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.
Brady
A lot of people worked hard on that great Muppet Show special, many of whom have worked with the Muppets for years or even decades. Every time you dump on it you’re insulting the efforts of your former colleagues who are still working hard to make good Muppet entertainment. I know you think your opinions are the only “correct” ones and everyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t understand the Muppets, but you’re wrong, and you’re being rude. You should know that you’ve lost the respect of a lot of people who used to admire you.
Steve Whitmire
Yeah, it’s funny, the differences in what people choose to respect. Many have respect for experiential knowledge and integrity, someone who stands up for sharing keystone principles in the consistent attempt to serve all involved. Others seem to favor passivity to avoid processing truths that challenge the picture they have painted in their own minds.
From my very earliest days as a part of Jim’s ensemble we critiqued the work. During the original Muppet Show we would go into Jim’s office once a show was edited from the previous week, sit down as a group (performers, workshop, writers, etc.) in a casual way, watch the edited episode, and talk frankly about what worked, and what didn’t. Jim invited and encouraged us to do that with honesty.
My correspondence with Mark is precisely the kind of open dialogue we would have engaged in back in Elstree.
What you call ‘dumping’ and ‘insulting’ is the exact process that we engaged in with Jim. Are you saying Jim was somehow wrong to create that atmosphere because you interpret it as “rude”?…that it was a way for that group of people to display attitudes that their individual opinions were “…the only “correct” ones…”?
That is absolutely not the case.
This is how Jim nurtured his unique creative environment. I believe it is ‘admirable’. It is the essence of his work and a big part of what allowed a series like “The Muppet Show’ to become the biggest thing on the planet when it was originally created, and the lack of respect for that part of the process in favor of avoiding deep examination of real problematic missteps is a sure sign of its undoing.
Brady, not once in my career have I ever done anything in order to ‘be respected’ by anyone. The pursuit of the approval of others is the curse of social media effecting the performers of today, and has no place in the expression of an artist. As the meme says, “that is none of my concern…”.
Whether it is my defense of Jim’s influence or my performances in the actual work, every step I’ve taken has been in an effort to work in service of the big picture, and with respect, a bigger picture than you have seen. Be careful not to confuse ‘rudeness’ for honesty.
Oz Pardo
of course you don’t need approval of others, you’re a white dude that lives off royalties and convention appearances.
you know what was my favorite part of the new muppet show special? when Bradley Freeman Jr. made Rizzo sing “blinding lights”.
Steve Whitmire
color of their skin, or because they earned a living. If I were to make a claim with the opposites, I would be called ‘racist’. You are always welcome to enjoy anything you like regardless of whether it is true to character, or not.
Brady
BRADY:
Thank you for replying to my comment.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Matt and Eric and everyone else who worked on the special don’t have experiential knowledge and integrity? Surely you think some of them do.
STEVE:
No, I am not suggesting that.
BRADY:
I completely understand the value of a creative process like the one you describe. Do you have any specific reason to believe that the creative team on the special didn’t go through a similar process while it was in progress, to fine-tune the show and make it as good as it could be? I suppose neither of us can say for certain whether they did or didn’t because we weren’t there. But the end result has been well-received by Muppet fans of all ages and by critics, and the Muppet performers who have talked about it online seem to be proud of what they made.
STEVE:
Based on having been in the room during innumerable production meetings to initiate discussions of this type with most of those still involved, I believe that such a process was attempted. Performers will have, as usual, deferred to executives and celebrity opinions, but within their roles as ‘Executive Producers’ will have tried to put forth what they believe to be valid.
We all attain certain levels of experience (and, in turn, development) in our lives. Though many seek to engage in the same endeavors, the experiential knowledge of the individuals producing this reinitialization exists at a level of understanding absent Jim’s direct influence. This is not an insult, it is a fact, and it’s clear that the same levels of understanding exist for a portion of the fanbase, as well.
That means that many viewers who never knew the ‘magic’ and novelty of the timely appeal of Jim’s work directly will never know the difference – it’s a shame, but it appears that more and more Jim is no longer needed for something that looks on the surface like his work to exist. Scratch that surface, and there is often nothing underneath comparable to the original in content or intent.
