Huckleberry Finn on the Silver Screen

Lewis Sargent, silent film actor, from the American film "Huckleberry Finn" (1920). Public Domain

Commentary

Mark Twain’s classic novel “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” has been called “The Great American Novel.” Even now, when works about the Old South are generally frowned upon, it remains one of the greatest contributions to American fiction. Countless filmmakers have been inspired to try to translate Twain’s saga of Southern boyhood to the screen, resulting in a plethora of film adaptations, each taking a slightly different slant on the tale.

As is often the case with literary works, there has yet to be an entirely accurate cinematic interpretation, and I’m sure many would argue that such a feat is impossible. However, each time it was brought to the screen, a unique aspect or facet of the story was highlighted in a different way. Many talented young actors have lent their talents to embodying the lovable young rascal, resulting in not one but a dozen different Hucks. As a great lover of this story, I have made something of a study of the various screen adaptations and have set out to compare them here. Honestly, there have been too many versions, between films, TV movies, and TV series, to list them all, but here are what I consider the top versions.

‘Huckleberry Finn’ (1920)

First up is the 1920 silent film “Huckleberry Finn,” starring Lewis Sargent, George Reed, and Gordon Griffith. While only 84 minutes long, this early adaptation is one of the truest to the book. Naturally, many details are skipped, but nearly all the key plot points are included, except for Huck’s stay with the feuding Grangerfords. I’ve found that nearly every adaptation leaves out at least one sequence from the book. This one, like several others, was very close to translating the story in its entirety, then fell short by one subplot. However, no additional storylines were added.

The film features a unique, charming prologue and epilogue in which Huck visits an ailing Mark Twain and gives him the material for a new book about him. Aside from this, it also depicts more of a romance between Huck and Mary Jane Wilks. Rather than refusing to be civilized and running away at the end, Huck wants to be adopted by Tom Sawyer’s aunt and become an educated young man, so he can one day marry Mary Jane.

Lobby card for the American film "Huckleberry Finn" (1920). Public Domain

‘Huckleberry Finn’ (1931)

Next is 1931’s “Huckleberry Finn,” a sequel to the film “Tom Sawyer” from the previous year, starring Jackie Coogan, Junior Durkin, Mitzi Green, and Clarence Muse. This film is not much like the novel at all; it focuses more on Tom Sawyer, as well as featuring the character Becky Thatcher from the previous book and film. This is doubtless because Tom Sawyer’s actor, Jackie Coogan, was the more famous of the two lead boys.

Rather than the usual tale of a boy helping a runaway slave get to freedom, this is a light-hearted jaunt in which two boys, watched over by their slave friend, Jim, take a trip down the river, find out that girls are alright, and decide to go home and be civilized. It plays up the romance between Mary Jane and Huck, similarly to its silent predecessor.

‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ (1939)

The only film version to be made during the Code era (1934-1954), when Joseph Breen was head of the Production Code Administration, is “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” from 1939, starring Mickey Rooney, Rex Ingram, and Elisabeth Risdon. While not the truest adaptation, this one is my personal favorite because it captures a charming essence of the Old South and the carefree nature of life on the river.

This film was the first to not feature Tom Sawyer and, therefore, to not include the $6000 he and Huck found in the previous book. To make it a standalone story, his father instead demands that the Widow Douglas pay him $800 so he’ll let her keep Huck. To get this money, she considers selling Jim, which motivates him to run away. He is suspected of Huck’s murder, brought back to be tried at the end of the film, then saved at the last moment by Huck’s arrival. At Huck’s request, the Widow agrees to set him free, on the condition that Huck come back to live with her and try harder to be civilized.

Had this been made a few years earlier, before Mickey Rooney began the “Andy Hardy” series, it would probably have been a bit darker, truer to the novel, and have featured Tom Sawyer, perhaps played by actor Jackie Cooper. The character of Huck, like some of Rooney’s earlier characters, would have been a bit more of a “bad boy,” like in the book. However, due to the star’s image as “every mother’s son” by this point, he starts out as a bit of a trial then basically becomes Andy Hardy floating down the Ol’ Mississippi. However, it is a wonderful, heart-warming film, which features a far stronger anti-slavery message and overall moral than the book or the first two films.

A cropped lobby card for "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" from 1960. MovieStillsDB

‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ (1960)

Next up is the 1960 color film “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” starring Eddie Hodges, Archie Moore, and Tony Randall. This film is the weakest adaptation in my opinion. It follows the 1939 film quite closely at first, including Huck’s father demanding $800 from the widow for Huck, his only spending one night with his father before escaping, and the exclusion of the Grangerford segment.

However, once Huck and Jim begin their journey, they almost immediately meet the King and Duke and soon after the Wilkses. Rather than this segment’s being the end of the journey, the film afterwards goes off in an entirely original direction, having Huck work on a steamboat and then at a circus, while the King and Duke continue popping up to get back at him for spoiling their scheme with the Wilkses. It then returns to something a bit more like the book, as Huck seeks out the recaptured Jim at the Phelps farm. The gimmick of Huck’s dressing up like a girl, which usually happens early in the plot, takes place here instead. He frees Jim and manages to frame the King and Duke for the crime, painting them as abolitionists. With Jim free, Huck strikes out on his own, as in the novel, producing the most bittersweet ending so far.

The weakest link in this film, frankly, is the title character’s actor, Eddie Hodges. While excellent as light-hearted characters in later Disney films “Summer Magic” and “The Happiest Millionaire,” the young boy simply lacks the range as an actor necessary for this part. His co-star Archie Moore, who plays the part of Jim, was not an actor before this but a champion fighter, and the lack of a truly strong actor in the lead shows. The additional storylines added in place of Twain’s own also weigh down the plot, making the overall feeling a bit confused.

