The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best Christmas movie of all time. All respect to It's a Wonderful Life, which is the classic, the movie that we save for last every Christmas season, the movie that has made me cry every year for the past eight years. But The Muppet Christmas Carol tops it.
The basic premise of the movie, at first glance, is simple: It is yet another retelling of the Dickens Christmas standard, A Christmas Carol, but told with Muppets. The result is not only as powerful as the source material, but also uproariously hilarious in the slapstick way that the Muppet enterprise has perfected. The Muppet Christmas Carol is the perfect combination of sweet and salty. It's just a wonderful movie, one that me and Pam watch every year, without fail, as soon as the tree is lit.
I'm obviously not alone in my opinion. I don't know anyone, family or friends or fucking anyone, who's ever had a bad word to say about the movie. I just read this article today on Uproxx that was written in obnoxious millennial/gif/hashtag style, but still, the article is positive and makes a case as to why this movie is so great.
So I'm not here to make that case again, because no one is arguing otherwise. I just want to dig a little deeper, and talk about something that no one seems to be talking about. An unspoken hidden level in the storytelling mechanics of the film.
The big unspoken plot structure of The Muppet Christmas Carol is that it is not simply a movie, it is a play-within-a-movie. Just as, at the end of The Muppet Movie, the Muppets put on a play that retells the story just told in the movie, so too are the Muppets putting on a play in The Muppet Christmas Carol.
Which, if my theory is true (and there's absolutely zero evidence that my theory is incorrect), then that explains a few things.
First, it explains how Gonzo (who literally indicates he is playing the part of "Dickens") can keep slipping between being an omniscient narrator and a physical character that can interact with others. Why can he latch on to the Ghost of Christmas Past as they travel back in time without ANYONE noticing, but then also join the Penguins in ice skating while they all cheer? It's simply because that those actions are in the stage direction. Gonzo's role is Dickens, and he and the other characters he interacts with or doesn't interact with are all just following the script. The script calls for ghostly omniscience at some points, and dialogue at others.
This would also mean that Rizzo the Rat, the only character who is not playing a "role," is the only actor who is not following a script. He acts as the Greek Chorus for those watching the movie, but he acts as the improvisor for those acting in the play. Whether Rizzo is playing the role of improvisor based on directorial choice, or he is simply an interloper that was allowed to remain on stage, it is clear that he is different from the other Muppet "actors" in that he is not beholden to the script that the others are following.
Michael Caine, then, is not playing the role of "Scrooge" in The Muppet Christmas Carol. Rather, Michael Caine is playing the role of himself in the movie, who is playing the role of "Scrooge" in the play that the Muppets are performing. There are those who question why Scrooge, the character, would not at any point out the absurdity of any part of his world (for one example, the fact that he employs exclusively rats and frogs?). The answer, per my play-within-the-movie theory, is simply that Michael Caine (the stage actor) is taking his role seriously, and does not break character at any point, even when his street rat employees dress up in Hawaiian shirts and sing in unison.
The aforementioned Uproxx article eyerollingly mentioned that the biggest "problem" with the film is that Mr. and Mrs. Cratchit, a frog and pig respectively, somehow had offspring, who were themselves both frogs and pigs. This is no longer an issue when you consider that they are just fucking acting in a play. It was the director's decision to cast these actors and actresses in these roles. It isn't a comment on biology. It's just artistic choice.
I mentioned that Michael Caine (the Muppet Christmas Carol character) does not break character, but the few times that the "actors" break character are further evidence of the play-within-a-movie theory. The most prominent scene depicting this is the scene with young Scrooge in the old schoolhouse. Sam the Eagle is playing the role of Scrooge's teacher. Also "on stage" are Dickens (played by Gonzo) and Rizzo the Rat (playing no role), and then also Present Day Scrooge (played by the character Michael Caine) and the Ghost of Christmas Past (computer animated).
First, Gonzo and Rizzo accidentally break the shelf they are sitting on. Gonzo breaks character as he yells out in pain, but, as professionals, not another actor acknowledges this stage error. In an attempt to preserve the seriousness of the scene, the other actors on stage ignore the commotion. Professional actors perform in this manner, consummately sticking to script.
But then Sam the Eagle (the actor) flubs the script, saying his line as "the American way!" when clearly this play is taking place in England (per the source material). Gonzo (the actor) helpfully whispers in his co-actor's ear, and Sam corrects the line. Not only is this a fucking hilarious line for us, the movie-watchers, but also it pretty clearly indicates that we are watching a movie of a stage performance.
I'm not sure if the fact that The Muppet Christmas Carol is a play-within-a-movie adds anything to the overall enjoyment of the film, or if it's just some cheap way for me to feel clever about myself. I do know that it clears up any lingering questions you may have about the movie, if you are the type of person who often has philosophical questions about realities of children's movies. Which I am. Clearly.
But regardless of whether you want to view The Muppet Christmas Carol as a simple retelling of a literary classic, or as multi-faceted fictional tale of a group of furry monsters putting on a play and retelling a literary classic, there's still so goddamn much to love about this movie. Honestly, writing about it makes me excited to show my child(ren) this movie when they are a few years old.
Though... maybe I'll wait till they are teenagers to start discussing the nature of metanarrative storytelling and its implications here.
No comments:
Post a Comment