Eric Jacobson vs. Frank Oz?

[MelissaY1]

I absolutely LOVE Eric Jacobson's performing of Grover. From the voice to the physical mannerisms and the way Grover reacts to stuff, I thought it was very spot on, very close to Frank's way of performing him. I haven't seen him do enough of Bert and Fozzie to make a fair judgment but like others here have said they're good, but not great. perhaps because these characters aren't as utilized as often as Piggy and Grover. Which I think his Miss Piggy is pretty darn good too..

 

[CensoredAlso]

To a certain extent it's unfair to judge the "recast performers", as we aren't seeing them create their own characters. Instead they're having to copy a previous performer's work. (This understanding comes from years of Soap Opera watching!)

 

[spcglider]

To a certain extent it's unfair to judge the "recast performers", as we aren't seeing them create their own characters. Instead they're having to copy a previous performer's work. (This understanding comes from years of Soap Opera watching!)

Oh, absolutely. But it's a BIG difference between "channeling" and really getting the depth of a character and just doing an impersonation based on simple catchphrases and mannerisms.

When someone is "channeling" a character, you can sense a motive intelligence there. It isn't just the performer who's making a puppet move around and say things. The character has a thought process of his own. You can sense a life there... a personality.

I use Shakespeare as an example all the time. You can really tell the difference when somebody is just rattling off the words of Shakespeare or when they actually understand and are communicating with them.

And it's always sad to see good characters reduced solely to their "catchphrase" and made nothing more than a caricature of themselves. And it happens quite often.

Remember early-on when "The Church Lady" on SNL was actually funny? But Dana Carvey and the writers just got lazy and soon the Church lady was reduced to nothing more than a goofy smirk and the lines "Well isn't THAT special?" and "Could it be... SATAN??" That's sad. It was a good character that just about everybody could identify in their own life. But when she got "dumbed down", the gag died.

Look at Donald Duck. If you strictly portrayed Donald as a "Duck about to melt down", he'd get really boring REALLY fast. If you watch the old Donald cartoons, he had a great range of reaction and emotion. He wasn't ALWAYS at the boiling point. That let people get to know him and like him... and identify with him when he did go ballistic.

Recently, (IMHO) Animal has been nothing more than a caricature of himself. Now admittedly, the character ISN'T that deep. But he DOES have more range than lunging at his chain screaming out whatever somebody said last. Remember that AMAZING number he did with Rita Moreno??? Animal was a REAL PERSON as far as the audience was concerned. He had motive and intellect and charisma. The writers NEED to acknowledge that and USE it or the Muppets are going to run the risk of being reduced to Church Lady status.

To me, the Muppet characters represent a modern-day Excalibur. You have to be the RIGHT person to pick it up. Or the peasants won't follow you.

 

[dabauckham]

Oh, absolutely. But it's a BIG difference between "channeling" and really getting the depth of a character and just doing an impersonation based on simple catchphrases and mannerisms.

When someone is "channeling" a character, you can sense a motive intelligence there. It isn't just the performer who's making a puppet move around and say things. The character has a thought process of his own. You can sense a life there... a personality.

I completely agree. It's really a quite unique process, isn't it? Acting, sure, but so much more than simply acting. I don't think there's anything in the world quite like it, which I suppose, is partly why so many of us are obsessed with the magic of puppetry, and the muppets in particular.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I agree, I've always thought a big problem with the "modern" Muppet films is that they're done "Muppets by Number." Various random personality traits, there's no real character there. That's the writing.

 

[D'Snowth]

To a certain extent it's unfair to judge the "recast performers", as we aren't seeing them create their own characters. Instead they're having to copy a previous performer's work. (This understanding comes from years of Soap Opera watching!)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say at one point... it's true actually.

 

[dwayne1115]

yea but still, Eric's Fozzie is not the same as Frank's Fozzie no matter if it is what is writen for him or whatever there is somthing that the preformer gives the Muppet to make it his own. Look at the diffrence in Steve's and Jim's Kermit. A lot of people think Steve's Kermit is a little to full of life sometimes, like all of Steve's other muppets "Rizzo and Bean" So just let Eric get the feel of Fozzie and I'm sure he will find his personality comeing out more in Frank's old muppets.

 

[Ilikemuppets]

This is kind of like mel blank think. His voice changed so much over the years as he got older that nobody really can agree on with is the right one because thet are all different variations of it.

Fozzywas in a lower octive then bert. But now that Frank is older, his bert is lower then in ealier Fozzies is. But the main thing I am heraring with most of these characters is a certian variation of them. I think that Eric sounds like Grover, But an earlier virsion of him, and his Fozzie sounds more like an eariler one. I think evem though it slightly different and more fine tuned that Farnk doing Grover is starting to sound more like an old Grover voice, but the strand part is in part of him aging.

 

[spcglider]

Honestly, I still LOVE first season MS Fozzie. The deep voice, the laid-back-ness. He actually thought he was funny and was oblivious. The more taupe fur color was appealing too. But beyond just the voice, there's a whole performance aspect that we're so accustomed to relating to. That's one thing that puppets have all over animated characters. One performer (mostly). Animated characters are put into motion by a plethora of artists. Their movements are times to a soundtrack or a dialogue track or an effects track. With puppets, they actually develop their own "body language" through the performer.

As human beings, we are mentally hard-wired to read body language and interpret it for each individual we encounter. Every individual has a certain baseline body language vocabulary, but the subtlties of that language are what allow us to be so much more intimate with them.

For example: I have a friend who laughs loud and heartily. When she does, you know that she's truly laughing and has found something very funny. She throws her head back, opens her mouth, laughs with boisterous peals, and then cuts short to return to a short giggle as a finisher. But her "laugh" isn't just that. Its the look in her eyes, its the unconscious position of her hands, it's her posture. If that subliminal stuff changes... it just doesn't read like she's truly found some thing funny.

If someone actually tries to imitate her laugh... and they've tried... it just doesn't come off right. Even the best impersonators, when they hit the volume and pitch, can't consciously copy the intrinsic body language that is uniquely her own.

I dunno...maybe I'm failing at my example. I hope it makes some sense.

But what I'm saying is that assuming these characters takes something more than just nailing the voice part. Even when a character is at rest, they are telegraphing a body language. They are telling us who they are.

I'm not saying that getting that perfect is possible or even necessary, but there is a certain amount of discomfort on both sides of the puppet, audience and performer, while they get to know each other again on that subliminal level.

Wow...can I yammer or what?

-Gordon

 

[D'Snowth]

He actually thought he was funny and was oblivious.

Everyone knows once the comedian thinks he or she's funny, then they're not funny... that probably explains why Denny Siegel isn't funny, but then again Fozzie always was funny, and always will be funny!