Whew! Lots to respond to here. Let’s see:
Whoopi as God:
As a Christian, I didn’t like the idea of casting Whoopi as God, or the way it was played either. Please hear me out before you dismiss me as close-minded, racist, or sexist.
First, the issue of whether God is a “he” or not. God created Adam in God’s image. God creates; God has no need to sexually reproduce. Adam, created in God’s image, also originally wouldn’t have had the reproductive organs which we normally associate with “male” and “female.” When God realized that Adam (being a lesser being than God) could get lonely all by himself, God took part of Adam and made it into a new person. Thus, man and woman complement each other and need each other, and God loves men and women equally without playing favor to either gender (“…there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” – Galatians 3:28). God is neither a “he” or “she” in the sense of needing a mate, nor is God an “it.” God is simply complete. There are numerous references in scripture to God as “Father,” many from the mouth of Jesus himself, so “he” is the best way to refer to God if any gender must be assigned. The fact is, though, that God is far beyond our simple comprehension of “gender” (or ethnicity) as expressed here on earth.
So portraying God as a male (and, let’s face it: more to the point, a white male) isn’t entirely accurate. What bothers me more is the general trend in today’s media that any portrayal of God HAS to subvert the traditional Christian image of God as Father (e.g. Alanis Morrisette in “Dogma”). Must we assume that because something is traditional that it inherently isn’t right? (Aside from that, goddess worship – as opposed to God – is associated with the wicca movement, which is an offshoot of witchcraft and Satanism. I’m not saying the Hensons are Satanists. I’m explaining why it’d be a bad thing to continue to go down the road of portraying God as a female.)
Also, “The Boss” did seem largely unconcerned about people; she just seemed more interested in being a couch potato. (And yes, Kermit did refer to her as God in an interview, so there’s no mistake about who they meant. Also, “divine intervention” and “works in mysterious ways” are concepts linked with the traditional Christian portrayal of God.) And even more to the point, the scenes were just BORING. They were overlong and not very funny. They were mirroring the device from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” yet in that film the heavenly scenes had good pacing and were over quickly. If only this film had that same sense.
The one nice thing about all this is that it’s allowed us to have a rather deep and meaningful dialogue than we would have otherwise.
Dirty jokes:
I applaud Jessica’s daughter Emiligh for not wanting to watch the movie. (Such maturity at such a young age!) I sympathize with the others who had kids and didn’t want them to watch it. I don’t agree that the Muppets have to “get with the times” or that they have to do this to make more money. Whether something is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not it’s fashionable or financially profitable.
BUT the thing that gets me and that’s driving me nuts is that people are saying that the Henson Company has abandoned kids and forgotten their legacy. Sorry, but there was a lot going on in those original TMS’s that we just weren’t aware of at the time. I saw the Rudolph Nureyev episode of TMS recently on the Time-Life video and was rather shocked at what Piggy suggests to Nureyev in the sauna scene! There are other examples of this too. I think it most ironic that one of the posters who went on and on about how sleazy the Muppets have become included a line in his/her signature from Janice (Jim-era) about being naked!! The fact is, most kids just miss it. As adults, we’re more sensitive to it now.
My main problem was with the rating the telefilm received. With this kind of material, the TV-movie should have rated a “TV-PG.” Then the ratings would have done their job in actually warning parents. But with a “TV-G,” how was anyone supposed to know?
I don’t have a problem with the advertising campaign. It highlighted the fact that this was a fun holiday movie with the Muppets, and that’s what it was. I would have disliked an ad campaign that focused heavily on the more salacious moments, because then that’s what they would have been trying to sell! (And that wasn’t really the main thrust of it anyway.) That’s what happened with “Greg the Bunny.” Every advertisement highlighted the characters doing something foul and vulgar, so I stayed away. When I actually watched it, it turned out that the dirty stuff wasn’t the main point of it anyway, and there was a lot to be enjoyed about it. But the advertising actually kept me away! (Since Greg the Bunny was on Fox, I shudder to think what the advertising for the new Muppet series on Fox will look like.) As a side note, starting the advertising two weeks beforehand was not a bad thing. No matter how high-profile the show is, advertising for TV shows rarely runs more than a week beforehand – otherwise when they say something airs Friday, people won’t know which Friday they’re talking about.
I think “s**ks” was too much, but why is “she’s hot” so bad? I thought “hot” was just a generic expression that means “she’s very attractive.” Of course, if you’re using it in the sense of that Nelly song, it’s pretty bad. But I didn’t think “hot” was such a bad word. Of course, maybe I’m just revealing my ignorance about the meaning of the phrase.
I’m also still a little curious about Emiligh. I wonder if the movie had been better-paced if she might not have asked for the TV to be turned off? I have to wonder what her response would have been if she had watched “Shrek” (a thoroughly entertaining, much better-paced film that I nonetheless wouldn’t show to any of my young cousins or nephews).
Joggy, I appreciate your willingness to take a stand. But how do you know it’s as bad as you think? My guess (though I certainly don’t know) is that you’ve watched other films with at least a PG rating. What makes this film so different? I would suggest watching it with an open mind. If you still don’t like it, fine, but to say that you hate something when you haven’t even seen it…
Kermit contemplating suicide:
Someone commented that this was too creepy or dark. Hello? It’s another moment directly from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the movie that they were spoofing! (“Life” is a * family * classic, too.) I thought they did a really nice job of presenting it as Kermit just blowing his top and then later realizing that he didn’t really mean what he said. In fact, I was amazed at how funny the scene was played. The way Kermit kept screaming it over and over at Daniel reminded me of when Kermit blew up at Piggy for telling the tabloid reporter that they were secretly married. (“You are FIRED, Piggy! FIRED! You hear me? You are FIRED! FIRED! FIRED!”) Both times, I cracked up.
On a much (relatively speaking) lighter note, to Misfit Toy:
Yeah, Forrest Green wasn’t exactly a highlight. But I think Monsterpiece Theater was, and I don’t see how there’s a significant difference. You could argue that one is funnier than the other, but that doesn’t fit in with the main point of your argument, that the Muppets aren’t allowed to reference pop culture.
Well, that’s enough for now. Better duck and get ready for the next barrage of replies.
Thanks for everyone’s honesty.