‘Huckleberry Finn’ (1974)

The 1974 film “Huckleberry Finn” is the only musical screen adaptation, featuring Jeff East, Paul Winfield, and Arthur O’Connell. Although a sequel to the 1973 musical film “Tom Sawyer,” this movie does not feature that character, who was played in the predecessor by Johnny Whitaker. This is an odd choice, since the film uses the same devices as the previous two to make it stand alone.

This film was the first to feature the Grangerford affair and is fairly true to the book in terms of the sequence of events. However, the spirit of it is entirely different, due largely to the fact that it’s a musical. It deviates from the original plot significantly at the end, when Jim is captured and put in a runaway slave camp. Huck breaks him out, they part ways, and the film ends with Huck watching Jim float away on a raft. His future path is left indeterminate. This film feels a bit goofy due to the songs but is heavier than many other adaptations at the end, due to the brutality of the slave camp.

A lobby card for "Huckleberry Finn" from 1974. MovieStillsDB

‘Huckleberry Finn’ (1975)

The 1975 TV movie “Huckleberry Finn” stars Ron Howard, Antonio Fargas, and Royal Dano. This film features a cameo appearance from Mark Twain at the beginning and end as a sort of narrator. Like so many versions, it excludes the Grangerfords. There is no discussion of money at all with Huck’s father, and he seems to kidnap him merely because he doesn’t like his son’s living with the widow.

After Huck escapes and meets up with Jim, they meet the King and Duke, work a few revival meetings, and then go onto the Wilks segment. Tom Sawyer is featured in the final portion of the film, which is very similar to the book. The weakest point in this adaptation is the casting of Ron Howard as the title character. While he may have been excellent a few years earlier, he was just too old for the part by this point, and it’s rather ridiculous to see this tall, obviously full-grown young man being regarded as a child by the other characters.

‘Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ (1986)

“Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” from 1986 is not truly a film but a four-part miniseries featured in the PBS TV series “American Playhouse.” It stars Patrick Day, Samm-Art Williams, and Eugene Oakes. Although this one is a bit of a cheat, I couldn’t resist including it because it is in my top three adaptations. I think it comes the closest to capturing the book. With a total runtime of four hours, there is plenty of time to include important details.

While watching it, I was thrilled to have finally found an entirely true rendering of the novel. However, disappointingly, this version made the unusual decision to cut the Wilks affair. As one of the book’s major segments of the book, the subplot’s omission is keenly felt. However, the characterization of the lead character comes closer to Twain’s boy hero than any other. Most versions make Huck a little too “good,” but this one has more of the careless, almost amoral nature which Twain originally wrote.

A publicity still for "The Adventures of Huck Finn" (1993). MovieStillsDB

‘The Adventures of Huck Finn’ (1993)

Last but not least is Disney’s “The Adventures of Huck Finn” from 1993, starring Elijah Wood, Courtney B. Vance, and Anne Heche. This version features nearly all the major plot points from the book, excluding the final part on the Phelps farm and the character of Tom Sawyer, but has an extremely different feel to it than any other.

Rather than being “Disney-fied,” I actually find this one to be among the darker adaptations. It has an overall bright look but is most easily identified as a Disney production by making the story oddly goofy in some parts and strangely dark in others. Although shot on location, it doesn’t have much of an Old South feel. It gets caught up in social significance. The anti-slavery message is a bit oversold, resulting in the overall moral not feeling as strong as in the ’39 film. While the extremely young, over-styled Wood looks too cherub-like as Huck, the character’s nature is decidedly grittier than most of his significantly older counterparts.

The film’s conclusion, in which Jim is almost hanged by an angry mob, only to be rescued by Mary Jane and her shotgun, is quite unbelievable and inserts an out-of-place feminist note. Jim reveals, as in the book, that he was set free by Miss Watson in her will, and the film ends with Huck running across a field toward the river, flinging his restrictive coat off. There’s always something melancholy about having Huck run away at the end, but it is portrayed much more joyously in this film than in the others with similar endings.

In Conclusion

“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” will remain a classic forever. Mark Twain’s tale captures a freedom and adventure which appeals to everyone. He was mostly inspired by his own childhood, growing up on the Mississippi River, and the potency of those real memories is obvious in every word of the text.

One mistake that every adaptation makes is having Huck be terrified of his brutal father, rather than decidedly stating he isn’t afraid of him, as in the book. This contributes to the general softening of the character. This is true of many characters in film adaptations of novels. To make a lead character like Huck more sympathetic, filmmakers like to turn him into a victim, especially of his father and the King and Duke. He is often dead set against the King and Duke’s stealing from the Wilks girls and tells them so. In the book, while he does contribute to their mission’s failure, he doesn’t take a stand against them; he doesn’t really stick his neck out for anyone.

Huck was based on a real boy Twain knew in his childhood, Tom Blankenship. Nothing can truly capture the essence of him better than this quote from the author’s autobiography: “In Huckleberry Finn I have drawn Tom Blankenship exactly as he was. He was ignorant, unwashed, insufficiently fed; but he had as good a heart as ever any boy had. His liberties were totally unrestricted. He was the only really independent person—boy or man—in the community, and by consequence he was tranquilly and continuously happy and envied by the rest of us. And as his society was forbidden us by our parents the prohibition trebled and quadrupled its value, and therefore we sought and got more of his society than any other boy’s.”