Conversations with Mark

Once in a while I receive an email or message that stands out as having been written by someone with real life experience who thinks critically about my past work.  These thoughts don’t always agree with my own, but that’s not a requirement in order for me to have respect for them.  

I recently received a note from Mark Semczyszyn, self described as not being “some spectre from the scene using a pseudonym. I’m an English guy who grew up with The Muppets. Not a fanboy but I really appreciate the art and how it can invoke an emotional response – make the viewer feel something. That’s a core principle of mine I’ve taken into any professional role (business and technology) that I have undertaken…”

I don’t know Mark personally and we have not corresponded in the past, but because I found his insights to be well said, I am (with his permission) sharing our correspondence with all of you in the hope of spawning even more and deeper understanding and critical thought from those who are, or have been, attracted to the work of Jim Henson.

Again, I receive many notes with similar feelings expressed.  Mark’s is a good summary, and speaks to the reason for responding to them all with my earlier post..

MARK:

Hey Steve.

Long time appreciator of what you do and was gutted when the Disney departure was made public. I’ve read everything you’ve put out, your contributions to other things (the Jim Henson book for one) and read around the lines.

I’m not going to get into the “Muppets aren’t the same” argument. I remember when Jim died and also vividly remember The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson special. I’ve watched you talk about this at various conventions. What strikes me with the arguments and pushback is this.

When Jim died we didn’t have the internet as it is now. When the special was televised (I’m in the UK) It was heartfelt and when Kermit appeared – holy cow, Kermit sounds totally different. It was jarring. But it was the most jarring it would ever be. Fast forward to Christmas Carol, it was Kermit. He didn’t  sound like Jim. But he also didn’t sound like he did in that TV celebration.  He was Kermit.

That was like the span of 18 months? So that’s an amazing thing to have pulled off.

Now we have Kermit. Kermit shills other Disney properties. Kermit is silted. Stale. I’m interested in your view of the latest Muppet Show special. I watched it. I didn’t smile once. Despite the protestations of the performers of today, they don’t have the lineage. It’s such a shame but here’s the thing. I was bought some Kermit coasters as a present back when the 2011 movie came out. Although grateful for the gift the reality was “they’re not the Muppets”. And that was then. This isn’t about how the Muppets aren’t what they once were. You have earned your place as a legend of the art. That should always be recognised. Thanks fella.

Mark

——

SW:

What a thoughtful note, Mark.  It’s funny about Kermit’s momentary appearance at the end of the special in 1990.  We all knew it would be jarring, but Brian was obsessed with the voice far more than the character.  As a result he had the audio people run my voice through some sort of pitch processor/equalizer that not only didn’t sound like Jim, it didn’t sound like me…lol.  It was pretty bad.

The real key to Kermit for me was to stop listening to what anyone else thought and go on my gut instinct based upon my relationship with Jim.  I knew him intimately, and just needed to focus on what I already knew.  So by the time we did Christmas Carol I had zeroed in on the basis of what was needed to represent Jim going forward.

Having done that I find myself in a rather unique niche position of being the only person who has ever translated what Jim originated with firsthand knowledge of from where it all came.  I say that just to say that it can never happen again, and the depth of what Jim created is lost to the Muppets.  I try to pass Jim’s knowledge-base along in anything and everything I do, but for the Muppets, it’s gone.

For me, that includes the new Muppet Show.  I found it shallow and contrived lacking the novelty and creative spark characteristic of, not just of the original show, but everything we created with Jim.  Some of that arises from the frustration of seeing again and again that nobody has any new ideas for the Muppets, or throughout the industry, in general.

I have read comments on the web from people who say they “cried at the end” as Kermit gave his speech in front of the audience.  Really?  Are we as an audience so starved for feelings that this could bring tears?  I found the speech to be poorly written, poorly performed, edited with awkward pauses, uncharacteristic of Kermit, and ‘saccharin’ rather than touching.  It was ‘sappy’ and unmotivated by the events throughout the earlier part of the show.  Matt and Eric were Executive Producers on this thing.  They had full control over all of it, which says to me that this defines the Muppets going forward.