ANYONE can claim to be “influenced” by Jim Henson (or any other public figure), but keep in mind that there is a big difference (and I keep stressing this…) between an objective relationship with Jim’s work, and an inter-subjective relationship with Jim, himself.
BRADY:
I want to ask you this in all honesty. When you tuned in to watch the special, do you think there was any possibility you might have liked what you saw? Or are you predisposed to dislike everything new the Muppets do because of your disappointing personal experiences with the Muppet ownership? Have you liked anything they’ve done since your departure?
STEVE:
Thank you for asking, and I want to continue to respond in all honesty, as well. Critiquing the work is not something new for me that developed after I was no longer involved. It is not the result of anything to do with modern-day Muppet ownership. I wasn’t liking much of what we were doing over the last twenty years while I was still there because it had drifted so far away off its foundations. (Best last thing in my experience was “Muppet Most Wanted”. After ’The Muppets’ film collaborative efforts between director, performers, and Disney execs began to move in a new positive direction…for a moment in time…)
As had often become the case during the transitional period when Henson was selling The Muppets to Disney, issues originated with the overall concepts of projects, themselves. To broadly generalize the theme of the concerns, they often related to stale, stereotypical uses of the characters that ignored their individual growth, as well as what I referred to as the “overall Muppet group dynamic”. Both were/are well known and well defined. They work(ed) and needed no re-imagining or rebooting.
When I watch any of the work, I look for one thing: recognition of every individual Muppet; am I seeing Who They Are as I know them to be from my experience. I want to be looking in the eyes of the individuals that I know so intimately. That’s what I tuned in with some hope of seeing within this new re-boot, and as a multi-decade observer, participant, and creator, did not recognize.
I don’t care who was underneath them when looking from this perspective. It doesn’t matter. I care that they are or are not Who They Are based upon their origins, just as you’d feel if someone walked into the room claiming to be your best friend who clearly isn’t that person no matter how much they resemble them. The Muppets as Jim established them do not need to be reinterpreted. Their origins need to respected after being fully understood.
There is one exception within the continuation of established Muppet characters that I see as having evolved intact, Janice and Scooter. This is because David has direct intimate knowledge of Richard as a close friend. Note that they are very different people, but David carries the essence of from where these characters came within Richard. It is, in essence, a ‘linear passage’ of characters, just as was Jerry’s passage of characters to Matt, and Jim’s to me.
To make the claim of bringing back a project in a faithful way that was the pinnacle of Jim’s creative spirit is to put oneself in a very precarious position. Going back in time is ‘anti-evolutionary’ (DEvolutionary), and regressive, venturing into a past not known and understood while seeking to reestablish quite well known parameters to a long passed set point to allow for the shortcomings of present-day initiators. Art becomes a sort of plagiarism where what seeps through as so-called ‘art’ (i.e., self expression) has become reinterpretation and ‘making it one’s own’
Once that happens, it is disingenuous to claim it as being legitimately ‘The Muppets’, i.e., to be a true evolutionary extension of the artistic expression of Jim Henson and his originators. That is why I referred to it as a ‘tribute’. It is not theirs to make their own within the claim of legitimacy. Job 1 should be to be faithful.
To take the Muppets in all new directions requires fidelity to the core of who they are, and that requires more than is available at this point. A fresh, new direction with characters fully intact would also have been ‘well-received by Muppet fans of all ages and by critics’, and with that accomplished the performers would have something to truly be proud of, indeed, rather than relying upon the relative safety of shiny reboots when nothing else is drawing sufficient attention.
If moving forward is beyond reach, create something of your own, something new, and take the same risks Jim did for decades in achieving public success beyond his artistic ones. Only then can the claim of ‘making it ones own’ be true.
Evil Jay Leno
But would Jim want you insulting and attacking the opinions of others? Yeah, I don’t think so. You just sound like a grumpy asshole who can’t let go of the fact that The Muppets are still going on without you. Be grateful some Muppet fans still like you. The only reason not everyone hates you is because 1. You hate Disney (which many people already do. Even I hate Disney.) and 2. Alot of people still dislike Matt Vogel’s Kermit. Do you see Frank Oz, Kevin Clash, or any other Muppet performer that has been fired being THIS negative about The Muppets and their replacement? NO. Quit being a crybaby whenever a new Muppet production comes out and just accept the fact Disney will never rehire you.
