By Amy Van Veen & Nick Ubels (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: November 30, 2011
Amy: Everyone can toot their horn about how Kermit and the gang affected their childhoods. Everyone has a story about their favourite Muppet. Or about their favourite Muppet movie (just going to take my turn to say, The Muppet Movie is my favourite Muppet movie). The point is the real discussion that comes around with Jason Segel’s The Muppets has to be the uncertainty and pre-release criticism of Muppets creator, veteran Muppeteer and famed voice artist of Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear and Animal (and Yoda). According to his interview with The Metro, Oz is on record with his disapproval: “I wasn’t happy with the script. I don’t think they respected the characters. But I don’t want to go on about it like a sourpuss and hurt the movie.” After watching The Muppets, though, I can’t think of a more respectful way to bring back the old gang. From the attitudes of the characters, the dynamics with the human actors and the brilliant use of cameos that they’re famed for, I was left smiling so much my face was both frozen and in severe pain at the same time. Do you think the characters were respected?
Nick: I really enjoyed The Muppets. While it’s near impossible to measure up to the quality of the first three films, especially 1979’s The Muppet Movie, I feel like the new movie works in a lot of important ways: the laughs are often right on the mark, the original music courtesy of Flight of the Conchord’s Bret McKenzie is a major highlight and you can tell that Jason Segel and Nick Stoller’s script is coming from a place of sheer admiration for Henson’s beloved series. Frank Oz’ comment has to be taken with a grain of salt. After all, he was working on his own script when Disney decided to go with Segel’s instead. After seeing the film, I would argue that Segel’s undying love for the Muppets might have hampered some of the potential for originality. Aside from the Walter and Gary plot, there seems to be an unwillingness to try a whole lot new when it comes to the classic Muppet characters. They are framed in a story that deifies Kermit and friends before we ever see them on-screen. The producers tread a very fine line between nostalgia and respect, sometimes veering too much towards the former, like when we get a new version of the Muppets’ most famous song “The Rainbow Connection.” These obviously heartfelt moments unfortunately feel more like really high budget fan-fiction. It’s charming, but will it stand the test of time like Henson’s early movies?
Amy: First of all, I must say I was ignorant that Bret McKenzie was involved in the music, but it makes sense why it struck such a chord with me (pun intended). As for the question of whether or not it will stand the test of time, I’m okay with the fact that it was, as you say, “high budget fan-fiction” because that’s exactly what I wanted to see – even if I wasn’t aware of it as I headed into the theatre. After such a long hiatus, I think this film had to play that role to both reintroduce the Muppets to new fans and reignite the Muppet flame with old fans. I felt convicted of my faded love for the Muppets over the years and the childlike enthusiasm that Segel brought from his own experience into the film was contagious. Even as I was leaving the theatre, I brought up the issue of Frank Oz—as you mentioned—and the people I was with easily responded, “Well then let him make another movie! I want more!” The general consensus seems to be a new wave of Muppet magic for the generation that grew up with them back in the ‘70s to the generation we grew up in with Muppet Treasure Island and The Muppet Christmas Carol to today’s generation of tweeting, internet savvy, CGI-everything fools who have the chance to learn to love Muppeteering. Do you think this revival of Kermit, his banjo and his friends is as sincere as the movie wants us to believe? (That does include a genuine interest in whether or not there will be a big musical number in the streets.)
Nick: I like what you said about sense of wonder Jason Segel brings to the film. It’s one of the Muppets’ most appealing aspects and draws on Henson’s storied whimsy. I have no doubt that this is not the last we’ve seen of the Muppets. The box office numbers have yet to come in, but even the late weeknight screening I saw was nearly half-full. If it is even remotely successful, I’m sure Disney will take full advantage of the newfound brand popularity. The “magic of Disney” is downright distracting in the tacky Cars 2 poster placement that we see in the two aerial shots of the Muppet Theatre. This brings me to another problem I had with the film: it felt like it was a movie around the Muppets rather than starring the Muppets. The point of the movie seemed to be to celebrate the Muppets, which I wholeheartedly support as a general principle, but this theme lacks the requisite weight to anchor a movie. It’s a little too on the nose. Show us why we should love them, don’t just tell us to love them. More might have been done through a story that focused on what made the Muppets so endearing rather than talking about it so much. It’s hard to divorce these elements from the film as this meta-Muppets approach certainly allows the filmmakers to do a lot that they would not otherwise be able to do (the standout “Man or Muppet” sequence comes to mind). Like I said, it definitely works, but in the end, I think Segel and company sacrifice a lot by playing it a little too safe. I’m also curious about your take on the degree to which the movie breaks the fourth wall. Do they lay it on too thick?
