From: angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.)
Subject: Re: REVIEW: THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
Keywords: author=Hogan
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:22:16 GMT

In article <Bzpwp1.3Ct@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ron Hogan) writes:
>			THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
>		   A ten-step film review by Ron Hogan
>			Copyright 1992 Ron Hogan
>
>
>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.  
IMHO, it was not the intention of the filmmakers to re-create the
meaning of the original text.  It is difficult to imagine _muppets_
making a serious commentary on the poverty and other social problems
in 19th Century London.  It has always been a theme that muppets
exist for the express purpose of "singing and dancing and making people
happy (Kermit, _The_Muppet_Movie_)."
I think the intention of this film was to take a well-known story and
do a "muppet" version of it.  The social commentary would be inappropriate
in the "muppet universe."  Do you really think it would have improved
the film???

>Of course, this is the only section of the film which
>is not undermined by Gonzo....
Personally, I thought Gonzo's role was a very interesting touch...

>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?
It has subtle differences.  "Toons" in the Roger Rabbit film _are_
subject to "real" social problems ("A girl's gotta make a living
(Betty Boop, commenting on her waitressing job).")

>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.
If you want to get into this, move to alt.pagan or soc.religion.christian.
The "original meaning" of Christmas had little to do with Christ; it
was a politically-oriented counteraction to the pagan solstice festivals.
There are many people who like to enjoy the holiday seasion without having
someone else's religious beliefs (in this case, Christian) shoved down
their throats.

>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.  
I would call the reader's attention to the Cratchit dinner scene revealed
by the "Future" ghost.  Kermit does a beautifully touching monologue
which is superficially a response to the death of Tiny Tim.  It is
very clear, however, that the message is really about Jim (and Richard).  
The basic idea presented is that we all have to deal with partings,
and death, of loved ones.  But you keep moving forward, deal with it
the best you can, and continue to do the things you always did as well
as possible.  This is similar to the message at the end of the
Henson Tribute, where Kermit insisted that the muppets would continue
doing all of their usual dancing, singing, etc., because "that's the
way the Boss would've wanted it."

With respect to Kermit's voice, he sounds younger than usual to me, if
that makes sense.  And yes, it is heartwrenching to watch.  I keep trying
to convince myself that it's still Kermit.  I finally decided that it
is not the Kermit that I always new & loved.  (Among other things,
the old Kermit was a confirmed bachelor.)  This is a different Kermit;
he has many things in common with the former one, but he is not the
same.  However, many special friends & loved ones change over time, until
they are no longer the people they used to be.  You simply learn to love
the new people they have become.  I am already very fond of the new
Kermit.  He may never _be_ his predecessor, but this new frog is lovable
in his own way...

Admittedly, this movie was very different stylistically than former
muppet films.  I try not to be disappointed if it doesn't meet my
expectations, but simply judge it as a different & unique work.
I do hope their former silliness returns, but of course, I would not
like to see a rehash of the old stuff...  If the Henson folks have
the desire to break new ground in their work, that's fine with me.
So far, their work continues to be entertaining to me, and I look
forward to seeing what they do next...

:)
We'll see you next time on the Muppet Show....
(This post was brought to you by the letters theta, and alpha, and by
the number pi.)  :)

Angela
-- 
**************************  angelai@wam.umd.edu  ****************************
Newsgroups: alt.tv.muppets