Steve Whitmire
CONGRATULATIONS! You have just been awarded the”Comments the Day’ Award. Rarely have I seen a more well though out, intelligently informed gathering of facts. Your ability to state a true and direct response to the points made in the post is unsurpassed.
Clearly, you have a deep spiritual connection with the work and philosophy of Jim Henson that has netted you a positive outlook on the world. I’m sure it will allow you to go far in your life. Thanks so much for sharing!
Ben
I’m sorry you got the shaft, Steve. (And so unceremoniously!) The body of work you helped create is sublime and will continue to bring joy to countless folks worldwide for many, many years to come—long after these Disney debacles are forgotten and locked up in the vault. It isn’t fun for anyone hip to the transgressive and clever Muppets of old to watch this sharp decline. I can’t imagine what it’s like for you. It seems no “intellectual property” (yech!) is safe from greedy hands attached to minds that can’t (or don’t care to) comprehend characters beyond their marketability as toys. It’s just a show for kids, right?
I would not be the person I am today without your work. These projects have proved a haven for weirdos, people on the fringes of “polite society.” In a strange way, your work has provided families for many who felt they didn’t fit in anywhere. Take heart in how many children you’ve helped raise into sensitive, intelligent adults! I know I’m one. And how many more there will be, no matter what the bigwigs decide to do next.
AU
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jim Henson passed away before there was a need for an established character to have a new performer. Most performer changes back then were, I’m assuming, agreed upon by both parties (like Richard Hunt giving Elmo to Kevin Clash). Based on your knowledge, what do you think Henson’s view on recasting after a performer’s death would have been? Do you think there are some characters he’d choose to retire permanently? Some that must continue?
Steve Whitmire
Over the years, there have been instances where a background puppet built for the purpose of filling out the background, etc. stepped out and became well known because a performer infused them with character. Elmo is an example of that. Several people manipulated the puppet before it became Elmo.
Kevin taking on Elmo is a perfect example of a highly talented performer like Richard Hunt recognizing that what they are doing with a character was not working and, therefore, passed it along to someone else with a different idea. It might be done out of frustration over numerous attempts and not connecting with the character, or perhaps from others constructively criticizing the performance, but in any event Richard of his own accord sacrificed adding a new character to his list of accomplishments in an effort to do what was best for Elmo – not Kevin, per se, Elmo.
It’s a lesson from which to learn.
Please bear with me for a bit of a preamble before I answer your question about what I think Jim’s view on recasting after the death of the original performer would be:
I am often asked questions as to how I think Jim would feel about present day events. It’s important to me to give as accurate an answer as I am able, and to do that I run my answer through three ‘filters’.
The first is an answer given that reflects my having been in the room with Jim and directly witnessed his expression of an idea, or a point of view, or an opinion about something or someone. I was there. I had the first-hand experience of seeing and hearing for myself the man, himself, state a thought. This is obviously the most reliable place from which to make a statement on Jim Henson’s preferences.
The second type of answer in giving an opinion about Jim is to base my answer on information gathered through conversations and interactions with other people who recall their own experiences with Jim. In that circumstance I take into account my knowledge of that person’s relationship with Jim, as well as my own relationship with them. How well did they know Jim? What criteria would make them a reliable source of factual opinion? What is the context of their answer? Does what they tell me jive with my own experience of Jim and who I knew him to be? Are they being truthful?
Depending on the individual and how trustworthy I deem them to be, this can be a viable basis on which to base my own answers about Jim….or not.
The third is an answer based on my own speculation grounded in my knowledge of the man I knew. While it is educated speculation, it is obviously more opinion than fact. Who knows what Jim would have done or what he would have felt about something unless something relevant happened during the time he was alive to give me an idea?
That said and understood, Jim and I discussed this very thing before his death. I can tell you categorically he had no intention of recasting established characters because of a performer’s absence. He was far more focused on moving ahead, and was actively planning to see new characters created to fill the spaces left if characters were not available.
