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.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.