Skip to main content

I’ve seen detergents that leave a better film than this.

The Muppet Movie
(1979)

(SPOILERS) I like The Muppets – love some of the individual ones – but I’m not sure the movie format has ever entirely suited them. Their best puppeteered foot forward in this regard may actually be the spoof/pastiche format adopted by The Muppet Christmas Carol and Treasure Island in the 90s, since it ensures a robust frame for whatever mayhem and gags they wish to hang on it. Here, in their first big screen outing, events are strung together in a freewheeling “genesis of The Muppet Show” narrated prequel format that only fitfully offers inspiration (and laughs).

The Muppet Show writers Jack Burns and Jerry Juhl duly transfer to screenwriting and James Frawley, of The Big Bus – producer Julia Phillips said of him, “I always think of him as Jim Fraud-ly. His claim to fame is that he failed as an actor and succeeded as the director of most segments of The Monkees” – was signed as director. It seems no one was very happy with the choice, Frawley included, hence the Jim Henson and Frank Oz helmed sequels. The picture does make that transition to locations effectively, though, even if the choice of full body muppets (Kermit on a bike, Fozzie dancing on stage) sometimes feels unnecessarily ostentatious.

The travelogue format – Kermit leaves his Florida swamp for LA with the promise of auditions for frogs (“You get your tongue fixed, you could make millions of people happy”), meeting various regulars along the way, while hassled by Charles Durning’s frog legs restaurateur, who wants Kermit as spokesperson – is simultaneously loose enough to insert whatever business comes to mind, but not sparky enough to lead to anything truly off the wall. The succession of cameos – James Coburn, Telly Savalas, Carol Kane, Elliot Gould, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Orson Welles, Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise – pass by largely without a titter. Steve Martin’s Insolent Waiter at least gets to riff a bit, while Mel Brooks rolls out a mad German scientist. Paul Williams also shows up, as well as providing the tunes. He’s a fine songsmith but none of the songs here really count as classics.

So it’s left to the more meta-elements to yield the best and cleverest laughs. The framing device finds the Muppets gathering for a movie screening showing how they really got started (“Well, it’s approximately how it happened”). Statler and Waldorf roll up in a limo (“We’re here to heckle The Muppet Movie”). At one point, Kermit pulls out a copy of the screenplay to avoid providing Dr Teeth and The Electric Mayhem with a lengthy recap of how he and Fozzie Bear came to be at their old church. Subsequently, this is used by Dr Teeth to find them when they are stranded in the desert (I did think they shouldn’t have cut away when Dr Teeth stops reading at the point of Kermit and Fozzie entering the church, and should instead have carried on to the point where Kermit hands him the script).

Later, the film breaks down – à la Gremlins 2: The New Batch – thanks to the Swedish chef’s inept projecting (“I’ve seen detergents that leave a better film than this” observes Waldorf). Come the end, Lew Lord (Welles) allows them to turn their trip to see him into their first movie (complete with studio flats), and as it concludes, Sweetums, who has been chasing after Kermit for most of the film, bursts through the projection room screen.

There are also some dependably dry remarks from Sam the Eagle (“Kermit, does this film have socially redeeming value?” he inquires before it starts; asked what he thinks at the end, his verdict is “It was sick and weird”) The characters themselves are dependable, from the Kermit and Piggy simmering, one-sided passion (“Miss Piggy, you look beautiful” before adding to the audience “Movie talk”), to Gonzo and his derring-do (in the desert, Kermit finds himself talking to his better self: “He’s a little like a turkey”; “Yeah a little like a turkey, but not much” comes the reply).

What’s notable is how massive the movie was, released as it was during the heyday of the show. Inflation-adjusted, it was far and away the biggest of the franchise, and reached seventh for the year at the US box office, trailing Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Alien, but beating The Jerk and Moonraker. It thus sent Lew Grade on an unwise mission, boldly expanding his film productions, which led to Saturn 3 and more particularly, the enormous bomb that was Raise the Titanic. The Muppets would return to diminishing interest in The Great Muppet Caper (that’s the one with the John Cleese cameo), and by the time of the next, The Muppets Take Manhattan, they were due one of their periodic hiatuses.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.