version. I'll take the one that's far better written, and a fine, decent man -- as well as a heckuva good shot!

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nicotinequeen63 9 years ago

I think the possibility of Capote being the 'polisher' is very high...because the person who came up with that 1st chapter and the racist Atticus would never have been able to segue into the final result...not without changing the names. If Harper Lee based her original Atticus on her father, she would have been embarrassed for him to see the final result....because if the 1st guy was based on her father then how in the world would she explain the 2nd guy? He would have been like, 'Is this how you see me? Really? because I can't stand n*gg**s, you know that right?'

reply

[–] shandy8 9 years ago

Atticus only went to the KKK meeting to see what they were up to. He was not a sympathizer. He did feel the the segregation issue best left to the individual states to decide.

reply

[–] stanbrown32 9 years ago

Don't let the Atticus of Watchman spoil the Atticus of Mockingbird for you. Just consider them different characters--from parallel universes, maybe. The two novels were not intended to fit carefully together with any consistency--one was a rough draft novel, and then the publishers asked Lee to reconceive the story, making Scout a young girl, so plot, characters, etc., were extensively changed and edited. Just because the names are the same doesn't mean that the Atticus of Mockingbird is "really" the man who in the 1950s becomes involved in the Klan. (On the other hand, though, there is no impossibility in someone who opposed lynching in the 1930s also opposing desegregation in the 1950s--the scale of injustice is different in the two situations, and segregation was a lot easier to be complacent about if you were white than deliberate murder.)

reply