Skip to main content

Leave comedy to the bears, Ebenezer.

The Muppet Christmas Carol
(1992)

Reworking a classic of literature to accommodate a popular star or franchise is sometimes the first sign of desperate measures, an attempt to artificially inflate their waning status. Sometimes it’s purely about the easy cash grab. What studio doesn’t want the pay-off of a Christmas perennial? That this (fourth) big screen Muppets outing was also the first significant incarnation of the characters following the death of their creator might have been a portend of woe (albeit, the idea was Jim Henson’s, in the wake of Disney’s purchase). Yet The Muppet Christmas Carol might be the best. It is undeniably the one with the longest afterlife; the movie wasn’t even a big hit on first release.


Jim’s son Brian Henson called the shots on this return to Muppetdom, ably accompanied by many of the series’ regulars. Jerry Juhl, who had written for The Muppet Show and co-scripted several of the earlier movies, adapted Charles Dickens’ novella. He did so with a fair degree of fidelity, referencing many of the original lines (not just the de rigueur “Bah! Humbug!”). The major alteration, aside from enabling various Muppets to take supporting roles, is the inclusion of Charles Dickens (played by the Great Gonzo himself) as narrator, ably supported by Rizzo the Rat. It’s the metatextual element that lends the movie its personality and tone. This knowing quality, inviting the audience in on the joke and providing humorous commentary to developments, is intrinsic to the success of the Muppets. Without them, Christmas Carol would be a little too respectful.


Also noteworthy is that this is a musical (previously attempted in the 1970 Albert Finney adaptation).  The songs were penned by Paul Williams (who also contributed to the first Muppet Movie, in which he cameoed). They aren’t a bad selection, as these things go, and include several that lodge in the memory after the show is over (When Love is Gone, Marley and Marley and It Feels Like Christmas). More arresting is the sight (and sound) of Michael Caine, revealing his previously untapped potential as a singer. Tellingly, we haven’t heard much of his musicality since (his rendition of My Way in Little Voice is fantastic, however). Put it this way; Caine’s no previously undiscovered great, but he isn’t tone deaf either.


The former Maurice Micklewhite’s appearance here is rightly regarded as one of the few bright spots of quality during his ‘90s drought. He had a long established rep of signing up to star in any old dross (The Swarm, Jaws: The Revenge), but the truth is he was rarely a couple of pictures away from something decent. Aside from A Shock to the System (1990) and Blood and Wine (1996), there’s barely anything worth mentioning on his CV until Little Voice saw him rediscovering his mojo in ’98. This was a period where he was willing to be directed by Michael Winner (in dual roles, with Roger Moore!), play the villain in Steven Seagal’s eco-themed directorial debut and sullying the memory of Harry Palmer in a couple of cheap direct-to-video belated sequels. But he’s great as Scrooge; reliably menacing and venomous as his initial incarnation (this is the man who played Jack Carter, after all) and subsequently infused with warm-hearted brio. Needless to say, Caine is such a pro he plays the whole thing very straight. He leaves it to his felt co-stars to (not always successfully) attempt to upstage him with their hijinks.


There are a few other human cast members, most notably Steven Mackintosh as Scrooge’s nephew Fred, but this is really about special guest star Michael Caine. Except that Caine is the actual star. In this respect, the picture takes a different path from previous Muppet ventures, where the humans were the game straight men supporting players.


The Ghosts we meet might be the least successful element of the production. Marley and Marley (now brothers to accommodate… ) are amusingly incarnated as Statler and Waldorf. The Ghost of Christmas Past is an ineffectually ethereal girl puppet, Christmas Present is a portly bearded type (apparently modelled on the 1951 Scrooge) while Christmas Yet to Come is your standard faceless cowled figure with a beckoning hand. With the latter at least, they can’t go wrong. While it is admirable to allow the story to speak for itself (“You’re on your own folks. We’ll meet you at the finale” exclaims Gonzo, as he and Rizzo fearfully retreat upon the arrival of Christmas Yet to Come), it’s a disappointment that the Creature Shop was unable to design more distinctive spirits.


Dickens/Gonzo: Once again, I must ask you to remember that the Marleys were dead, and decaying in their graves.
Rizzo: Yeuchh.

Nevertheless, the on-going commentary is frequently very funny. From Rizzo questioning how Dickens is able to explain what is happening before we see it (“I keep telling you, storytellers are omniscient. I know everything”) to concerns over whether the kids will be scared (“No, it’s all right. This is culture”). Rizzo, who first appeared at the tail end of The Muppet Show, is a constant delight, such that Gonzo must assume an unlikely dependability (“I knew you weren’t suited to literature” he tells the Rat). Statler and Waldorf still manage to get in a few choice heckles (“Leave comedy to the bears, Ebenezer”, they tell Scrooge, who has just quoted Dickens' original "more gravy than the grave"; the original character of Fezziwig, Scrooge’s first employer, is now embodied as Fozziewig). On Gonzo’s suggestion, Sam the Eagle (as younger Scrooge’s Headmaster), restates “You will love business. It is the American way” as “It is the British way”.


Of course, Kermit and Miss Piggy are essential ingredients. They dutifully appear as Bob and Emily Cratchit, and their male and female offspring are frogs and pigs respectively (which seems entirely appropriate). The Muppet Christmas Carol might not be the most essential version of the tale but it’s definitely one of the most likeable.


***1/2


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…