The Strange Case of the Duplicate Rhapsody

Two animated characters performed the same Liszt piece and sparked one of Hollywood's most peculiar controversies

In the pantheon of Hollywood creative disputes, where egos clash with the regularity of cymbals in a Mahler symphony, there is a 1947 controversy so delightfully absurd that it seems invented by a particularly witty screenwriter¹. It was the year two animation studios produced, with timing that would have impressed Liszt himself, virtually identical short films about anthropomorphic animals attempting to perform "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" while being sabotaged by smaller rodents.

The scandal, if we can dignify a cartoon dispute with such a term, involved two of the most recognizable characters from the golden age of animation: Tom, the perpetually frustrated cat from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and Bugs Bunny, the irreverent rabbit from Warner Bros. Both, in their respective short films-The Cat Concerto and Rhapsody Rabbit-appeared in tails, seated at imposing grand pianos, attempting to navigate Liszt's formidable passages while dealing with furry little spoilers.

The similarity between the two productions transcends mere thematic coincidence. The comic sequences - fingers crushed by piano covers, the progressive exasperation of the performer, the resulting musical chaos - unfold with an almost choreographic correspondence. It is as if two teams of creatives, separated by Hollywood's corporate boundaries, have been possessed by the same spirit of physical comedy.

The Theater of the Absurd on Oscar Night

The 1948 Academy Awards ceremony provided the dramatic moment that every Hollywood controversy requires. When The Cat Concerto lit up the theater screen, the audience - that congregation of jaded professionals who had seen it all - erupted in genuine laughter. But when the lights came back on, Friz Freleng, the mastermind behind Rhapsody Rabbit, stood up with the indignation of a composer who has had his symphony stolen. His accusation of plagiarism reverberated through the hall louder than a poorly executed fortissimo.

The outcome was devastating for Warner Bros.: MGM took the Oscar for Best Animated Short Film, while Freleng's entry did not even merit a nomination. That a cat triumphed over a rabbit in an originality competition added an extra layer of irony to an already surreal episode.

The Archaeology of Production

Researchers into this peculiar controversy - and yes, there are people who devote their academic time to these questions - have dug into the production archives with the meticulousness of Egyptologists unearthing papyri. The records suggest that Warner Bros. had started first; their musical and voice recordings were complete when MGM was just beginning to animate their sequences.

This chronology points to one of two possibilities. The first, favored by Hollywood conspiracy theorists (a sizable demographic), suggests that someone in the Technicolor labs, where both studios processed their films, allowed Warner Bros. work to find its way to MGM's drawing boards. It's a theory that combines industrial espionage with the banality of a clerical error.

The second possibility is more philosophical and therefore less satisfying to those who prefer identifiable villains: simultaneous invention. This phenomenon, which gave us calculus (Newton and Leibniz), the telephone (Bell and Gray), and the theory of evolution (Darwin and Wallace), could also have produced two identical short films about musical mammals.

Narrative Logic As Evidence

Joseph Barbera, the more loquacious half of the Hanna-Barbera duo, once posed what might be the most compelling argument in MGM's favor: "What's the point of a rabbit fighting a mouse?" The cat-chase-mouse dynamic of Tom and Jerry was already an established formula, a narrative algorithm that worked with the precision of a Swiss watch. For Bugs Bunny, whose modus operandi typically involved outwitting myopic hunters and neurotic ducks, the role of frustrated concert pianist seemed an inexplicable departure.

Yet Warner Bros. maintained its version of events with the tenacity of a dog with a particularly tasty bone. The production records, they insisted, did not lie. They had come up with the idea first, and if anyone had borrowed (Hollywood's preferred euphemism for "stolen"), it had been MGM.

The Legacy of a Duplication

What remains undisputed, beyond the accusations and counter-accusations, is the excellence of both works. Both The Cat Concerto and Rhapsody Rabbit are masterful examples of musical timing, visual comedy and character animation. That Hollywood produced two nearly identical versions of the same elaborate premise says something profound about the nature of creativity in the industrial age: it is simultaneously unique and replicable, original and derivative.

The controversy also illuminates the anxieties of an industry where originality is both a commodity and an obsession. In an ecosystem where ideas are worth millions and imitation is both flattering and lucrative, the line between inspiration and plagiarism becomes as blurred as a poorly focused frame.

An Ironic Coda

Seventy-seven years later, the question of who copied whom matters less than the fact that both studios, in their zeal to entertain, chose the same improbable premise: that watching an animal in tails wrestle with Liszt while another, smaller animal sabotages the performance was the pinnacle of sophisticated comedy.

Franz Liszt, that 19th-century showman who invented the modern piano recital and caused what the press of the time called "Lisztomania," would probably have appreciated the irony. His music, composed to dazzle European audiences and establish his technical supremacy over his rivals, ended up being the vehicle for a dispute between a New Jersey cat and a Brooklyn rabbit².

That two of the most brilliant creative minds in American animation independently - or not - came to the conclusion that "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" urgently needed to be performed by animated mammals in conflict with rodents remains one of Hollywood's most enchanting mysteries. It's a reminder that in the realm of commercial creativity, even the most absurd ideas can be so valuable they deserve to be stolen. Or invented twice.

¹ The fact that this dispute involved copyrights on drawn cats and rabbits, at a time when Hollywood was being investigated by the Un-American Activities Committee, suggests that the industry had a particular talent for focusing on what was truly important.[/i

² In his posthumous memoirs (if such a thing existed), Liszt might have noted that his legacy includes not only revolutionizing piano technique and practically inventing the concept of modern musical celebrity, but also providing the soundtrack for two generations of children to learn that anvils, when dropped on heads, produce a surprisingly musical sound.

Reference Links:

- Wikipedia - Rhapsody Rabbit
- Wikipedia - The Cat Concerto

- All characters © Warner Bros.

Courses:

→ 2D animation online courses.

Inspiration:

→ Article inspired by The Cat Concerto vs Rhapsody Rabbit: Who Copied Who? from Steve Reviews.