Mike Dougherty's Blog

Extending the life of ‘Mockingbird’

July 15, 2010
Leave a Comment

I would like to see the results of a professionally conducted poll that asks people on the street four questions:

1. Have you read “To Kill A Mockingbird,” the 1960 novel by Harper Lee?

2. Have you seen the 1962 Robert Mulligan film, “To Kill A Mockingbird”?

3. Have you read the book and seen the movie?

4. If the answer is “both,” which did you do first?

A friend and I were discussing a series of first novels and their success recently. Naturally, Harper Lee popped up. What we ventured into was wondering about the quantitative effect that the excellent movie starring Gregory Peck had on extending the influence of the book.

Plenty of first novels have been made into motion pictures, but few have won the Pulitzer Prize and had the movie version win Academy Awards. Gregory Peck won for best actor, Horton Foote won for best adapted screenplay and the trio of Henry Bumstead, Alexander Golitzen and Oliver Emert won for best art direction in the category of set direction-black and white. The movie, produced by Alan J. Pakula, received five other nominations, including those of best picture, best director and best supporting actress (Mary Badham for her portrayal of narrator Scout).

Several years ago, I was talking with a new co-worker about likes and dislikes. When we came around to books, we both said, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” After we both talked about how much we liked it, I said, “Too bad she wrote only one novel,” Charlie said, “Yeah, but what a novel. Maybe she decided that she got it right the first time, so why write another one.”

The movie has its fans, too, and I am one of them. But some people love the movie,  have never read the book and have no desire to do so. But as a fan of both, I have wondered how much the movie helped prolong the popularity of the book. I believe that the book stands on its own and still would be popular, but I can’t help but think that the superb movie version sent some people looking for the book in the library or the bookstore.

At any rate, the book-movie combination has had an effect in our culture. Babies have been named Scout and Atticus and a number of bands have had names from the work … the Boo Radleys and Atticus come to mind. Other bands have had songs that make a reference. Many television shows, from “The Simpsons” to” Frasier,” have had episodes that use character names, have puns on the title and make other references. Atticus Finch, the character, is a beloved hero among many lawyers and is considered a sterling example of the pinnacle of integrity of the legal profession.

Maybe some college professors have opinions on the topic, but I doubt that the effect of the movie on the novel’s longevity is measurable and I think we’ll always be wondering.


Changing one’s status on a questionnaire

December 4, 2009
Leave a Comment

A friend mentioned the other day that he had filled out some online questionnaire and noticed that among the choices were “single,” “married” and “divorced.” Other possible answers may have been included, but he said he wondered what factors were included in helping someone decide if they were “divorced” or “single.”

It is a curious question.

Does “single” mean never married? Does one change from “single” to “married” and then possibly “divorced?” Or does someone who has been through a divorce become “single” again at some point? And if that is true, what determines when that change is made?

Does one become “single” when they have recovered from the pain of the divorce and are ready to date again or just when they are tired of being associated with the former spouse, even in terms of no longer being with that person?

Is it all just in determining one’s frame of mind? Does clicking the radio button next to the word “divorced” on a computer make someone feel “damaged” or less of a person?

None of this earth-shattering stuff, unless you’re a college professor trying to write a tome on the psychology of divorce. We realize that the questionnaire actually is an attempt by advertisers to reach a more susceptible audience. But it does make you wonder what might cause someone to change the way they answer such a question.


What do you mean ‘no debit cards’?

October 4, 2009
Leave a Comment

I’m not sure I understand the decision by Arkansas Scholarship Lottery director Ernie Passailaigue to not accept debit cards on payment for lottery.

The point of a debit card is that the user has the money in his checking account.

Maybe the debit-card system hasn’t reached South Carolina, the state from which we stole the director by offering him WAY TOO MUCH money.

As one of many people who no longer carries cash, such a ridiculous rule means I won’t be buying nearly as many tickets on impulse as I would have.

Sorry, college-bound kids. Tell it to Uncle Ernie!