Wait. What is this?
Whilst researching the anatomy of fear used in childhood
morality tales and media, I’ve been traveling down memory lane. The films and
tv shows I am most interested in are the ones that frightened us in unexpected
places or weird ways. A perfect example are the pink elephants in Dumbo. While researching I thought I
would share some of my observations re-watching the films that I (or my peers)
found creepy for one reason or another. Outright kiddy horror films like The Witches might be disqualified from
this project since their sole purpose was to be scary. (But I will probably be
lax with that rule.)
First up, the Muppet
Christmas Carol. If you ask anyone from my generation they will probably
tell that this is the version of Christmas Carol to watch. Hands down.
Intro
Nostalgia goggles have aged this movie well for me. I have
seen various versions of Dickens' Christmas
Carol (including some that stick
faithfully to the original text) and none move me as well as this one. That may
be pure nostalgia talking. Your first Scrooge is your best Scrooge and the
first time you realize Tiny Tim has died will always hit you the hardest so
it's hard to look at the competition without a little bias. But the thing I
remembered most vividly about this film as a child was that it was fucking
scary.
 |
| And not because a frog and a pig have babies. Amazingly enough. |
This is one of the few movies I remember seeing in theaters
as a child. I went with my family and a neighborhood friend who was a few years
older than me and she led me out the theater just before the Ghost of Christmas
Future waltzed in to give a generation of children nightmares. But years later
I would watch the scene with my little brother and try to wear a brave face
when it came. (Interestingly he was more unnerved by Christmas Past). Cutting
through the Muppet fluff, there is something seriously creepy about those two
ghosts and here I will try to examine why.
What was creepy?
If you get down to the basics, Christmas Carol is a spooky
story. From start to finish, it is brimming with ghosts, threats of
eternal damnation and death. Whoever decided to adapt it for children's media
had the same issue Disney would have with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. We now (pretend to) have a rating system
that requires things be not so extreme and scary for children. So how do you
show the haunting of a greedy old man without creeping kids out too badly?
Throw some Muppets into the mix. Somehow, this works.
Because the Marely ghosts are not scary in the least. One of the story's
scariest moments becomes comedic by casting those grumpy old men as the
haunters and they even have a catchy song to go with it. As a kid I was not
sure what was going on. I knew the gist of it, but for the most part the scene
was a pair of silly ghosts (like Casper).
The creep factor does not begin until the Ghosts of
Christmas come in. The first one, a Muppet girl who would be innocent enough
were it not for a ghostly light surrounding her, is creepy enough. But the real
scare comes with the Ghost of Christmas Future, a hooded, mute figure who can
only point. At least Gonzo and Rizzo give the parents in the audience a useful
warning and high-tail it out of the movie until the end.
The message of the story comes across because of the intensity
of the Ghosts. You could child-safety the story more but if the ghosts were tamed
to the point of no threat then the moral might lose its punch. Though, arguably
killing Tiny Tim off is message enough in any version. But children can take
more intensity than modern movie-makers give them credit for.
Why was it Creepy? (For a Child)
Why were these moments creepy?
Well, firstly let's look at the fact that these are the
Muppets. The most nonthreatening thing you could probably put on screen. These
intense specters, Muppet-y as they look, are contrast to what the child is
seeing throughout most of the film. Sandwiched in between jolly songs about
love and Christmas are warnings of damnation and death. Rather than patronize
the children by making all the spirits as nonthreatening as Marley and Marley,
the creators took the risk of scaring them just a little more than necessary
and it pays off.
Christmas Past looks like she could belong on Sesame Street
if she was not floating and glowing. Something about taking a Muppet and
turning it into a ghost is almost the opposite of what the comforting Muppets
are supposed to stand for. She is also slightly more realistic than the usual
Muppet and I remembered her looking more "real" as a child. It might
look silly to you now but for a child it was eerie.
 |
| Apparently Scooter was going to be the Christmas Past originally.* |
Imagine if I took your
favorite stuffed animal from childhood and gave it this treatment. You might just call it weird or stupid but I bet if it
appeared to you in the dark it might raise your hair just a bit.
Do I need to explain why Christmas Future is creepy? The
character is horror-worthy no matter who you cast. And I have yet to see a
version where the ambiguity and unanswered questions are so well portrayed in
the faceless specter. Interestingly what makes this version exaggerated is what
makes it creepiest. The robe opens to pure darkness. Most other versions show
basically the Grim Reaper. Everything about the scene is intense and the film
decides not to hold out. The better question is why wouldn't a child be creeped out by this?
Still creepy?
Christmas Past comes out looking like Casper's cousin to me
now. There is simply no way I would be legitimately creeped out by her. But the
design is fascinating and makes you wonder how all of the Muppet cast would
look as heavenly ghosts. There is also something to be said about any glowing,
floating doll. It still has the potential to be creepy.
An honorable mention to Christmas Present for aging. While
the filmmakers sanely took out some of the characters darker lines and moments,
they still allowed the character to grow old and ultimately die. As a child it
might not hit you. But when you are older your realize just how much slipped
past your radar as a child.
Christmas Future, while no longer creepy to me in this
movie, is still an emotional scene to watch if not for the stellar acting from
Michael Cane. I still prefer this film's take on Future instead of the
straight-out Grim Reaper that most movies choose. And I can't shake the
nostalgic creepiness I feel when it first appears.
Thoughts
This is probably just the right amount of scary for a
children's movie. With no fear at all a child won't learn how to cope, after
all. It's still one of the best Christmas Carol adaptations. Unless a child is particularly
afraid of ghosts they should be able to handle it.
Also it has Gonzo claiming to be Charles Dickens with a straight face.
You Might also like:
