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.





Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was