The drama performance of "Titanic" gradually spread from Broadway to other cities in the United States. The line "you_jump, i_jump!" seems to have become a standard statement for people to express loyal love.
The leading actor, Andrew Burke, and the leading actress, Linda Moorman, became famous because they were the first to appear in this play and became big stars on Broadway overnight.
The Dutch theaters also made a lot of money, and were not affected by the Great Depression environment at all. Unfortunately, this situation could not last long, because more and more theaters began to rehearse "Titanic", and various copycat dramas and copycat actors emerged one after another.
.
Eugene O'Neill has been unable to sue, and this kind of copyright wrangling lawsuit is very troublesome. Moreover, many theaters do not use his adapted script at all, and directly hire others to re-adapt the novel, with many differences in details.
Not to mention, there are also many theaters that have launched a musical version of "Titanic", in which Rose and Jack sing and dance in various ways on the stage. This kind of performance is extremely popular.
Whether it is a play or a stage play, the act of adapting a novel without authorization is definitely an infringement. As the copyright owner, Mike Lauer Book Company has sued more than ten theaters in succession. However, the results have been limited, because American theaters, led by Broadway, have been
They all have a tradition of infringing on the copyright of original works.
Broadway started by stealing British stage plays!
The lawsuit can only be fought slowly, and the legal fees are huge. Moreover, the existing copyright laws in the United States actually have loopholes in adapting novels into dramas, and the final result is mostly a compromise between the two parties.
Faced with the raging performance of "Titanic" across the United States, the Los Angeles Times couldn't help but sigh: "The American theater world in the early 1930s had been occupied by the Chinese. One was Mei Lanfang, and the other was Zhou Hexuan."
At this time, a controversy was also breaking out at Columbia University.
At the end of March every year, hundreds of judges from all over the United States will gather in various schools of Columbia University to review works in multiple genres including journalism, literature, history, music, and drama. In early April, screening will be carried out.
Select three nominated works in each category and submit a report to the final evaluation committee (Pulitzer Prize Committee).
The judges of the Pulitzer Prize Committee's historical works group in the College of Arts and Sciences at Columbia University are already quarreling at this moment.
Antoine Jones, a historian from Harvard University, slapped the table and said: "Strictly speaking, the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is not a historical work at all. Even if it is a historical work, it is not a professional work.
A work that studies American history, it is not qualified to be selected for the Pulitzer Prize in History!"
“I agree that the preliminary judges were derelict in their duties by selecting an ineligible work for the final review,” said another historian. “If the committee insists on reviewing Guns, Germs, and Steel,
If I vote, then I decide to withdraw from the final evaluation committee."
Tyler Dennett, president of the College of William and Mary, said: "The Pulitzer Prize for History only stipulates that works that study American history are eligible for inclusion. Although "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is not a monograph that studies American history, it is
It has indeed launched a discussion on the history of the Americas, and the views contained therein are of great breakthrough significance for the study of American history. I support the selection results of the preliminary evaluation committee!"
Antoine Jones sarcastically said: "Professor Dennett, you have lived in the Far East for many years, and I know that you have a good impression of the Chinese. But please do not destroy the authority of the Pulitzer Prize for History because of personal emotions. This
All works are not eligible to be shortlisted!”
Taylor Dennett said: "No matter what, we must respect the selection results of the preliminary evaluation committee and let's vote next."
"Very good, I decided to withdraw from the final evaluation committee!" Antoine Jones stood up and left the conference room.
"I'm quitting too!"
"I'm quitting too!"
Two more historian judges left, and the remaining four judges stared blankly, not knowing what to do.
Tyler Dennett swore: "Fucking racist!"
Three of the seven final judges were gone, and the final voting session could not proceed at all. They could only report the situation to the Pulitzer organizing committee.
The Pulitzer organizing committee was so troubled that it invited the seven judges to negotiate again. One of them agreed, but the other two firmly disagreed. They believed that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was not qualified to be selected for the Pulitzer.
prize.
Both sides seemed to have valid reasons, and the negotiation eventually turned into a quarrel.
The Pulitzer organizing committee was unable to resolve the issue during the meeting, and finally had no choice but to announce that this year's Pulitzer Prize in History was void.
This decision is not new, and this kind of situation has occurred before. For example, in the Pulitzer Prize for Music in previous years, the final selection committee resolutely rejected the selection results of the preliminary selection committee. Unable to coordinate, they could only announce the selection for that year.
The Pulitzer Prize for Music is vacant.
However, this is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize in History has been revoked, and Zhou Hexuan has set a precedent.
At the end of April, when the theatrical version of "Titanic" was gaining popularity, the president of Columbia University announced this year's more than 20 Pulitzer Prize-winning works. There were no vacancies for historical works for some reason, which immediately attracted widespread attention from the academic community.
You know, the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism is also selected at this time. The top reporters in the country are focusing their attention on Columbia University, and you will understand the reason in a minute.
The Washington Daily reported the matter in detail the day after the Pulitzer Prize winners were announced: "This is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize in History has been vacant. It is understood that two members of the final evaluation committee firmly opposed "Guns".
, Germs and Steel" won the award, which ultimately led to this result. Mr. Dennett, president of the College of William and Mary and a famous historian, said that it is incomprehensible that "Guns" was questioned, because it is a great historical work.
It has breakthrough significance in the study of American history, and it should be the most qualified work to win the Pulitzer Prize in History."
Woodrow, a loyal supporter of Zhou Hexuan and professor of history at Columbia University, wrote an article to denounce Antoine. He said: "My paper this year, "A Longitudinal Study of American Civilization," has been widely praised by my peers. But what I want to say is,
This paper of mine is just an extension and elaboration of the 'Vertical Continent Theory' in Guns, Germs and Steel. Mr. Zhou Hexuan is a great historian who created a new research direction in American history.
My academic research mentor. The book "Guns" is of great significance to the study of American history. It is one of the most groundbreaking historical works in the past century. Such a work has been questioned as not being eligible for Pulitzer Prize.
Policy History Prize. I would like to ask Mr. Antoine, are you really a historian? Where is your moral bottom line?"
Antoine quickly retorted in the newspaper. He firmly refused to admit racial discrimination and only started the debate based on the selection rules of the Pulitzer Prize in History.
A big discussion soon broke out in American historical circles. Most scholars supported Zhou Hexuan, but there were still a group of people who criticized Zhou Hexuan, believing that the book "Guns" was purely sensational and not a real historical work at all.
Among these opponents, not all were motivated by racial discrimination, but by the contradiction between the old and new historical perspectives. They did not recognize the new historical perspectives proposed by Zhou Hexuan.
Not only in the United States, but also in the European historical circles at this time, there was also a debate. The Annales School was being surrounded and suppressed by traditional historians, and they were having a lot of fun fighting with each other every day.
The historical revolution is also a revolution, and revolution requires bloodshed.
Respected traditional historians will not give up their status easily. If they cannot overcome academically, they will use their fame and influence to suppress and attack challengers.
What's more, the traditional old historiography has not yet reached its end, and the new historiography has not created a complete system. This historiographic revolution will not be successful simply.
Even in China, many historical researchers have questioned Zhou Hexuan, which is purely an academic contradiction.
Many people in China have begun to study Zhou Hexuan's series of historical works. These people are called the "Zhou School". Those influenced by Liang Qichao and others belong to the "Kongtai School", many of whom are highly respected. There are also some who have returned to China in recent years.
There are many foreign students who believe in the "Rank School".
The Confucius School has gradually declined, while the Zhou School and the Ranke School have risen rapidly. The two schools later gradually merged, laying the foundation for modern Chinese historical theory.