Amy:The breaking of the fourth wall was what I loved most about the film. It’s that incredibly self-aware comedy where they realize they want the audience to know that they know what the audience is thinking. I think it did a good job of bringing the audience into the film and being a part of the Muppets. There was even that rather meta moment when the audience was watching Walter watching television and the Muppets came out to join him much in the same way they do when they break the fourth wall. I thought it did a good job of both appealing to children and to adults. However, I can see what you mean about being so on-the-nose – in the same way they’re bringing people in on their own joke, they risk alienating people, old and new fans alike.
Nick: Another problem with this celebratory approach is that it (perhaps unintentionally) skews the characters’ values ever so slightly. It positions fame as the most important value, whereas other films in the series put a premium on togetherness and putting on a show for the hell of it. I think this most comes out in Kermit’s storyline. When we run into Kermit, he’s a big shot Hollywood recluse who lives in a giant house populated by poster-size magazine covers of the famous frog. It’s funny, but I never really imagined Kermit as that much of a narcissist; he’s always been the humble everyman. The hermit thing definitely makes sense considering his origins as the only singing frog in the swamp. This crops up again in the end when Kermit tells Miss Piggy that if they don’t make enough money to save the theatre, this might be the last time they’ll sing together. I don’t buy it. If there’s one thing the Muppets have taught me, especially in The Muppets Take Manhattan, it’s that if you have a dream, you can’t give it up so easily. If you love to sing, you should still do it even if it isn’t in front of a big time audience. And in the end, when Kermit exits the theatre and legions of fans are waiting for him, we’re being told everything will be okay because the Muppets are still famous. In a strange way, this makes it impossible to dislike The Muppets lest you be accused of disliking the Muppets. Luckily for me, neither is true.
Amy: I think you raise a couple of incredibly valid points. In regard to Kermit being a narcissistic Hollywood recluse, I didn’t see him as being all that narcissistic. For some reason he reminded me of Alan Alda – living in a home in a city that he loves and surrounding himself with these photos and magazine covers not as a means of vanity, but as a memory. Walter’s the one that wants to get everyone together and save the theatre and, additionally, if Kermit was as narcissistic as he seems, he would have filled the empty spot in the telethon with his own act, instead of asking a new kid to fill in because they’re all together in it. As for the idea that dreams conquer everything, I think it’s still there, but I also think Kermit shows his humanity (or frog-ity?) with being disheartened. He recognizes that Miss Piggy has a life and he’s not really part of it anymore – in that way, too, he’s not so self-involved because he doesn’t assume everyone else will drop their lives for the show. I do think, though, that these are not the same Muppets. The years have changed—maybe even hardened—some of these friendly fellas.
Nick: One element of the film that I would like to discuss is the blurring of the previously strict lines between The Muppet Show and the Muppet movies. It seems that Henson’s classics exist in a world outside of The Muppet Show. The tone is certainly different. This latest movie not only acknowledges the existence of the television show, I feel it draws more on its style by way of pop music covers, pop culture referencing gags and the inclusion of characters like Dr. Honeydew and Beaker.
Amy: I thought the switch was really apparent, too, but in a different way. Instead of not acknowledging the TV show in the previous movies, this movie didn’t acknowledge previous movies and instead built off The Muppet Show. If this was, in fact, a reunion of all the characters, you think they’d have mentioned the Muppet Treasure Island that was released in 1996, but instead they focus on The Muppet Show that ran from 1976 to 1981. It was an odd choice to do it that way, but I can see why they would – they’re building off the idea of a reunion and a reunion only makes sense if there’s been a large absence. Additionally, Gary, Mary and Walter need a journey and The Muppet Studios in Los Angeles is the perfect device for that.
