Posted on 05/21/2005 9:15:41 PM PDT by Rastus
GLENELG, Md. - A black Huck Finn and a white Jim might be OK for a high school production of Mark Twain's classic tale — but those performances had to be edited out of a C-Span talent show after the copyright holder objected to the cross-casting.
Jay Frisby, a black student who played Huck, and Nick Lehan, a white student who played Jim, taped their performance of the song "Muddy Water" for "Close Up," a weekly show that highlights high school excellence.
When the program aired Friday, the two Glenelg Country School seniors were introduced, but viewers were told that "Close Up" could not show their performance because of "copyright restrictions."
Lehan and Frisby had played the roles of Jim and Huck in the school's production of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" without complaint. But when the show's executive producer asked for the right to air the students' performance, permission was denied.
Bert Fink, a spokesman for R&H Theatricals — the Rodgers & Hammerstein organization, which holds the license to the play — said his organization is not against cross-casting in general.
"But when you're dealing with a theatrical work and race or ethnicity is a key factor, many authors or playwrights feel strongly that ethnicity has to be reflected in the actors who portray the characters," he said.
"In the books, Jim is a runaway slave. He is clearly in the novel an African-American man. And Huck is a free white man — that is central to the story. To ignore that component or to comment on it by switching is not faithful to the story."
Frisby's father, Washington attorney Russell Frisby, said he was appalled by the decision.
"The only rationale for it is that someone in New York believes Huck Finn can't be played by an African-American. I thought we were past the days of 'whites only' clauses," the elder Frisby said.
I don't see the problem. If a black actor can play Huck convincingly, let him put on heavy white greasepaint. If a white actor can do a convincing Jim, let him put on a thick coat of blackface greasepaint. If the intent is solely to play politics and ignore the story, then screw them all and cancel the performance.
The school has a right to cast it that way. The copywriter has a right to object to it's C-span airing. Alls Well that ends well.
You'd think an attorney would understand the concept of "copyright": i.e. the Right To COPY.
It's not alterright.
Huck Finn is copyrighted? What? I thought after a certain amount of time copyrights are considered public domain/knowledge or something like that. Unreal, when it comes to money time is not an option either. So I guess the works of Steven Foster are copyrighted too? Pay that loot before you sing Camptown races.
I agree, seeing it performed with reversed roles would only make it that much more interesting to me. Makeup would be unnecessary though IMO
Coming from someone who evidently hasn't read the book.
A black Huck is as ridiculous as a white Jim.
You know.........it just might work.
Ask yahoo:
How long copyright lasts depends on when the work was created. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended many copyrights by 20 years. Here are the details, straight from the Copyright Office FAQ:
For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a joint work, copyright lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first.
For works created but not published or registered before January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, but it will not expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is published before December 31, 2002, copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.
The play (or script) is copyrighted.
It is of more recent vintage than the book.
Happy Birthday is actually a copyrighted song.
They can't get everyone for singing it at parties but they do insist on payments when it appears in a movie.
I guess I'm not speaking to the idea of reversed roles. The idea is that with make-up to portray the roles as written, the actor underneath is irrelevant. To deliberately distort the story is to put the director or modern ideology forward and, thus, diminish the point of the story. In another way of telling, traditional Kabuki theater is done with men (for a whole lot of cultural reasons) in drag but they convincingly act and pass as women. To write plays for transvestites and the attendant deviant themes and then try to call it Kabuki is just plain wrong.
Basically, any time that Mickey Mouse is due to lose copywrite protection, the rules get changed.
It took me a couple of minutes to put my finger on just why I found this so offensive.
It's kind of like going to a restaurant with someone and having them constantly tell you things like, "Don't pour your soup in your pocket," "Don't pick up your steak with your hands and gnaw on it," "Don't stick your finger up your butt then handle the bread," and so on.
I'd be pretty offended that someone would think I needed to be told those things.
The point in this set-to is not a "whites only" clause, but a deliberate switching of the races of the two roles for the purpose of "making a statement." And that statement is the left's re-assertion of their own wisdom and everyone else's obdurate refusal to be more like a leftist.
As written, Twain's Huckleberry Finn is one of the classic works of antislavery art. But leftist think that "the great unwashed" are too dim to get that without the help of the anointed on the left. No, they need to make it simpler and more obvious for us, so that we'll finally get that slavery and racism are bad things.
I would deny them permission not because of copyright violations, but just on the grounds that they're behaving like supercilious leftist jerks.
Maybe I am taking it a little too seriously because I really like Roger Miller's works, and because his feat in accomplishing what I would have thought impossible--turning Huckleberry Finn into a Broadway musical--is one for the ages.
People who display the arrogance required to meddle with the works of either Twain or Miller give me a serious case of the red@ss, and in this case need to be told, "No, you're not smarter and wiser than everyone else, and we don't need your sophomoric attempts at consciousness raising. By the way, the Republican Party has a much more creditable record on civil rights than the DemonRat Party."
Oh, boy!!!
....Er....Ummm.....I mean "Oh, person!!!".
You must have slept through your Politically Correct classes. :-)
History Repeats Itself in Blackface in Whitewater, Wisconsin
I always figure that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Note that in the article, an objection was raised concerning not allowing the black actor to play Huck Finn, but no comment was made about not allowing a white to play Jim.
This is just like last month when the MSM expressed outrage that the Runaway Bride would implicate a Hispanic, but nobody lifted a finger to defend white women (who she also claimed were part of her kidnapping).
"The play (or script) is copyrighted."
It's actually called "Big River." You can still order the CD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.