In the event a core performer was not available for a shoot, rather than desperately recast, Jim planned to reserve space for his core performers to come in and perform their long established characters when their schedules permitted.
Creatively, artistically, and in business, Jim’s intuitive notions give rise to a sort of ‘guidebook’ as to how best to view and manage his creations. They were his ‘gut feelings’ as a creator and originator. Recasting in the event of the death of a performer was uncharted territory. However, with Kermit, (the closest thing to seeing a highly recognizable, established core character placed in the hands of a new performer), Jim had casually designated a replacement. It had been intuitively contemplated to be accomplished by way of a designated linear passage.
Based upon this exemplar, combined with detailed study of Jim’s methods and reasoning, I believe it’s safe to presume that he would have likely implemented similar thinking if passing a character to a new performer posthumously. In other words, a performer would have been chosen within certain criteria rather than selected through the extensive auditions of dozens of candidates.
Jim trusted his intuition to know what to do.
That’s why I worked to initiate a session with Jerry (Nelson) in his later years to have him state to whom he wanted his characters passed. And though it was too late in Richard’s case, Jerry concurred with me that David would have likely been Richard’s choice. But, again, Jim’s overall intention was to create new characters rather than recast, giving opportunities to new performers to create characters that suited them best. That is something that will never happen with the Muppet brand within Disney despite the logic. Executives generally do not have the vision to see beyond what is in front of them, even if it doesn’t work.
Mark Semczyszyn
This is an interesting point. There’s nothing wrong with honest critique at all. Obviously one can deliver it in a rude manner – which isn’t happening here at all.
As for Steve talking about the open and frank discussions between episodes of The Muppet Show, there’s a very interesting episode of the Under the Puppet podcast with Dave Chapman. Dave is a long standing and rather brilliant UK puppeteer. He talks of his “interview” with Frank Oz to assist on Yoda for The Last Jedi. It’s a great story which I won’t quote here but urge anyone interested to seek out. Suffice to say, Frank wanted a frank conversation, observation and critique. Pretty much as Steve describes.
Andrew Kay
Steve, the following is not about the “meat” of your post, but mostly about the comments people make underneath.
I think there’s one thing that should be stressed here.
Surely you DO NOT mean to say that ALL Muppet performers you’ve been working with for 30 years and more — that ALL of them all of sudden started to botch the performance of EVERY Muppet character they used to play (including Dave with Gonzo) and should be fired on the spot?
I am only asking this because THAT is the interpretation that people riding the hype capitalize on. They misrepresent your words to make you seem like some sort of Crazy Harry with a grudge, trying to work his detonator and blow everything Muppet to smithereens. THAT is what most of your critics like the posters above respond to — by being rude and obnoxious at first they try to protect their beloved characters and performers from being hurt by “Crazy Steve”. And then they usually soften up and switch to deep intelligent discussion once they realize you are not as insane as they were led to believe by all the angry podcasts and youtube videos they saw. (See, these hype guys are not called “influencers” for nothing!)
Let me try to explain how I see the situation in my own words, just to show that different opinions do exist — I take it that you really mean no offence or insult to the rest of the performers (God knows you had enough of that yourself!) The current performers are the actually same unique and solid Muppet guys we used to know for decades, with the same impressive talents and skills that made them part of the Muppets team in the first place. Today, just as decade before, even though we no longer have Jim, Richard,Jerry and Frank on the show (and one can feel it!), we still have Dave, Bill, Eric, David, Peter and Matt, who really try their best to serve their characters as well as they possibly can, based on their best understanding of their characters nature.
It’s just that without having the real, fully authentic and recognizable Kermit present in the middle of it all, deeply engaged throughout the show as the center of the entire Muppet whirlwind, even the noblest efforts of all the brilliant people involved can fall short of real, authentic, fresh and original Muppet performance, making the overall production to become a “tribute”, instead. People do feel this — all these “too much Miss Piggy” viewer complaints about the Special actually sound like the other side of their perception of “not enough real Kermit” in the show.