In what I think was one of the most disrespectful acts ever executed by Disney executives, I was cast out of it all over the phone.  That was after more than two years of talks in which those very same executives were assuring me that they very much wanted me to become a sort of ‘creative executive producer’ within the Muppets Studio.  I’m saying that to say that we were set to have a production meeting on what I am convinced would have been the project – a new, fresh idea – that would have given the classic Muppets their best possible chance to be re-introduced to a new generation while keeping them fully in-character.

It’s a real shame it will never happen…you said it best: ‘they don’t have the lineage’.

——

MARK:

Steve, thank you so much. Apart from an hour walking in the sunshine earlier, this has made my day. 

Everything you’ve written makes complete sense. And your thoughts on the new “special” especially with regard to the contrived emotional elements are insightful. 

The performers today seem delusional to maintain the arguments of ‘one voice, one performer’ and ‘character evolution’. They’re complicit in the formula and protesting otherwise is kind of insulting. 

Eric was on record years ago talking about auditioning for Piggy and I remember him asking which season voice they wanted. Season 1, 2 or 3. Regardless of how he has developed as a performer, this illustrates that the desire was for as accurate an ‘impersonation’ as possible. Therefore Piggy branched off at the moment and ceased to develop based on her foundation. And if anyone attempted to counter with Richard Hunt having portrayed Piggy back in the first season, clearly she wasn’t a focussed character at the time but once Frank started developing her, the rest is history. 

Matt has mentioned that during the Kermit audition, the desire from Brian was to more closely mimic how Jim sounded – make it more ‘ooey gooey’. Not surprising given your recollection of your first public appearance. Of course the mandate to “take Kermit back and base him on Jim Henson’s Kermit” repeats exactly the Piggy situation. Jump back to a fixed point in time and branch off from that. Just discard his entire evolution and growth since 1990. 

It makes me speculate that much of this new formula was gestated at Sesame Street. I may be wrong here but we have Matt being the live understudy for Jerry and Carol, that practice of multiple performers was already in operation – accepting that it was ultimately  necessary due to principle performer’s health issues. The one character that was successfully handed over was Elmo in my opinion and I imagine this was made easier by Ryan being extremely talented but also having worked closely with Kevin for a number of years. 

Anyway, I’ll leave you alone now. You keep doing what you’re doing. 

Mark

——-

SW:

Just to say that the ‘jumping back to a fixed point’ is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do to a living, growing character.  It is the epitome of ‘regression’, the total opposite of evolution.  One reason for taking that approach is not having a basis in the core of a character from which to work when tasked with taking on the role.  It exponentiates ‘making the character “your own“‘, rather than taking the approach of nurturing what was already created to allow for its ongoing growth.  Such regression can apply to owners, producers, performers, etc.

——-

MARK:

The fact that you’ve published your thoughts, philosophies, and memories is a gift really.

I recognised your work late Muppet Show but was more appreciative of it come Fraggle Rock, The Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth. You were firmly embedded up there in the core Muppet Performers from then on.

There was always something about your characters – some quality that your writing has shed light on.

I feel it’s such a shame that your original site kind of descended into a platform for your character to be assassinated – just such a pointless waste of effort on the side of those couple of folk responsible. And it seems to be happening again to some extent. 

The thing is, people online are gushing about Muppet projects at the moment and there’s a galvanising effect from your written blog that allows them to focus on their perceived negativity of your words. It’s a shame they can’t see beyond that. What you’ve written (and doubtless will write) is totally valid and totally subjective. You lived it. They didn’t. Let them all get on with it. Maybe one day they’ll look back on their “favourite” use of the Muppets and realise that it stopped standing the test of time a long time ago.

Mark

SW:

Thank you, Mark.