From: rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Subject: REVIEW: THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
Reply-To: rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:40:35 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01637
Keywords: author=Hogan

			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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews