spcglider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 3
To continue my thought above:
When I referred to the Muppets as "broad but not very deep" I was alluding to the following, in which I personally find great validity.
Scott McCloud, in "Understanding Comics", talks at length about what he calls "the masking effect". This is basically a character mechanism that allows an audience member to "assume" the role of that character. I'm not speaking literally, of course.
It is a method of immersion for the viewer/reader. Surely we've all identified with a favorite Muppet character or, at least, wished we could be more like Rowlf or Kermit or Piggy or even Gonzo? Its a natural, emotionally driven response in humans... to desire to be more like that which we admire.
In comic book characters, especially heroes, writers have traditionally kept them "blank slates". Meaning that they don't burden them with overwhelming personal hang-ups or emotional baggage or strongly held beliefs beyond those necessary to their function as a hero. (A notable exception to this is Spiderman, but his character baggage hasn't significantly changed in the last 30 years) Why? Well, lets say Superman suddenly came out as a racist bigot. What would happen? On a primal level, a major number of readers would no longer be able to identify with the character. They would no longer feel the desire to put that character on as a "mask" and vicariously experience the adventure through his eyes. So, the character necessarily remains, to a degree, "shallow". Too much in the way of polarizing attitude alienates audience. The writer understands that, in order for people to WANT to identify with him, the character MUST remain partially "empty" so that the reader can "fill" the character with themsleves. Bring along their OWN personal baggage to make the process more comfortable.
We know that, on the whole, the Muppet characters are good at heart, realtively innocent, and positive. But we don't know, say, what Kermit's religion is. We don't know the private thoughts of how Fozzie views his co-workers. We don't know the seminal influence that causes Gonzo to be sexually attracted to chickens. And frankly, we don't want to know. If we did, it might change our view of the character in a way that would alienate us.
For those of you who know StarWars take, for example, the character of Boba Fett. Throughout episodes 3,4,5, he was a character dripping in mystique. He was, beyond a doubt, the most popular Star Wars character. He was mysterious. He was deadly. He would kick your butt and not bat an eyelash (if he even had eyes under that groovy helmet).
But when the "prequels" came out, we were informed that this mysterious character was really nothing more than an angry clone boy who saw a Jedi kill his progenitor. Mystique ruined. His popularity dropped through the floor and fans everywhere started to emulate the NEW mysterious character...Jango Fett. After we knew everything about Boba Fett, there was no room left in the character for "masking".
Any time we feel empathy with Fozzie when Statler & Waldorf are raking him over the comedy coals, every time we feel the emotion that Kermit experiences when he sings "Bein' Green", every time we wish we could be pushing the plunger when Crazy Harry pops his head through the curtain and blasts something to smithereens... its an example of masking.
That having been said, if the Muppets are "deep" as characters, I would submit that it is because WE provide that depth with our selves via this "masking effect". I also submit that the genius (conscious or otherwise) of the original performers and writers who created the characters maintained that "shallow roominess" in all the Muppets so we'd be able to do just that.
Crazy, huh?
-Gordon
When I referred to the Muppets as "broad but not very deep" I was alluding to the following, in which I personally find great validity.
Scott McCloud, in "Understanding Comics", talks at length about what he calls "the masking effect". This is basically a character mechanism that allows an audience member to "assume" the role of that character. I'm not speaking literally, of course.
It is a method of immersion for the viewer/reader. Surely we've all identified with a favorite Muppet character or, at least, wished we could be more like Rowlf or Kermit or Piggy or even Gonzo? Its a natural, emotionally driven response in humans... to desire to be more like that which we admire.
In comic book characters, especially heroes, writers have traditionally kept them "blank slates". Meaning that they don't burden them with overwhelming personal hang-ups or emotional baggage or strongly held beliefs beyond those necessary to their function as a hero. (A notable exception to this is Spiderman, but his character baggage hasn't significantly changed in the last 30 years) Why? Well, lets say Superman suddenly came out as a racist bigot. What would happen? On a primal level, a major number of readers would no longer be able to identify with the character. They would no longer feel the desire to put that character on as a "mask" and vicariously experience the adventure through his eyes. So, the character necessarily remains, to a degree, "shallow". Too much in the way of polarizing attitude alienates audience. The writer understands that, in order for people to WANT to identify with him, the character MUST remain partially "empty" so that the reader can "fill" the character with themsleves. Bring along their OWN personal baggage to make the process more comfortable.
We know that, on the whole, the Muppet characters are good at heart, realtively innocent, and positive. But we don't know, say, what Kermit's religion is. We don't know the private thoughts of how Fozzie views his co-workers. We don't know the seminal influence that causes Gonzo to be sexually attracted to chickens. And frankly, we don't want to know. If we did, it might change our view of the character in a way that would alienate us.
For those of you who know StarWars take, for example, the character of Boba Fett. Throughout episodes 3,4,5, he was a character dripping in mystique. He was, beyond a doubt, the most popular Star Wars character. He was mysterious. He was deadly. He would kick your butt and not bat an eyelash (if he even had eyes under that groovy helmet).
But when the "prequels" came out, we were informed that this mysterious character was really nothing more than an angry clone boy who saw a Jedi kill his progenitor. Mystique ruined. His popularity dropped through the floor and fans everywhere started to emulate the NEW mysterious character...Jango Fett. After we knew everything about Boba Fett, there was no room left in the character for "masking".
Any time we feel empathy with Fozzie when Statler & Waldorf are raking him over the comedy coals, every time we feel the emotion that Kermit experiences when he sings "Bein' Green", every time we wish we could be pushing the plunger when Crazy Harry pops his head through the curtain and blasts something to smithereens... its an example of masking.
That having been said, if the Muppets are "deep" as characters, I would submit that it is because WE provide that depth with our selves via this "masking effect". I also submit that the genius (conscious or otherwise) of the original performers and writers who created the characters maintained that "shallow roominess" in all the Muppets so we'd be able to do just that.
Crazy, huh?
-Gordon