Speaking of that, it is not Matt’s fault either. Matt is a great guy and a talented performer. He is wonderful with his other characters. It’s just that to pass Kermit along, one cannot just pick a person, set him to watch youtube videos, and give him the job. First, you have to start with compatible personality and background, “a seed of it” already inside your soul. Next, you need to soak in an important part of the established performer psyche, his acting specifics, manipulation style and the thought processes for the character. In other words, you have to “get it”. This happens on almost subconscious level, best done by working closely together for years, and by knowing each other well. That is what happened with Frank and Eric. That is what happened with Richard and David. That is what happened with Jerry and Matt. That is why these recasts work as well as they do. I disagree with Mark on this, the “linear succession” was present to a large degree for these characters (and one can feel it, too!). Without this, inheriting ANY established Muppet character would take a huge effort, a great deal of talent, keen intuition for the character’s essence and a lot of lucky guesswork, bordering on a miracle. Even at that, it is zillion times harder with Kermit, the most complex and well-rounded character created and evolved by Jim throughout his life, and further nourished for all these years by yourself. Just pushing Kermit on somebody else does not work, if the necessary core background, deep knowledge of character history and fundamentals, and the years of apprenticeship are missing! Without it, be that Matt or any other performer, what we get is Kermit _A_ Frog on the show, not Kermit The Frog we know =)
There is another part to that, the performers working with the writers to ensure that the script supports the characters, and would not make them say or do out-of-character things, inconsistent with original established behavior, something that the character we know could never do. Again, in order for this to work, one should have the deep and completely authentic understanding of his character — which returns us to the same points above, the lineage of character succession, principally critical for Kermit.
The third and the most important part is the general direction the Muppets are taking, the projects which get approved, the producers, writers and directors making pivotal decisions affecting Muppets lives and their future (e.g. if not for unfortunate ideas accepted for ABC series in 2015, Kermit would have evolved differently). Here again, an advocate for the authenticity of the characters who is speaking from a position of authority, a person who knows the characters on a very deep historical level, becomes all too crucial to monitor the development and advise on the project. Not having a highly authentic person like this in a decision-making position can turn the best efforts to nothing. That is why they should try to get as many original Henson people involved in the project as they can, while they still do have this option, to preserve the Muppets authentic and “pure” nature (as Frank calls it) while they can, and do something fresh ON TOP of this foundation, instead of razing it to the ground and starting afresh with the new interpretations of the characters.
SO this is really what is is all about, taking note and somehow fixing the issues and the drawbacks above. It is NOT about all of the current Muppet performers turning into bad apples, NEITHER about all of their performances becoming subpar all of sudden, NOR about “Crazy Steve” trying to get back at everyone to settle a grudge (which some people try to read into your words). The real people responsible here, the guys holding Muppets authenticity and their future hostage, are the ones making project staffing decisions. However, in a stroke of genius, some people on the web try to transfer the blame for any performance shortcomings, and negative reactions caused by that, on the only person alive who has a lifetime experience of being the real Kermit. The hype people try to raise a wave of public upset against any critical comments you are trying to make, and discard your points about the way Jim used to run the Muppets himself. (Smart move! Like i said before, these hype guys are not called “influencers” for nothing!)
Speaking of that, Frank usually avoids being dragged thru this mud by starting any critical comment he makes with “I love the performers as my brothers, but…” and then proceeds with the bitter truth and his ideas of what’s necessary to return the Muppets back on track. =)
So here it is. In case if i’m wrong somewhere in my understanding above, could you please comment and clarify your position?
Steve Whitmire
Andrew,
I think I covered all of your comments here, and I couldn’t have said any of this better, myself. As I read your words, I had the thought that this is sort of what it would look like if all of what I have advocated was fed into an “AI” bot that was asked to summarize, and this is what it came up with. So, I will only respond to your first paragraph.
First, one little ‘FYI’ note on your comment that ‘passing along an established character is “best done by working closely together for years, and by knowing each other well”. I, of course, agree with that, but note that was not the scenario between Eric and Frank. Miss Piggy was the high priority for the Hensons to recast, and most of the input and direction Eric received on Piggy came from me, not the preferred source, but not the worst, either.
——————————————————————————
“Surely you DO NOT mean to say that ALL Muppet performers you’ve been working with for 30 years and more — that ALL of them all of sudden started to botch the performance of EVERY Muppet character they used to play (including Dave with Gonzo) and should be fired on the spot?”
Correct. I am not suggesting that any of them should be fired. Each one is a part of a small, select team of arguably the top performers in the world of a particular style of puppetry, and each one of them serves a vital and specific role within the Muppets, as did I.
At the same time, even the best in the world are not suited to any and every thing put in front of them – that most certainly includes me, as well. The diversity of the ensemble is its greatest strength – Jim knew that – and when a vital member of that ensemble is removed haphazardly, it fractures the Whole, just as when we lost Jim, just as when executives pushed me out.
In terms of my being characterized as some form of ‘crazy’, I think it’s easier for casual Muppet passersby to disregard the brain cells that necessarily need to be expended to fully comprehending what I am saying. It’s much easier to sink into an archaic level and start throwing insults.
Understand that everything I’ve advocated (within Disney and now) is through a very clear filter based on the statement “What is best for the Muppets in this circumstance?”. The answer to that is carefully and objectively obtained based upon an integral study of Jim’s influence and methodologies so that it goes well beyond “What are Steve’s preferences?”.
Also, just as an aside, keep in mind that it would have been far “better’ and “more profitable” for me to have gone to work, hit my marks, read my lines, never stood up for Jim, and taken a check to the bank. Trust me – the way it all went down was far from anything resembling ‘taking a selfish stand for my own benefit’…lol
Andrew Kay
Yep. About the Muppets being a diverse (and fine-tuned) harmonious ensemble, a synergy of distinctive individual talents — the same happens when any prominent member of a great music band has to leave the group. It takes a hit. The band remains but you can feel that the music isn’t quite the same.
Maalik Naiem
Hi Steve,
I just want to say I do understand your stance better on this matter, and I do apologize if I had anything to frustrate you before. I had allowed myself to start giving into the backlash that came after your blog post earlier this year. While I don’t quite agree with everything you are saying, I do think you still make some valid points here.
In Frank’s case, from what I understand, it came down down to a situation where he got too busy directing to perform as much, and there was a desire at the Henson Company to use his characters more. And Frank said that he felt it would be unfair to tell them not to do so, which is why he allowed his characters to be recast. Interestingly, he and Eric did alternate between performing Bert during the 2000s, and I know you said in an interview it was a bit weird to have them both perform that character.
While Frank and Eric did not work closely together, they are on civil terms with each other from what I understand, and they have both said complimentary things about each other in interviews. Eric even said he was looking forward to hopefully get to know Frank better working on “The Cheapest Muppet Movie Ever Made,” which obviously never happened.
Steve Whitmire
I would say that’s pretty much the way it happened. There is more to the story, but that covers it sufficiently for all intents and purposes.
I recall that the deciding timeframe was when Henson wanted to do a commercial for LAY’S Potato Chips with Piggy. The choice was between Kevin Clash and Eric as Piggy. Frank chose Kevin for the manipulation style (which Kevin had done standing in throughout Muppet Treasure Island) and Eric for the nearest voice quality (which I agreed with at the time), but the trouble with that decision is that Piggy could never again be used for live appearances if she was ‘split’ between two performers because of the cumbersome production issues. More importantly, she would no longer evolve as an individual persona. It would have made no sense for Frank to come back when he was available.
I was consulted and, between the two candidates, suggested Eric for Piggy only because it seemed his puppetry and sense of character could potentially improve with experience and direction, and Kevin’s voice was never likely to be an approximation of Frank’s very unique vocal quality (even though his manipulation was far superior).
I was asked to work with Eric on the character, in particular, which is why I am keenly aware of differences in who she became after Frank. It was inevitable that Piggy would never be the same again, and during the whole process I was an advocate of what Jim and I had discussed – that a space for characters as prominent and well known as Piggy would be held for those special times when Frank could, in fact, be available (as was done on Muppets Tonight).
But like Disney after them, the Hensons had different priorities – operating under the misconception that anything that looks and sounds like Piggy is more important than creating something new in her place while holding space for Frank, when possible, took priority over the value of the years that were behind her great depth of the character.
While I might have prioritized differently that decision wasn’t ‘wrong’, per se. It’s just not what Jim was thinking, and at that point so soon after Jim’s death, following his guidance seemed to me to be important to lay the foundations of moving on. I would have decided in favor of giving new puppeteers an opportunity to develop characters who could have, essentially, filled the void left by Piggy’s absence until on she could return occasionally fully intact and in character.
But to do that would have required trusting ones instincts and taking creative risks, a big part of what we now call Jim’s ‘creative genius’.
Andrew Kay
Eric says in his interviews that he spent a lot of time working with Frank and studying his process, and i always assumed that it played into his picking up Frank’s style for his characters — though he wasn’t there for Treasure Island. However, googling it now, it seems Frank’s busy schedule did not allow him much time to specifically coach Eric even on his Sesame characters, and he had to soak it in by watching Frank in action.
Quite a feat! Did you play similar role in passing Fozzie, as well?
Btw, Eric always says that if Frank would ever be able to pick up his characters, “”Frank has a parking spot reserved any time he wants to come back.”, which i think is a decent and proper thing to say.
Steve Whitmire
Hi Andrew, I appreciate your thoughts.
I am not aware of any time spent with Frank specifically working on passing the characters to Eric. Had “The Cheapest Muppet Movie Ever Made” happened, it might have brought that about since Frank would have been directing. Frank would have performed his characters, but Eric might have been standing in, etc.
Eric’s time observing Frank would have likely been at Sesame Street. Otherwise, it goes back to things I’ve stated previously about trying to ‘synthesize well established characters objectively’. Trying to learn them from the outside can only go so far. Eric’s big advantage is his ability to mimic Frank’s voices, but that doesn’t give depth to the character. He would benefit from having known Frank personally, and working to gain more of Frank’s mindset.
On the Sesame Street characters, I would offer one hypothesis that is not something I necessarily strongly believe, but might be a factor. While I think Frank could give you backstory on any of his creations, I see the Sesame Street Muppets as sharing less depth with the audience than those from The Muppet Show – not that they don’t have depth – they do – but it might be true that they have less opportunity within their world to express it to the point where we, as viewers, are as aware of it…when I read back what I just wrote I cringe a little because I know that Bert as originally created by Frank truly has great depth, giving him a certain comedic timing that is not there to the same extent now. As with Piggy, Fozzie, Animal, etc., it simple has not transmigrated because there was no facilitation.
As you know, we can speak about these characters from different perspectives, both as objective puppet characters performed as different versions at different times by different people, and as very tangibly living breathing entities in and unto themselves. Both are partial truths. As creators, I have always taken the position that we need to treat them, first and foremost, as the latter, and give them the same considerations given to any individual in this world.
I agree with your comment about the ‘parking spot’ comment being the “proper thing to say”, but then, what else could he say publicly? He and I discussed it in great detail, and he was certainly not crazy about giving up that ‘parking spot’ when Frank was planning to return and perform for the proposed film in 2010. It’s easy to say when you know the originator won’t be back.
The comment falls into the realm of viewing the Muppets objectively, as roles to be discussed, reinterpreted and played by any number of performers. It shifts the attention away from entities in this world named ‘Miss Piggy’, or Bert’, and instead places attention on Eric Jacobson or Frank Oz.
It becomes a way of saying implicitly that his own portrayal is so seamless and identical to Frank’s that you as a fan would never know the difference on screen, that the objective characters in question have not changed so that someone who knows them as an originator could simply step back in and pick up their existence twenty years later, that they have not/do not evolve/change. They have been perfectly preserved in the event of another performer returning.
I don’t accept that as being the case. If it is, then someone else can simply step in and replace both Eric and Frank, and either can still step in whenever they like. It negates the integrity and individuality of the actual characters (where I advocate the focus needing to be), the tangible living breathing entities we recognize.
