When Will They Ever Learn?

Lesli Margherita as a middle-aged Cindy Lou Who

Generally speaking, Curmie is not a big fan of parodies. See, the thing is, either he likes the original (in which case he doesn’t like seeing it ridiculed) or he didn’t like the original (in which case, why would he want to see any kind of version of it?). Of course, there’s the possibility that he doesn’t know the original—in which case he’ll feel like a doofus that he doesn’t get all the jokes that everything else is laughing at.

Moreover, the writers and producers of many parodies seem to think that throwing a couple of sex jokes and some “adult language” into the mix automatically renders any material hilarious. Curmie, having left junior high some time ago, begs to differ, and therefore pretty much despises the faux cleverness of plays like Aaron Posner’s Stupid Fucking Bird (Chekhov’s The Sea Gull) and Bert V. Royal Dog Sees God (the gang from the Peanuts cartoon strip). He suspects that he would be equally bored by Matthew Lombardo’s Who’s Holiday, a take-off on the Dr. Seuss classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

But here’s the thing. Curmie will express his disdain by (wait for it)… not buying a ticket. But if you, Gentle Reader, have different tastes, and choose to attend, well, then, go for it. Unfortunately, all too many rights-holders of the originals on which these parodies are based are indeed actively trying to prevent this material from ever reaching the public. The “Three’s Company” gang from a few years ago sued for copyright infringement by David Adjmi’s 3C. They lost, as it should have been obvious that they would. Parody has its own category and its own set of rules as respects copyright/trademark. The laws are complicated, with each case being weighed in terms of the amount of reference to the original work, the potential effect the parody might have to the value of the original work, etc. Basically, it comes down to this: if the parody does nothing more than re-create the original with a few minor adjustments, it’s an infringement of copyright law. If however, the original is evoked merely in order to establish a recognizable world of characters and expected actions—a world which is then skewed to tell a different story—then the parody is on safe legal ground.

Such is the case with Who’s Holiday, a one-woman show by Matthew Lombardo which riffs off the character of Cindy Lou Who in the Dr. Seuss classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. New York Theatre Guide’s Tulis McCall describes the plot thusly:

Here is the deal: Turns out that after the Grinch’s heart grew three sizes on that long-ago Christmas Eve, he was befriended by the entire population of Who-ville. Of special importance was the friendship he developed with Cindy Lou. He was like a second father. Until he wanted to become a first husband. And of course a real father, because, thanks to the Grinch, Cindy Lou had a bun in the oven. She was not sorry for this because she was smitten with the Grinch and the wild sex they shared….

The tale spirals downward. Cindy Lou gave birth to a little green daughter, Patti, and the Grinch turned out to be the dud that he always was. Their dog Max met his demise, as did the Grinch, whose death was blamed on Cindy Lou. Into jail she sailed for over a decade, and her 7 year old Patti was put into a home until she reached the right age for being sprung. Patti and Cindy Lou did not see each other after that last day in court. When Cindy Lou was released from jail, Patti was otherwise occupied with her own life. No contact. The other Who citizens shunned Cindy Lou and tonight here she is, on Christmas Eve. Not singing around the famous tree with her fellow citizens, but here in her trailer, a-l-o-n-e.

If you really want to check out more about what the show is like, there’s this one-minute video of… erm… highlights. That’s enough to make Curmie want to save a few bucks and avoid this tripe, but, as Ms. McCall points out, “At the conclusion of the show, 97% of the rest of the audience stood up and cheered. I have no explanation for this other than the possibility of a parallel universe.” [If nothing else, Curmie seems to have found a kindred spirit.] If you’re part of that 97%, so be it.

Curmie is reminded of the old George Carlin routine about Muhammed Ali:

For about three and a half years, they didn’t let him work. ‘Course he had an unusual job, beating people up. It’s a strange calling, y’know? But it’s one you’re entitled to. Government didn’t see it that way. Government wanted him to change jobs. Government wanted him to kill people. He said, “No, that’s where I draw the line. I’ll beat ‘em up, but I don't wanna kill ‘em.”

Curmie has little else in common with Mr. Ali, but we do agree on this: Curmie will beat up the likes of Who’s Holiday, but he doesn’t want to kill it.

Not so the Ted Geisel estate (Curmie can’t imagine “Dr. Seuss” himself having any objection). Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which apparently is long on money for lawyers and short on sense, sued playwright Lombardo and the show’s producers, cancelling the planned 2016 Off-Broadway opening which was to have featured Jennifer Simard. The cease-and-desist order was ultimately overturned by US District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who ruled, quite reasonably, that:

The Play recontextualizes Grinch‘s easily-recognizable plot and rhyming style by placing Cindy-Lou Who—a symbol of childhood innocence and naiveté—in outlandish, profanity-laden, adult-themed scenarios involving topics such as poverty, teen-age pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, prison culture, and murder. In so doing, the Play subverts the expectations of the Seussian genre, and lampoons the Grinch by making Cindy-Lou's naiveté, Who-Ville's endlessly-smiling, problem-free citizens, and Dr. Seuss’ rhyming innocence, all appear ridiculous.

Well, duh. So the play premiered last November with Lesli Margherita as 40-year-old Cindy. And the Seuss estate appealed. Of course, they did. After all, they might be able to squeeze a few bucks out of the production. This, however, would be if they won, and they had about as much chance of doing that as Curmie’s doctoral alma mater has of capturing the Big 12 title in football this year. (The pre-season poll shows that 52 of 52 voters pick Curmie’s beloved Jayhawks to finish dead last.) Legal precedent was against them; a lower court ruling was against them; common sense was against them. Still, they forged ahead. In one of the easiest rulings in history, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last week voted unanimously to uphold the lower-court ruling:

… the district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on the trademark counterclaims. Applying the balancing test set forth in Rogers v. Grimaldi (Lanham Act “should be construed to apply to artistic works only where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression”), it concluded that the public’s interest in free speech here outweighs DSE’s interest in protecting its trademarks. We agree. “A parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory—messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody” and, in this case, Lombardo evokes elements of the original work to serve his parodic purpose. [internal citations omitted]

Indeed, the only surprise here is that the Appeals Court agreed to hear the case at all.

So here we are. Mr. Lombardo won his suit (surely even DSE isn’t stupid enough to appeal further… right?), and now a Broadway run is being contemplated. At least the former is good news.

And so ends the court case of Cindy Lou Who,

Of Matthew Lombardo, and of course, you-know-who.

It isn’t a play Curmie wants to go see,

But if you do, Dear Reader, you ought to be free.