As I read David Slone's review of Wagon Wheel's "To Kill A Mockingbird," I couldn't help but wonder how a professional writer with presumably at least a seventh-grade education could think that his article was accurate and insightful. The first gripe he had with the production, which he used to title the article, referred to the idea that the show's dramatic nature was lost in the comedy. May I ask, Mr. Slone, was it a little girl being harassed at school because her father was a "nigger lover" or the mob coming to lynch the innocent black man that tickled your funny bone? I suppose I can see how you would get a real kick out of this show. That is, if you tend to giggle through "Schindler's List."
Good job, Mr. Slone, for getting the author of the original story right. It was, in fact, Harper Lee. This is the only time that I will agree with anything in the original review. Even the "facts" were skewed, as this show was not directed by Scott Michaels, but by Deena Conley. As far as the claim goes that the storyline concerning Boo Radley is lost in this production, (spoiler alert) he plays a rather large part in the ending of the show. I can only assume that Mr. Slone was not there for this part, as he may have accidently wandered out during the very dark night scene.
If Slone had actually been there through the whole production, one would think that he would catch the clear explanation of why the stage was so dark. Let me clarify: I don't know that he really did leave during the production, but I'm trying to be kind, as it is much more embarrassing for him if he was there and did not understand a story enjoyed by thousands of children. I wouldn't want to make Mr. Slone look bad.
David Slone made the observation that the lines seemed more read than passionately delivered. Actually, what he said was they "were more like read than acted." That makes it sound like the article was like written by like a like seventh-grade girl. Without simply criticizing the writing, I must ask that any readers take advice from him as they would from a blind person giving their thoughts on the works of Van Gogh. I also attended opening night, and I assure you, all the actors delivered a splendid performance, especially Rusinack (Scout), who has a very bright, theatrical future.
In keeping up with Slone's brilliant metaphor; his review seemed out of whack, like someone had a well-written newspaper article and turned it into a review written by The Jonas Brothers, if they were heavily medicated. I realize The Jonas Brothers were not there opening night. The review would have been just as insightful.