If extrapolated out, that is, essentially, ‘multicasting’, the corporate approach, roles to be played rather than souls to be evolved. Sounds like “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”. It negates, for me, the notion of Frank being ‘welcome back anytime’ as a little like false humility. It’s the right thing to say politically.
Andrew Kay
You are right, of course. Asking Frank to step in now would be the same thing as taking Miss Piggy back to TMS stage, discarding decades of her life and development.
But the above also explains why i dreamed for years of seeing Frank performing again, if only for a single celebratory performance (somehow i would always pick Fozzie if i had to choose only one). There are things missing, the depth and “freshness” of the original personality i am so nostalgic for — even though Eric himself is very likely the best that could happen to continue the characters after Frank.
Mark Semczyszyn
There’s a video essay doing the rounds on YouTube at the moment talking about Steve’s original post. I popped a comment on if because I honestly feel that some of the points being made do ignore or misinterpret Steve’s comments. Anyway, here’s what I said. Mark
This is an interesting video essay. Well put together for sure but I feel some of the points are being reinforced based upon the video author’s reading of Steve’s posts.
When Jim died, if the company was to continue (and remember that it hadn’t been sold to Disney at this point) there was no other option but to recast Kermit and clearly the “family business” had many discussions about how this could or should be done and Steve was offered the opportunity to carry Kermit forward. He didn’t have to accept the challenge (he’s spoken of this in the past) but I doubt there would have been an open audition process back in the day. It was still a very close knit family run business. How they’d have dealt with such a situation is a really interesting thing to consider. Maybe Steve will share his views one day?
With Steve being removed, they did have options and the one chosen was for series of workshops (auditions) which demonstrates just how different things now are. Of course the other option would have be not to fire Steve and to nurture the lineage tradition of handing over a character when the time is right for both original and new performer. Steve has never actually said that no one can perform Kermit that didn’t know Jim personally. He’s stated that his relationship with Jim was essential at the time for him to “find” Kermit’s soul and grow upon it over time. Now this last bit is the crucial part – Matt has discussed the audition and the direction to take Kermit back to Jim’s interpretation thus disregarding any of his growth post 1990. From Steve’s point of view, how wouldn’t that sting?? And in reality it never needed to be handled this way. It just was.
Bill taking over Rowlf and Dr Teeth had been a gift though. There was no way for any lineage handover for those two characters, hence they remained silent for so long. His work with them is brilliant and he has defiantly benefitted from working with both Steve and Dave to help get a handle on them.
Anyway, this isn’t a “what you say is wrong” comment and the world is big enough for any number of camps to coexist. You can love/like/appreciate the new special and still be interested in Henson’s philosophies.
Steve Whitmire
I spend so little time scanning the internet and social media, so haven’t seen anything on YouTube, but don’t doubt there is plenty out there. As several have been good enough to do here, it would be good if people clarified what it is they misunderstand about anything I have stated, rather than post presumptions. I am always happy to discuss any of it in a civil way.
Mark Semczyszyn
So here are three posts I put on BlueSky today after stumbling across a YouTube video from Larry King Live in 1993.
Here’re a couple of fascinating clips from Larry King Live 1993. I’ll post them as replies to this. It shows the characters of Kermit and Miss Piggy are still at their peak. Totally intact. Keep some of the things said here in mind for context if you decide to read Steve Whitmire’s blog posts.
Larry interviews Kermit and Piggy. The rapport and character work here is incredible. This is peak Frank Oz playing Piggy. So nuanced and clearly that depth is missing in her today. There’s also one hell of a bit of puppet manipulation at the end. https://youtu.be/nbbNHyjgjw4?si=lxXjWoPoOAzjyRT3
Now we have Larry interviews Frank Oz and Cheryl Henson from the same show. Frank’s views and words are incredibly insightful and Cheryl is pretty open about continuing the company. That all went out of the window 10 years later with the Disney deal. https://youtu.be/9iB-KssbYKo?si=TJivV-SfsRWet6f3
Maalik Naiem
I would agree this is intriguing and insightful to watch. This was definitely one of the best times that Frank and Steve performed off each other in my opinion, along with the Bert and Ernie scenes in “The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland.” From which I have heard, those were added into that film late in production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZULYFzcZVGo