THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
A ten-step film review by Ron Hogan
Copyright 1992 Ron Hogan
1) This is the third ten-step review that I've produced so far. The first two were for MALCOLM X and BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. What I've tried to do in each of those reviews is not so much to write a "go see this" or "stay away from this" review, though those have a certain value. I want to take the critical apparatus I've acquired in my years of film study (undergraduate at Notre Dame, currently in the master's program at USC) and apply it to contemporary film. Most film criticism at the academic level tends to be about the "classic" cinema, the great works of the auteurs or the avant-garde. In the brand new anthology FILM THEORY GOES TO THE MOVIES, a number of academic critics (edited by some of my Notre Dame faculty) break away from this trend in sixteen essays on films from PRETTY WOMAN to THE LITTLE MERMAID. The reviews I present here are sketches of a similar approach, tentative outlines of ways to look at contemporary film. They are by no means meant to be definitive.
2) Of course, the first two reviews I did were for films by Spike Lee and Francis Ford Coppola. It's very easy to write in an academic mode about them--they're accepted as auteurs, directors worthy of serious study. This is a Muppet movie; how is one supposed to expect to be taken seriously writing about a film starring puppets? Well, let's face it. The Muppets are part of our popular culture, and have been for decades. Many of the people who cruise through the net grew up on the Muppets through SESAME STREET and THE MUPPET SHOW, myself included. Whether we choose to acknowledge their cultural significance or not, it does exist, and it can be talked about. So I'll try.
3) The first thing that struck me about the film was the corporate logo of Walt Disney Pictures that came before everything else. It had slipped my mind that just before he had died, Jim Henson had closed a deal with the people at Disney, and that the Muppets were now a semi-independent subsidiary of the Disney empire. I was disturbed by the deal at the time and I still am to a certain extent. The Muppets to me had always been oppositional to the control that Disney tried to exert over the popular imagination, especially that of the young. The Muppets were cute and cuddly, sure, but they also had a sharp satirical side that undermined the cuteness if you knew where to look. And then they became part of the very hegemony that they opposed. At least they haven't been totally absorbed into the Disney universe.
4) And their edge is definitely present in the film, most noticeably in Gonzo's portrayal of Charles Dickens. His role has an extreme amount of self-consciousness, and the film plays it up for all it's worth. Rizzo the Rat confronts Gonzo as to why he knows everything that happens before it happens, and Gonzo replies that he's the narrator, he's omniscient. When the issue of whether or not the ghosts are appropriate for small children arises, Gonzo says, "It's okay, it's culture." The film knows that it is tampering/playing with an established classic, it knows that the audience knows this, and it decides not to pretend otherwise, letting everybody in on the fun. Hey, Bob Cratchit is a frog in this movie, so let's run with it, and not expect this to be the Christmas Carol we'd get from anybody else. Dickens' tale has been updated to modern America (with Henry Winkler), given a black cast (Robert Guillaume, I believe), and even turned into a commentary on television (SCROOGED, one of the better variations). Why not a frog as Cratchit?
5) Of course, one of the consequences of giving the Christmas Carol over to the Muppets is that it profoundly warps the meaning of the original text. Dickens' novels had an element of social realism; the accumulated details of 19th century London were there to make a point about and a critique of the society in which he wrote. Dickens' worlds of fiction had a political agenda to them. In the Muppet version, 19th century London is divorced from its meaning and becomes a playground for the Muppets. A very detailed playground, but still only a simulation-- which has absolutely nothing to do with the real London. And it makes the few touches of social statement that do appear disturbing. There's no depiction of the real poverty of the time, except for one shot of a homeless bunny rabbit. Which is disturbing at one level because you see a cute little creature suffering, and at another level because the only way that suffering can be expressed through the film is through cute little creatures--real homeless people have no place in the Muppet London.
6) So the Muppets have this nice world in which they can play and do the things that make them the cultural icons they are. They have some ice-skating penguins and the baby chorus and the boomerang fish thrower and so on.... And they sing. It wouldn't be a Muppet film without songs at some point. Unfortunately, the songs aren't all that great, either standing alone or in comparison to other Muppet songs. Every number tends to be a shiny, happy Christmas song--understandable given the nature of the film.
7) Of course, one would expect that the Christmas Carol would center around Ebeneezer Scrooge. His initial appearance justifies that, but I suspect that he's not as important to the film as the Muppets. And Michael Caine, I suspect, knows this. His performance is perfunctory and adequate to the role, but has very few qualities that would make him a memorable Scrooge. It's as if he realized that his main role in the film is not to learn the meaning of Christmas, though he does do that, but to talk to the frog in a way that doesn't seem totally ridiculous. His scenes with the Spirits, the closest thing in the film to the original, do have some power to them, though, especially the Ghost of Christmas Future. Of course, this is the only section of the film which is not undermined by Gonzo....
8) And Michael Caine isn't the only human in the film, though there are considerably fewer humans than Muppets. And, in line with this being a Muppet playground, the interaction of human and inhuman is totally natural. It goes unquestioned throughout--we totally buy into this simulated 19th Century, Muppets and all. I suspect that Jean Baudrilliard's SIMULATIONS and Umberto Eco's TRAVELS IN HYPERREALITY might have some interesting points on the subject of accepting the unreal recreation as the real, but I'm not going to push it. It's hard enough to get people to accept talking about the Muppets; talking about the Muppets with regard to Eco is bound to drive people away. The main point is, the Muppets are everywhere, and it's so natural that nobody notices it, because there isn't anything to notice--rather like the Toons in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?
9) What separates this Muppet film from other films is the subject matter--Christmas. They aren't the first imaginary figures to do a Christmas film--or a Christmas Carol for that matter. Apart from the Mr. Magoo version, the "older cousins" in the Disney stable have taken their shot at it. (And if a big-eared mouse can do Cratchit, why the hell not a frog?) But like many Christmas texts, and contrary to the original, there is very little Christ in this Christmas Carol; I only found one oblique reference, the line about "remembering who it was that made the lame walk" or something like that. Instead, the film focuses on the warm, fuzzy feelings that we're all supposed to have, regardless of religious affiliation. Inspiring this kind of historical amnesia, corporate hegemonic aspirations aside, is another consequence of replacing the real with a fantasy recreation. Heck, if we're going to rebuild the past, we can rebuild its *meaning* just as easily--and maybe even more so.
10) Okay, jargon aside, it's time for one personal note. Kermit the Frog. Obviously, you can't do a Muppet film without Kermit, which means that you have to confront the issue of Jim Henson's death. This is acknowledged in the film's dedication. And Kermit's voice is a bit deeper than it used to be. He's adequate, I suppose, and Steve Whitmire is better than Mel Blanc, Jr., is at Bugs Bunny, but the sense of loss is real and palpable for me still. The innocence is gone, and the Muppets will sadly never be the same for me. Or, I guess, for anyone, except those too young to remember--except even they have access to the "real" Kermit, through SESAME STREET, MUPPET SHOW reruns, and the videos of the first movies. So maybe they'll notice the change, but will they appreciate the context of that change? Who knows? Not me. This isn't the Muppets of our youth, but maybe they're still adequate to the tasks their predecessors accomplished. For the sake of the next generation, I hope they are. (And on that pretentious note...)
Follow-ups and email welcome Ron Hogan rhogan@usc.edu
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews