Remembering with the Muppets: Considering the Media Franchise As a Site of Memory

Home , Animal (Muppet), Brian Henson, Charlie McCarthy, Cheryl Henson, Dave Goelz, Jane Henson

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2015-09-03 Remembering with the Muppets: Considering the Media Franchise as a Site of Memory

McDermott, Brenda

McDermott, B. (2015). Remembering with the Muppets: Considering the Media Franchise as a Site of Memory (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27622 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2426 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Remembering with the Muppets: Considering the Media Franchise as a Site of Memory

Brenda Eileen McDermott

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTORATE OF PHILOSPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATIONS STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

August, 2015

Abstract

Despite their increasing dominance of the television and film markets, franchises are often viewed as lacking creativity or as the result of the increasing corporatization of Hollywood. While these explanations partly address the emergence of media franchises, they fail to explore why audiences continue to return to these reruns, reboots, or repeats. This dissertation examines one aspect of the social function of media franchises—their role in collective memory.

By examining the press coverage of the Muppet franchise over the course of thirty years, this study outlines how the Muppet franchise is situated as a site of continuity between past and present.

Using frame analysis, different mnemonic frames are identified as the press coverage responds to changes in the franchise. Twelve different mnemonic frames emerge from the analysis of press coverage of the Muppet franchise. These frames fit within Nora’s (1989) concept of a site of memory, suggesting that the press coverage of the Muppet franchise promotes its use as a site of memory.

In conclusion, this dissertation argues that part of the appeal of franchise productions is their role as a site of memory, helping build social continuity. Thus, the Muppet franchise could function like other traditional sites of memory, memorials and museums. However, the Muppet franchise is privately owned and protected by intellectual property rights, unlike the national and public- ownership of traditional sites of memory. This private ownership could, therefore, have implications on the expression of memory, particularly how remembrance is transformed in a consumptive act.

Keywords: Franchise, Frame Analysis, Jim Henson, Memory, Muppet, Site of Memory, Walt

Disney Corporation.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS ii

Acknowledgements

Nobody ever reads those names . . . do they? Sure they all have families.

—The Great Muppet Caper (1981)

A dissertation is a complex project and it is the product of the many experiences and influences one has along the way. As such, I would like to thank the many individuals who have made the completion of this dissertation possible. Foremost, I owe a debt to my supervisor, Dr.

Brian Rusted. During the early stages of the project, Dr. Rusted introduced me to emerging trends in communication research and inspired me to consider questions about the performativity and materiality of media. Later, he persevered through my many rough drafts and patiently waited as I found the final formulation of this project. As result, his insightful comments shaped the rough draft into a solid scholarly contribution.

Along with my supervisor, I would like to express my gratitude for the input provided by members of my supervisory committee—Dr. Dawn Johnston and Dr. Florentine Strzelczyk.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to help refine this project and for supporting my journey to become a member of academic community. I also like to thank the external examiners—Dr. Scott Radford and Dr. Serra Tinic. In addition to these committee members, I would like to highlight the encouragement and advice of both Dr. Charlene Elliot and

Dr. Barbara Schneider.

During the data gathering stages, I was able to access the Jim Henson Company’s press clippings, through its archives. In particular, I would like to thank Karen Falk for arranging the retrieval of the press clippings during my visit to the New York office. I also would like to thank the various staff members with the University of Calgary’s Library and Cultural Resources for assisting with the retrieval of various newspaper indexes and microfilm. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS iii

I would also like to acknowledge the role of my colleagues at the University of Calgary’s

Student Success Centre, Writing Support Services, and Student Accessibility Services. It is hard

to imagine another place where everyone is as passionate about supporting each other. I could

not have had a better set of cheerleaders throughout the process. In particular, I would like to

thank Lourdes Arciniega, Kari Coleman, Paul Papin, and Roxanne Ross who were always

willing to read drafts and make me accountable for my goals. Kelly Kay Spurlock provided

optimism and positivity along the way. While there would be too many to name, the students with which I have worked were an unending and invaluable source of support. Thank you for reminding me that I had the abilities and skills need to complete the project, particularly when I had forgotten.

I would like to thank my family, who have be unbelievably understanding through the past years. Thank you to the Parsons family for your patience as I read and wrote over family holidays. I would also like to thank my father and my sister for being excited—often more than me—about conferences and other academic milestones. I owe a debt to my mother, who showed her love by reading drafts of this dissertation and other writing—without complaint. Having you as a friendly-first reader help me refine my ideas and make sure that did not get lost in the jargon of the field.

I cannot express my gratitude for all that my husband, Shawn Parsons, has done throughout the journey of this dissertation. It is more than the million small acts of support: cooking dinner, washing dishes, driving to coffee shops, retrieving books, and dealing with tears.

I could not have finished this process without you. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the inspiration for this dissertation: Michelle McDermott. Though she died in 1989, prior to Jim

Henson, she remains his biggest fan. Despite all the research, I will never truly have her REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS iv understanding of his work. Even at the age of four, she understood that you cannot separate Bert and Ernie. If you look closely, you can see her small fingerprints through this work.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Table of Contents ...... v CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Why Muppets Matter ...... 5 Scholarly Literature on the Muppets ...... 6 The Muppets as a Media Franchise ...... 14 The Study of Franchises within Media Studies ...... 15 Definitions of Franchises ...... 15 Approaches to Studying Media Franchises ...... 20 Commonalities Across Approaches to the Study of Media Franchises ...... 28 Franchises’ Connection to Memory ...... 31 The Benefit of Memory Studies to Understanding the Social Function of Franchises ...... 33 Outline of Study ...... 33 CHAPTER 2—MEMORY STUDIES APPROACH TO MEDIA FRANCHISES ...... 37 Definitions of Memory ...... 38 Appeal of Memory Studies ...... 38 Halbwachs’s Notion of Collective Memory ...... 39 Second Wave of Memory Studies ...... 41 Assmann’s Cultural Memory ...... 42 Nora’s Sites of Memory ...... 43 An Active Definition of Memory ...... 50 Material Objects are Anchors for Remembrance Activity ...... 51 The Benefits of an Active Definition of Memory ...... 52 Patterns of Remembrance Activities ...... 54 Mnemonic Frames as Patterns of Remembrance Meaning-Making ...... 56 The Benefits of Studying Patterns of Remembrance ...... 58 Past Studies on Patterns or Structures of Remembrance ...... 58 Sites of Memory as Products of Patterns of Remembrance (Including Mnemonic Frames) .... 63 Memory Studies Scholarship on Popular Culture and Media...... 64 Memory Studies’ Approach to Popular Culture ...... 65 Memory Studies’ Approach to Media Technologies ...... 67 Memory Studies’ Approach to Media Content ...... 72 Media and the Commercialization of Memory ...... 76 Conclusion ...... 79 CHAPTER 3—A FRAME ANAYLSIS METHOD TO STUDY MUPPET MEMORY ...... 82 An Overview of Frame Analysis ...... 82 Goffman’s Approach to Frame Analysis ...... 82 Frame Analysis as an Approach to the Study of Collective Memory ...... 83 Frame Analysis as Method to Analyze Press Coverage ...... 86 The Benefits of Frame Analysis ...... 87 Limitations of Frame Analysis...... 88 Methodology for the Study of the Muppet Franchise...... 89 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS vi

Data Collection ...... 89 Data Analysis ...... 91 Conclusion ...... 97 CHAPTER 4—THE MNEMONICS OF OWNERSHIP ...... 99 Outline of Chapter ...... 100 The Mnemonics of Ownership and Value ...... 100 The Mnemonic Frame of Homecoming ...... 100 The Mnemonic Frame of Legacy ...... 101 The Mnemonic Frame of Repatriation ...... 103 The JHP-WDC Merger—Before Henson’s Death (1989-1990) ...... 104 Background ...... 104 Evergreen Characters ...... 105 Merger as Marriage ...... 106 MGM Studios...... 108 Walt Disney and Jim Henson as Same Person...... 110 The JHP-Disney Merger—After Henson’s Death (1990-1991) ...... 112 Background ...... 112 WDC’s Claims to Henson’s Legacy ...... 114 Henson Heirs’ Claims to Henson’s Legacy ...... 118 WDC-JHP Reconciliation ...... 125 JHC Buy Back (2002) ...... 127 Background ...... 127 Regaining Heritage ...... 129 Post Damage ...... 129 Repairing Damage ...... 130 WDC Purchase of The Muppet Franchise (2004) ...... 131 Background ...... 131 Evergreen Characters ...... 131 Permanent Home ...... 132 Marriage Complete ...... 132 Conclusion ...... 133 CHAPTER 5—THE MNEMONICS OF COMMEMORATION ...... 136 Outline of Chapter ...... 137 The Mnemonics of Commemoration ...... 138 The Mnemonic Frame of Surrogation...... 138 The Mnemonic Frame of Resurrection ...... 139 The Mnemonic Frame of Veneration ...... 140 Henson’s Death and Funerals (May-July 1990) ...... 141 Background ...... 141 Henson Mortality and Muppet Immortality ...... 143 Muppets as Surrogates for Henson ...... 145 Muppets as Mourners ...... 146 Kermit as Surrogate for Henson ...... 149 The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson (November 1990) ...... 151 Background ...... 151 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS vii

Staff as Henson’s Replacement ...... 152 Kermit’s Return ...... 154 Muppet Museum Exhibits (1990-2007) ...... 157 Background ...... 157 Pre-Existing Recognition of Henson’s Work ...... 160 Henson as a Venerated Artistic Figure ...... 161 Henson as a Venerated Technological Innovator ...... 164 Intergeneration Audience for Henson’s Remembrance ...... 166 Conclusion ...... 168 CHAPTER 6—THE MNEMONICS OF RESTORATION ...... 171 The Mnemonic Frames of Restoration ...... 172 The Mnemonic Frame of Reconstruction ...... 172 The Mnemonic Frame of Revival ...... 173 The Mnemonics of Renaissance ...... 174 The Muppet Movie (1979) ...... 175 Background ...... 175 Muppets’ Connection to Classical Hollywood Films ...... 176 Puppetry Innovation ...... 177 The Appeal of the Muppet Characters ...... 179 Muppet Mentality of Humour ...... 181 The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) ...... 181 Background ...... 181 Imitation of Henson’s Style ...... 182 Imitation of Henson’s Performance of Kermit ...... 184 Reconstructing Elements of a Successful Muppet Film ...... 185 Muppet Treasure Island (1996) and Muppets Tonight (1996-1998) ...... 189 Background ...... 189 Appeal of Muppet Characters ...... 192 Muppet Approach to Humor ...... 194 Adapting to Current Audiences ...... 198 Kermit’s Fiftieth Birthday Celebration (2005-2006) ...... 202 Background ...... 202 Increase Muppet Media Presence ...... 203 New Muppet Productions ...... 205 Renewing Character Appeal ...... 206 Conclusion ...... 207 CHAPTER 7—THE MNEMONICS OF RECIRCULATION ...... 210 The Mnemonic Frames of Recirculation ...... 211 The Mnemonic Frame of Ritual ...... 211 The Mnemonic Frame of Memento ...... 212 The Mnemonic Frame of Tradition...... 213 The Muppet Show (1976-1981) ...... 213 Background ...... 214 Program Appeal ...... 214 Program Success ...... 216 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS viii

Second-run Syndication of The Muppet Show (1981-1999) ...... 217 Background ...... 217 Past Success of The Muppet Show ...... 217 Daily Viewing ...... 218 Family Audience ...... 219 Twenty-fifth Anniversary of The Best of The Muppet Show (2001-2002) ...... 220 Background ...... 220 Past Popularity ...... 221 Increasing Muppet Awareness ...... 222 Targeting Nostalgic Fans ...... 224 Muppet Collectables ...... 226 WDC Release of Season One of The Muppet Show (2005) ...... 227 Background ...... 227 Nostalgic Adult Fans...... 228 The Muppet Show’s Patina ...... 230 DVD Extras ...... 230 The Christmas Tradition of Muppet Productions ...... 233 John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together (1979) ...... 234 A Muppet Family Christmas (1987) ...... 235 The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) ...... 239 A Very Merry Muppet Movie (2002) ...... 240 Conclusion ...... 242 CHAPTER 8—THE MUPPET FRANCHISE AS A SITE OF MEMORY ...... 245 Review of Key Concepts and Findings ...... 247 The Mnemonics of Ownership ...... 247 The Mnemonics of Commemoration ...... 249 The Mnemonics of Restoration ...... 250 The Mnemonics of Recirculation...... 252 Relationship of Mnemonic Frames to Sites of Memory ...... 253 Will to Remember the Muppets ...... 253 Muppet Materiality ...... 254 Symbolic Puppets...... 257 Functional Franchises ...... 261 Limitations of Study ...... 263 Limitations of Single Case Study ...... 263 Limitation from Choice of Data ...... 263 Implications of Study ...... 265 Contribution to the Study of the Muppets ...... 266 Contribution to Media Franchise ...... 268 Areas for Future Study ...... 272 References ...... 275 Appendix A ...... 317 Appendix B ...... 319 Appendix C ...... 320 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 1

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

It’s time to play the music; it’s time to light the lights. —The Muppet Show Theme (1976)

In 2011, the Muppets returned to the screen in a film as much about their past success as

about their present situation. The film featured an aging Kermit, who reminisces about the old

gang, and a Muppet fan, who works to get the old gang back together. Reviewers highlighted the

film as part of a long tradition of Muppet films going back to The Muppet Movie (1979): “[t]hese

are the same old, adorable Muppets, as sweetly innocent . . . as ever” (Holden, 2011, p. C1); “the

Muppets are a couple generations old in a good way” (Guarino, 2011, para. 9). Barnes’ (2011)

review for The New York Times notes “the dilapidate state of the entire franchise . . . as Kermit

contemplates a comeback in his lonely “Sunset Boulevard” style mansion” (p. L10). In a later

review for the Times, Holden (2011) notes the continuity with past Muppet success by stating

“the rainbow connection is a smooth unbroken arch” (p. C1).

The 2011 re-launch of the Muppet franchise, The Muppets (2011), uses self-referential humour to make fun of the franchise’s age and waning popularity. In doing so, it raises questions regarding the cultural impact of the franchise, in particular the effects of its longevity on perceptions of the past. The reviews of The Muppets stress the importance of the audience’s past associations or remembrance of the characters. As Quirke and Andrews’ (2012) review of the film notes, the film is “an odd blend of nostalgia and brio,” as “a sadness [is] consciously mined in the dark-hued Hollywood scenes, from a decaying Muppet theme tour to the retirement chateau we find Kermit living in” (p. 16). In other words “how do you reboot an entertainment juggernaut that began to fade before most of its young audience was born? . . . You make a leap REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 2 of faith and hope that the charm of these Jim Henson creations . . . remains irresistible” (Holden,

2011, p. C1). These recent comments reflect the key questions addressed by this study: how are media franchises functioning as part of a shared remembrance of the past? How are media franchises similar to other sites of memory, like Joan of Arc or the Eiffel tower?

Reviewers of The Muppets discuss the film by framing the new production in terms of its continuity with earlier franchise productions and the audience’s reception of their older productions. The reviewers propose continuity between the current production and the past. For example, “there’s something genuinely inspired about the fact that the movie is just one big excuse to stage one more go-round of The Muppet Show” (Ebiri, 2011, para. 5). The notion of continuity and familiarity are key underpinnings of any franchise business. Similarly, continuity is the functional basis of Maurice Halbwach’s (1980, 1992) concept of collective memory, where the past is evoked and understood by the needs of the present.

While memory is often considered as an aspect of an individual, remembrance or collective memory considers the social interactions that shape a shared understanding of the past.

Thus, collective memory refers to social groups’ communication of the past. To study remembrance, rather than history, is to recognize the malleability of this form of recollection.

Opposed to the perceived factuality and objectivity of history, remembrance highlights both power structures that construct versions of the past and the groups who contest these versions of the past. Remembrance demonstrates the present’s use and reconstruction of the past.

The field of memory studies tends to address memories associated with traumatic or political events as focal points of remembrance. Scholars examine cultural resources for remembrance, which tend to be physical landmarks or historical emblems (Hoskins, 2001;

Radstone, 2008; Erll, 2008; Misztal, 2010). These cultural resources are frequently discussed REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 3 using Pierre Nora’s (1989) concept, site of memory. Nora defines a site of memory as a cultural construction that is used symbolically, functionally, ritually to connect to the past. Nora suggests that these material locations become the embodiments of mankind’s consciousness of the past, or artifices constructed to hold onto a sense of past. Scholarship on sites of memory tends to select monuments or spaces constructed to commemorate particular events (Hebel, 2010; Tai, 2001).

This tendency has led the field to overlook potential commercially-constructed mnemonic resources. This study examines this potential mnemonic function by conducting a frame analysis of the press coverage of the Muppets, a popular media franchise.

Long running TV and film products have yet to be considered as a potential resource for shared remembrance, or as a site of memory. When addressing film and television productions, memory studies focus on programs that explicitly represent a moment from the historical past, or discuss the impact of the journalistic coverage of these events. This oversight is described in more detail in Chapter 2. A media franchise features the reuse of the familiar characters in new productions across media formats and the ongoing recirculation of older content. Often media franchises both refer to the spread of the content across media as well as intersecting industrial practices that produce the content. Despite the longevity and continuing popularity of media franchises, no work addresses their potential use for remembrance, and particularly how this use may be promoted in the press coverage.

This study aims to understand if and/or how the Muppets are presented as a mnemonic resource. Thus, this work is a starting point in the consideration of how popular culture is used to remember the past, or popular culture’s mnemonic function. To better understand the potential mnemonic functions of franchises, the press coverage on the Muppet franchise for a period of thirty years is analyzed. By looking at the Muppet franchise’s treatment in the press, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 4 mnemonic frames appear which suggest the franchise is a cultural object that provides a sense of continuity between the past and the present. As a case study, the Muppet franchise offers a starting point to consider media franchises as a resource for remembrance, through its mnemonic framing. The act of framing refers to Erving Goffman’s (1974) work on the frame analysis, which considers frames as common structures that organize experience. This project studies how

the press organizes the Muppets as a resource for remembering a form of the past. In particular,

this project highlights the press coverage’s emphasis on continuity between past and present.

This project considers media franchises, like the Muppets, as more than a product of corporate

ownership and commercial copyright protection, treating them instead as part of the landscape of

memory, where longevity and repetition are functions of remembrance.

The press coverage of the Muppet franchise is examined, starting with the launch of The

Muppet Show in 1976 and ending with the celebration of Kermit’s birthday in 2006. The

longitudinal analysis of a single franchise was chosen because it ensures that the franchise’s

framing as a potential site of memory is ongoing, rather than momentary. A longitudinal

approach also allows for variation in the franchise, offering insights into the types of mnemonic

frames that occur and the situations which lead to these frames.

This chapter outlines the area of study to which this study contributes: academic

scholarship on the Muppets and media studies approaches to franchise. This chapter starts with

review of the Muppet franchise. First, the Muppet franchise is defined and differentiated from

other Jim Henson characters or productions. Following this definition, a literature review of the

current scholarship of the Muppets is conducted. Following the literature review, this study of

the Muppet franchise is differentiated from previous approaches to Henson’s characters. The

second half on the chapter is a literature review on media franchises. This review highlights the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 5 lack of the reception studies focussed on franchise productions and outlines how the scholarship on media franchises focusses on transmedia storytelling, intertextuality and production culture approaches. The last section of the chapter assesses the current media studies literature that indirectly discusses franchises’ appeal to nostalgia and memory. This section asserts the value of a memory studies approach to media franchises.

Why Muppets Matter

The Muppet franchise refers to the productions of and merchandise from a series of characters created by Jim Henson for The Muppet Show and the Muppet movies. The Muppet franchise does not include Sesame Street characters, which were originally jointly owned by

Henson and the Children’s Television Workshops (currently solely owned by CTW) or Fraggle

Rock characters (currently owned by Jim Henson Company). In 2002, the Muppet characters were purchased by the Walt Disney Corporation (WDC). Only Kermit the Frog blurs these franchise boundaries by appearing on Sesame Street; however, he is considered part of the

Muppets in terms of copyright ownership.

The Muppet franchise was selected as the focus of this examination for several reasons: the franchise’s longevity, the franchise’s use of media, and the limited existing scholarship on the Muppet franchise. The longevity of the Muppet franchise is an important factor for its selection because it suggests an ongoing interest in the franchise despite waning popularity.

Over its fifty plus years, the Muppet franchise continues to release new productions, along with the re-release of older content. This ongoing release or re-release of material ensures that there are relatively few periods where the Muppet franchise is not referred to by the press. This ongoing press coverage ensures that a frame analysis can be conducted regularly throughout the

30 year period of this case study. By conducting a frame analysis, this study can consider how REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 6 the press coverage draws on cultural conventions to organize the Muppet franchise as a potential mnemonic resource.

Another reason why the Muppets were selected is that the Muppets franchise focussed on television and film productions. Though there was other Muppet merchandise, such as comic books, story books, and other media, these were typically ancillary merchandise and not part of the core productions or major narratives. As a result of the franchise’s mainly TV and film focus, the sample press coverage is able to address most productions. It also accounts for a smaller set of intertextual references, mainly between film and television production. The only major spin off of the franchise not addressed in this case study is the animated television show,

Muppet Babies and its related merchandise.1 By focussing on film and television productions

featuring the Muppets as puppets, the franchise’s mnemonic framing is not affected by changing

mediums.

Scholarly Literature on the Muppets

Unlike other media franchises or ongoing popular characters, the Muppet franchise has

received little scholarly attention. The selection of the Muppet franchise as a case study fills a

gap within scholarly literature on this popular set of characters. Though Henson was involved in

the creation of the Sesame Street characters, his impact on the program is only addressed in

passing by studies that focus on the educational aims of the program (Davis, 2008; Fisch, 2001).

1 The Muppet Babies was an animated television show based on the version of the young Muppets in The Muppets Take Manhattan. The show aired for seven seasons during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Though there is some press coverage of the program, it is very limited. Furthermore, the majority of the press coverage of the Muppet Babies focusses on licensing agreements. In additional to the limited coverage, the treatment of the Muppet Babies is similar to other ancillary products and comics. The Muppet Babies narratives have little to no connection to the characters’ puppet-based productions. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 7

The current literature on the Muppet franchise is limited and tends to focus on examining the film and television shows as adaptations of pre-existing genres or as forms of social critique.

As a result, the current literature often features selective textual analysis over a systematic examination of Muppet programs. It also tends to imply the show’s meaning for the audience, rather than examining its reception. Few works integrate sources that address the production context, whether popular productions or bonus features. Even fewer works refer to the press coverage of the franchise as a potential resource for understanding reception. As a result of these gaps, the literature on the Muppets benefits from systematic longitudinal examination. The following section outlines the common trends in the literature on the Muppets: the franchise’s reuse and repurposing of past stories and popular genres, and the franchise’s challenging of social norms.

Muppet adaptations. Unlike this study, the core body of the work on the Muppet franchise examines its films and television programs as a form of adaptation. Ginger Stelle

(2009), Marc Napolitano (2009), and Hugh Davis (1999) each examine the Muppets’ adaptation of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Davis (1999) argues that the Muppet version is the most faithful adaptation to the original text, despite having the Muppet characters act out most of the major roles. To support his analysis of the film, he compares Dickens’ use of a narrator, with Gonzo’s performance as the author, Charles Dickens. Additional information about the production and the decision to have Muppet characters as actors comes from film reviews and interviews available on the DVD re-release. Napolitano’s (2009) examination of The Muppet Christmas

Carol treats the film as an example of WDC’s adaptation of popular narratives, despite the company’s limited involvement with the production beyond its distribution and financing.

Napolitano’s reading of the film unpacks its musical numbers and playful approach to the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 8 original novel. In addition, Napolitano discusses the Muppet characters’ popularity and the audience’s assumed familiarity with them. In his discussion of the audience’s familiarity with the characters, Napolitano differentiates the Muppet adaptation of the Dickens’ classic from others. In discussing the Muppet characters’ performance, Napolitano comments on Gonzo’s performance as Charles Dickens, allowing for the narrator’s line in the original text to be preserved. Most recently, Stelles (2009) examines ways in which The Muppets Christmas Carol repeats common tropes of other Muppet films. In particularly she looks at how the Muppets fail to be complete actors as they still remain playing themselves, which is part of the appeal of the film.

Similar to the studies of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, other works have examined the

Muppets adaptation of classical works or narrative structures. Alissa Burger (2009) examines

The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz, both the feature film and The Muppet Show sketch, as a critical example of popular cultural adaptation. In particular, she examines the continuity between the

Muppets’ play on the story’s conventions and the Muppets’ self-awareness of their own actions, which includes their performance of story characters. The article mainly relies on a reading of the Muppet made for TV film and criticism of the novel, The Wizard of Oz. In another study of

Muppet adaptation, Hugh Davis (2009) expands on his previous work on the Muppets’ adaptation of Victorian work to address the franchise’s use of Shakespeare. Davis argues that

Shakespeare is the franchise’s most common reference, despite common allusions to Grimms’ fairy tales. In supporting his analysis, Davis includes a wide variety of sketches from Sesame

Street, The Jimmy Dean Show, and The Muppet Show. His most detailed reading comes from a survey of the first and second season of The Muppet Show. Davis suggests the Muppets’ use of

Shakespeare, while frequent, evokes the franchise’s tendency to blur high and low culture. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 9

Jack Zipes (1997) looks at the Muppets’ adaptation of fairy tales, particularly their use of different stories and their inversion of genre conventions. Zipes’ coverage of the Muppets is only a small subsection of a chapter in his monograph on the use of fairy tales in popular culture.

As such, he mainly addresses a reading of the Muppet made-for-TV production Hey Cinderella.

Zipes suggests that the Muppets’ form of adaption challenges the lack of agency normally given to women and children in fairy tales and other fairy tale adaptations. In particular, Zipes places the Muppets adaptation of fairy tales in opposition to Disney’s tales. He notes that while the

Muppet adaptation is more challenging and provokes a critical reading of the original tale, both

Disney and Muppet productions are commercially focussed.

Muppet critique of structures and tropes. Rather than only looking at the Muppet’s adaptation of literature, an expanding set of articles addresses the franchise’s adaptation and critique of other common narrative structures and tropes. Tara Parmiter (2009) uses the first

Muppet movie to examine the use of journey narratives, particularly travel as a vehicle for self- discovery. Ben Underwood (2009) examines the Muppets’ active engagement and reference to the audience. He further notes how the Muppets incorporate the American dream mythology and adapt aspects of vaudeville. While referring to a broad scope of programming, Underwood focusses on The Muppet Movie and sketches from The Muppet Show. Similarly, Jennifer

Stoessner (2009) examines the Muppets’ use of traditional tropes from puppetry positing that the

Muppets are a new art form with roots in older cultural traditions.

Other works on Muppet adaptations proposed that adaptation is a form of social critique.

For example, Michelle Abate (2009) describes the anarchistic comedy of The Muppet Show as a form of nonsense. She compares the Muppets to work found in Lewis Caroll and the Dada REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 10 movement. Lastly these readings of nonsense are placed within the cultural context of The

Muppet Show’s production highlighting the encoding of social critique.

Similar to Abate’s work on Muppets, Lynne Scheider (2009) focusses on the Muppet franchise’s use of the proscenium arch to break the fourth wall. By examine the arch and

Waldorf and Stadtler’s balcony heckles, Schneider illustrates the show’s critique of generational differences, particularly those between the old establishment and the younger generation’s rebellion. Schneider supports this analysis by referring to sketches from the first season of The

Muppet Show and some intertextual references to the balcony residents’ namesakes. Jennifer

Garlen (2009) also examines the Muppets’ adaptation of cultural forms as a form of social commentary, her work focusses on Gonzo and his bridging of high and low cultural forms. In particular, she considers Gonzo’s role as a performance artist, supporting her argument through a detailed analysis of several of Gonzo’s Muppet Show performances, Muppets from Space, and the occasional detail from popular publications about the making of The Muppet Show.

Like Garlen’s discussion of the Muppets’ critique of culture, Anissa Graham (2009) argues that the Muppets introduced and normalized aspects of fringe culture, while at the same time de-normalizing familiar cultural tropes. To support his argument, Graham generally unpackes on two episodes of The Muppet Show featuring guest stars Vincent Price and Alice

Cooper. Her reading of these programs builds on the guest stars’ previous associations and how these associations are challenged by their treatment on the program. In particular, Graham describes how these guests are normalized through the creation of a similarly fringe Muppet family.

While most readings on the Muppet franchise implicitly refer to the content as an example of American popular culture, Rayna Denison (2009) describes the British context of The REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 11

Muppet Show’s production and the show’s reception as a British cultural product. In developing

this argument, he draws on scholarship on film and television authorship, as well as, clippings

from British newspapers held at the British Film Institute. In examining The Muppet Show,

Denison describes the first season’s DVD extras, which frequently make reference to British

culture.

Muppet critique of cultural norms. While the literature of Muppet adaptation supports

its critique of cultural hierarchies, other scholarship is more explicitly focussed on the Muppets’

promotion of social issues or challenges to cultural norms. Sidney Dorbin and Kenneth Kidd

(2005) examine the Muppets, as part of a larger study of several of Henson’s works, for their

promotion of environmental responsibility. Though they include non-Muppet productions, such

as Fraggle Rock, they analyze environmental themes in both John Denver and The Muppets TV

specials, as well as Kermit’s rendition of “It’s Not Easy Being Green.” In examining the song,

Dobrin and Kidd recount how Kermit learns to accept his color and then appreciates his

relationship with green because it gives him a unique connection to the environment.

Several scholars address the commercial nature of the Muppet franchise, often in

comparison to Sesame Street characters’ non-profit treatment. Marsha Kinder’s (1991) work on

the animated spinoff, Muppet Babies, textually analyzes a particular episode to highlight how the

program limits children’s cognitive abilities and promotes consumerism. In particular, she

stresses the show’s presentation of a disembodied parental figure, which only appears as a pair of

legs opposed to the focus of the episode on baby Kermit and his imagination. Andrew Leal

(2009) also questions the commercial-drive of the Muppet franchise by situating the changing

use of the Muppet characters as a result of changes in ownership, particularly Disney’s control

over the franchise. Rather than describe the Muppets pre-Disney ownership as non-commercial, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 12

Leal notes that the Muppets were featured in commercials during the 1950s and IBM sales films in the 1960s. In doing so, Leal is able to reconcile the Muppets’ participation in commercial and profitable production with the franchise’s rejection of profit-driven entertainment. Leal’s examination of the long-term presentation of commercialization also includes the Children’s

Television Workshop (CTW) and a critical examination of popular Muppets products. Leal’s work reveals Henson’s interest in revenue-generating productions and licensing.

As Leal examines the Muppet franchise as a form of consumerism, Julie Maudlin (2009) examines the franchise’s representation of childhood. Maudlin discusses The Muppet Show as an alternative or critique of traditional discourses of education by comparing The Muppet Show to

Sesame Street. Though Maudlin argues that traditional education is not featured on the program, the show does challenge social norms and questions traditional knowledge. Maudlin suggests the show forms a potential critical pedagogy. Maudlin further clarifies the Muppets’ potential pedagogy by situating The Muppet Show in the social context of its production, the late 1970s, and aligning the show with Sesame Street’s traditional educational approach. In this way,

Maudlin offers a pedagogical reading of the few sketches from The Muppet Show followed by an auto-ethnographic account of the show’s impact on the author’s education. While Maudlin explains the show’s potential as a critical pedagogy, Chandra Mukerjii (1997) focusses on three

characters and their representations as particular childhood ideals. Mukerjii does not focus on a

particular analysis of a program or film, but refers to the characters as general archetypes.

Mukerjii uses the character-centered approach to examine how the Muppets highlight traditional

child themes. She suggests that Kermit the Frog represents the natural goodness associated with

a child. Animal represents the notion of the wild and untamed. Miss Piggy, according to

Murkerjii’s analysis, crosses these two types by incorporating both good and wild at the same REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 13 time. Gideon Haberkorn (2009) argues the Muppets’ potential as a series of models for self- identity, much like Murkerjii’s reading of childhood archetypes. Both authors posit the characters’ exemplification of the carnivalesque and a break from social norms.

Muppets’ critique of gender norms. When discussing the franchise’s challenging social norms, scholars often look at how the franchise presents sexuality, race, and most often, gender.

Jordan Schildcrout’s (2008) analysis of The Muppet Show focusses on the program’s presentation of non-conformity and how this non-conformity results in a critique of traditional definitions of race, gender, and sexuality. Schildcrout argues that despite its claims to be purely entertaining, The Muppet Show’s progressive treatment of race, gender, and sexuality challenges fixed social norms by humorously subverting them. To support his argument, Schildcrout compares the proportion of minorities, females, and sexual preferences in The Muppet Show to other 1970s programs. While the percentages imply that The Muppet Show is comparable to its contemporaries, Schildcrout uses examples of character treatment, most often Miss Piggy and

Gonzo, to highlight how the social norms are destabilized by their performances. By looking at

particular characters, Schildcrout argues that the show’s presentation is progressive, even though

it does not address issues of race, gender and sexuality more frequently than other programs.

Kathleen Kennedy (2009) posits that The Muppet Show offers a more progressive treatment of violence than it does sexuality. Kennedy argues that despite the title of The Muppet

Show’s pilot, “Sex and Violence,” that The Muppet Show becomes less tolerant of violence as the series progresses. In particular, Kennedy argues that violence, which was once permitted, becomes increasingly undermined by references to play acting or formal condemnations of acts.

By examining the use of violence across seasons one to three, Kennedy describes particular

sketches to elucidate her point. In season one, Kennedy uses examples of possible sexual and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 14 violent material presented when a female guest star is featured. For seasons two and three, she notes more limited notions of violence, or the inclusion of framing elements, which identify the playful nature of this violence. This change in presentation, Kennedy argues, is a response to the growing family audience of the program, rather than the adult viewership promoted during its first season.

Representations of gender, particularly through the character Miss Piggy, have been featured in two studies. Kathleen Rowe’s (1995) analysis of gender equality uses Miss Piggy as

an example of an alternative to the passive suffering heroine, a dominant representation of

women in comedy. Rowe suggests that Miss Piggy provides an entry point to understanding

how assertive female characters use humour to undermine patriarchal norms and authority.

Similarly, Maryanne Fischer and Anthony Cox (2009) survey the character, Miss Piggy, from

The Muppet Show to Muppets in Space. They attribute changes in the character to the loss of key creative figures: Jim Henson, Frank Oz, and Jerry Juhl. This article is the only one to combine a longitudinal approach to the Muppet franchise with some consideration of its production culture.

Cox and Fischer focus mostly on Kermit and Miss Piggy’s romance and Miss Piggy’s interaction with other female role models, generally guest stars on The Muppet Show.

The Muppets as a Media Franchise

Though there is a limited body of work on the Muppets, the current literature suggests the social relevance of the franchise’s production. Furthermore the literature implies the value of a longitudinal framework for examining the franchise because of changes to creative staff, forms of content, and types of adaption. The literature inconsistently draws on the popular press and other publications; however, their occasional inclusion suggests they could be an important resource, particularly to address the Muppet franchise’s reception. In response to the trends in REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 15 the literature on the Muppets, this study helps address the lack of research on the franchise’s reception by focussing on the Muppets’ press coverage rather than textually analysing productions.

Though the concept of a media franchise is not used in the literature on the Muppet characters, the work on Muppets does highlight aspects that are associated with media studies’ use of the term franchise (Johnson, 2001, 2012, 2013). Studying the Muppets as a media franchise emphasizes the Muppets’ past financial success as a predictor of future appeal. It also considers the world of ancillary merchandise licensing as important to both the franchise’s profitability and fan relationship. The literature stresses the franchise’s adoption of narratives and form, building a sense of familiarity. Some authors point out the commercial nature of The

Muppet Show, noting the profitability of the ongoing productions. Lastly, the literature notes the

audience’s awareness of the characters, using the characters as stand-ins for archetypes or as part

of large works on representation of race or gender.

The Study of Franchises within Media Studies

Definitions of Franchises

Franchises as a social cultural form. While the term, franchise, originally described a

distributed business model involving independent dealers of branded merchandise, the term

franchise has also been used to study social and cultural forms that originate from a corporate

model. George Ritzer’s (2004) work on McDonaldization demonstrates how the term franchise

can be used to describe a series of corporate practices outside of the term’s legal meaning.

Ritzer’s examination of the global spread of American franchises designates four dimensions that

make them appealing to business owners and customers. Ritzer argues that franchises are driven

by efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. Efficiency refers to the ease and time REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 16 needed for customers to get what they want. Calculability refers to value or time associated with a franchise, promoting consistency of experience. Predictability refers to customers’ familiarity with the experience and the match between their expectations and their experiences. Control limits options and supports the calculability and predictability of results. While Ritzer does not explicitly tie these dimensions to media franchises, many of these elements are reflected in media studies’ adoption of the term franchise.

Media franchises as characters. Derek Johnson (2009b) notes the use of the word franchise to understand a series of characters’ films or TV programs, as well as, other

merchandise that first emerged in the trade press in the late 1980s. Franchise is often used to implicitly emphasize profit rather than creatively driven products. While media studies scholarship uses franchise as a term shortly after its emergence in the trade press, few articles explicitly define the term. Rather, the literature implies particular meaning to the term from its use within a particular theoretical context.

Media franchises as distribution models. The application which is most similar to the franchise’s original meaning as a model of local distribution is the study of TV franchise formats, which look at the replication and local adaptation of reality TV shows. Another stream of scholarship uses franchise as a synonym for blockbuster film sequels. These articles typically use the term without offering any particular definition, but supposes a reader’s familiarity with its trade press usage. Media franchises are also addressed within a legal framework. Typically these works look at the fraught relationship between fans’ appropriation and corporate intellectual property control. Franchises, because of their various source materials, challenge the notion of authorship, traditionally used to determine copyright protection. The term franchise is also prominent in articles that study ancillary merchandise and the diversification of corporate REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 17 revenue streams. In addition, media studies scholarship on franchises often includes references to fan and non-fan audiences.

Media franchises as productions and marketing materials. The most prominent use of franchise is in works that use the term to refer to both a particular film or television show and all its ancillary marketing materials. This definition is the closest to this study’s use of franchise.

The only distinction is that this study looks at the popular and trade press coverage of the

Muppet characters rather than a particular set of productions. This choice reflects intellectual property laws which focus ownership of these characters as separate from their productions, in order to address ancillary licensing rights. This definition is similar to Derek Johnson’s (2012) work, which follows the X-men characters, rather than narratives, to look at a series of industrial relationships and production cultures. In this usage, these extras or alternative products are considered as important as the “central” film or television show. This use of franchise is often combined with theoretical approaches, such as transmedia storytelling (Jenkins, 2006), intertextuality and paratexts (Gray, 2010), or production culture (Caldwell, 2008). In this usage, the term franchise and its study are a continuation of Tony Bennet and Janet Wollacott’s (1987) work on James Bond, or Roberta Pearson and William Uricchio’s (1991) collection on Batman.

The literature examines franchises in a similar manner to more contemporary studies of the ongoing reception of cultural objects, such as William Brooker’s (2004, 2005) work on Alice in

Wonderland or Batman.

Media franchises as style of programming. When looking at global media flows, the term franchise is featured in a discussion of globalized popular television formats. Michael

Keane and Albert Moran (2008) consider franchises as part of the global proliferation of business models. As a result, they associate media franchises with the global licensing formats and the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 18 repurposing of content for further consumption. In a similar line, Doris Baltruschat (2010) works on franchises that are similar to traditional franchise models. Like restaurants, television production formats are copied to particular locations, creating local programming using a familiar structure. By using the term franchise, Keane and Moran (2008) evoke the traditional business model definition to understand the plurification of TV shows and conglomerates’ commercial interests in this form of global production. In using a franchise framework, they are

able to stress key features of several internationally successful game show formats: The Weakest

Link, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Big Brother, and Survivor. Baltruschat (2010) looks at

global franchises by examining the production culture they create, rather than addressing them as

forms of cultural imperialism. Thus, her examination of the local use of the Idol format

establishes her argument about how franchised television formats build an international media

ecology.

Media franchises as high budget films. Often the term franchise is used to refer to high

budget blockbuster films, many of which are followed by sequels. For example, R. C. Neighbors

(2011) refers to the Star Wars franchise as a way to talk about both the trilogies of films, and also the related novels, cartoons and toys. In using the term franchise, Neighbors alludes to the social impact of the franchise. Neighbor uses the term franchise, with its wider set of products, to justify a textual reading of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977). In this reading, Neighbors stresses the trilogy’s presentation of a utopia, albeit one which fails to address issues of gender or race.

Similarly, David Oh (2012) uses the term franchise in discussing the Rush Hour films. Though

Oh does not define franchise, his use suggests the term refers to the blockbuster’s highly profitable film that prompted several sequels. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 19

Media franchises as intellectual property. For some scholars, franchises are best defined through ownership and the intellectual property laws that bind the disparate productions together. Kathy Bowrey’s (2011) examination of entertainment franchises comes from a legal perspective, highlighting the challenges franchises pose to intellectual property (IP) enforcement.

As such, this use of the term franchise emphasizes repeated productions, merchandising, and cross-media consumption. She argues that the challenge of franchises to IP law is not in the products themselves, but in the conflict over promoting fan engagement with the text, while protecting IP rights. In addition to the legal and commercial framework of franchises, Bowrey notes the need for fan engagement through preferred corporate structures. She notes that this preferred corporate structure is often associated with the consumption of licensed goods. The challenge with franchises is that the users’ active appropriation of material disrupts corporate control over a fluid set of concepts and characters. Derek Johnson (2001) considers franchises as referring to “serial production of culture from a shared, well-designed intellectual property resource” (p. 1078). Johnson claims that this IP based on tradition allows inter-institutional production cultures to be studied, but that it overlooks the cultural impact of franchises. Johnson argues that the focus on the commercially driven franchises and their assumed lack of cultural legitimacy has led media studies to overlook the cultural dimension of franchises. In fact,

Johnson suggests that the term media franchise evokes productions for masculine audiences.

Johnson describes the value of franchises from an industrial perspective, noting that franchises utilize multiple property rights in multiple markets.

Through the lens of IP rights, Bowrey (2011) notes that IP laws are aim to protect a singular cultural object. This definition does not address the range of products featured in franchises. Thus, she notes trademarks are often used in the copyright of franchise goods; yet REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 20 trademarks require greater enforcement to maintain ownership. Bowrey suggests that industrial practices have implied greater corporate ownership than legally exists. In looking at the legal limits of IP protection for media franchises, she unpacks the commercial expectation of future and ongoing audience interest. This implies potential for nostalgia or intergenerational memory.

For example, Bowrey notes that licensed merchandise may turn into heirlooms and become associated with memory outside the organizational structure.

Approaches to Studying Media Franchises

Transmedia storytelling. In his book Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins (2006) introduces the concept of transmedia storytelling to discuss how The Matrix franchise distributed its narrative across media formats and various productions. With the term transmedia storytelling, Jenkins refers to an expanding narrative, in which ancillary merchandise is integrated into the creative framework of the larger narrative. In response to his work, several other scholars have associated franchises with this narrative structure, particularly how supplementary texts augment or shift the central text (Schauer, 2007; Shefrin, 2004). The central text remains accessible to non-fan audiences. For example, Bradley Schauer’s (2007) use of franchise implies that franchises are costly high-concept genre films, which appeal to particular sets of fan audiences. Further, Schauer argues that a franchise includes a series of intermedia texts that were traditionally considered only ancillary productions. He argues that franchises need to appeal both to general audiences and those familiar with the franchise. Crystal White

(2012) argues that the term media franchise is a response to Star Wars and its “expanded universe” of merchandise and spinoffs (p. 101). She argues that this series of goods offers

“multiple levels of canonicity” (White, 2012, p. 101). In other words, the Star Wars media franchise creates several intersecting narratives, within which there is an official hierarchy. In REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 21 examining the franchise, White includes films and television series along with merchandise, such as toys, games, comic books, and novels.

Denise Mann (2009), in his work on the TV series Lost (2004-2009), uses the term transmedia franchise to describe productions that cross media formats to produce “ancillary revenue streams . . . merchandise opportunities and spawn a multitude of spinoffs” (p. 99). He refers to the transmedia franchise as several layers of storytelling, as well as a form of branded entertainment in which new creative and financial opportunities are presented. In response to

Mann’s article, Christine Cornea (2009) uses the term franchise in her examination of the reboot of the Dr. Who (2005-2015) series. Though Cornea does not provide a definition of franchise and why she uses this term in association with Dr. Who, she implies a franchise is associated

with large budget productions, which encourage spinoffs and additional productions.

In associating franchises with narratives that across traditional media boundaries, these

scholars’ focus on traditionally secondary or ancillary productions as adding complexity to the

generally simplified narrative of blockbuster films. Schauer (2007) uses the notion of franchise

to re-evaluate the second Star Wars prequel: Attack of the Clones (2002), which received

negative reviews. Schauer outlines that franchises have been criticized as uncreative and

focussed on visual spectacle. While critics found the film’s narrative lacking, it was rich for

those who were familiar with the multi-textual Star Wars universe. Schauer finds that these fan

viewers responded positively to the film. Schauer argues that the film is a failed franchise, not

because it lacked complexity, but because it appealed to a fan audience over a popular audience.

In other words, the film drew on extra-textual products at the expense of its principal narrative.

Like the examination of the Star Wars franchise, White (2012) engages in the production

history of Star Wars toys and how these toys might come to shape the original narrative. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 22

Further, she argues these toys affect both the reviewing of the central trilogy and also influences the productions that follow them. By considering the Star Wars franchise, White argues that these toys and merchandise are more than alternative revenue streams, while maintaining the

public’s engagement with the franchise between productions. In particular, she describes the

role of toy manufacturing in maintaining popularity between the film’s original trilogy and the

prequels that followed 20 years later.

Mann (2009) argues that the transmedia franchise challenges traditional notions of

authorship, as there is no longer a single person or single product. Mann uses the franchise to

emphasize this plurality of authorship. Further, he stresses the commercial interest in franchises by equating auteur-style producers or showrunners2 with brand managers. In her response to

Mann’s work, Cornea (2009) articulates how showrunners can be positioned as authors of a franchise despite the increasing complexity of the production culture that creates them. She argues that in this arrangement showrunners become neo-romantic auteurs or corporate figureheads.

Adaptation. Several scholars consider franchises as economically driven patterns of adaptation, continuing the study of franchise narratives. Ashley York (2010) defines media franchises in terms of the ancillary marketing of films. She argues that as franchises, films are fully integrated into “the global commercial complex” (York, 2010, p. 16). As such, sequels, TV programs, and blockbuster sales are key features of franchises. Sommers (2012), unlike Johnson

(2009a), separates comic books from films, considering the blockbuster Spiderman films as a

2 Showrunner is a term used to describe the individual who is responsible for the concept and narrative arches of major television dramas and comedies. Showrunners are responsible for the overall style of the show, including overseas writing and other production elements. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 23 franchise opposed to earlier comic books. When examining recent chick flicks as franchises,

York (2010) argues that the rudiments of male-driven action films are applied to traditional women’s films by focussing on aesthetics, narrative, and most importantly marketing. Thus,

York argues that films such as Mama Mia (2008), Sex and the City (2008), and The Devil Wears

Prada (2006), adapt the practices of franchise forming a new genre of women’s films. Joseph

Sommers (2012) associates the Spiderman comic books as a pretext, which is connected to the past; however, the Spiderman films are associated with the present. Sommers does suggest a potential memory function to both the comic books and films by using Bakhtin’s notion of a chronotype3 within his textual analysis. Sommers argues that the differences between the comic

books and the film denote the social context of the films production, particularly the impact of

9/11.

Intertextuality and paratexts. Many scholars’ work on franchises builds on the

previous intertextual approach to cultural icons and most recently Johnathan Gray’s (2010) work

on paratext. Gray (2010) suggests that the number of paratexts is increasing because of

“Hollywood’s current fondness for franchise-based economy” (p. 17); however paratexts themselves are not a new phenomenon. By paratexts, Gray refers to the role that merchandise,

trailers, and other traditional ancillary production play in shaping the audience’s interpretation of

the main text. In particular, Gray (2010) notes that franchises have been increasingly successful

in turning these “paratexts into revenue generators” (p. 20). In his book, Show Sold Separately

3 Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) describes the chronotype as an artistic, primarily literary, form that interconnect fictional and non-fictional representations of time and space. Chronotypes allow for the connection of time and space, which result in the visibility of both. Through his essay on the chronotype in the novel, Bakhtin associated chronotypes with elements of genre, by examining the genre of the Greek romance, among others, for the majority the remaining essay. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 24

(2010), Gray discusses examples of paratexts: posters, trailers, making of videos, bonus features, fan commentary, fan creations, toys, and games. Rather than treating these as secondary texts,

Gray argues that they shape and drive the interpretation of the central text and other paratexts.

Applying Gray’s work, Clare Parody (2011) considers entertainment franchises as both a marketing strategy and a form of storytelling. Parody’s work bridges the study of franchises as a form of adaptation, with considerations of intertextuality. Franchise storytelling for Parody

(2011) is “the creation of narratives, characters, and settings that can be used to both to generate

and give identity to vast quantities” of products and merchandise (p. 211). Parody argues that

franchises promote various levels of audience engagement through their reinvention.

Entertainment franchises use forms of adaptation that allow them to reference not only the earlier

source, but “the entire franchise multitext” (Parody, 2011 p. 212). Therefore, franchise

storytelling supports the engagement of not only the unfamiliar and familiar audience, but also a

series of variations associating the franchise with its own history and geography. In fact, Parody

argues that this adaptation is a resource for memory or nostalgia, as new adaptations recall earlier

associations. However, Parody does not engage with this notion, rather suggesting it as an area

of future research.

Using the concept of franchise, Parody (2011) considers adaptation as a form of

intertextual relationships. Adaptation, Parody posits, is key to the entertainment franchise, which

creates a series of aggregated texts. This adaptation is an efficient approach to creating products

across platforms; in doing so, franchises play with notions of familiarity and the act of revisiting.

In her discussion of franchise storytelling, Parody (2011) emphasizes brand management, in

particular the way in which intellectual property is translated into an “extended commercial

environment” (p. 214). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 25

Like Parody’s work, Robert Arnett (2009) posits that franchises are associated with different source materials, creating a series of intertexts and re-articulations, forming a continuity across films. In particular, Arnett addresses the franchise reboot, in which film returns to the character’s origin and the character’s reconciliation with his/her new identity. He posits that the success of the Bond franchise is its ability to change and reflect the present. Yet Arnett (2009)

notes that there are particular traits that “activate a franchise” (p. 7), by which he refers to long-

running intertextual references that the audience associates with the franchise. Karen Littau

(2011) discusses the Alien franchise, in particular the ways in which the origins of the films have been created. Littau examines how earlier stories and films have been attributed as origins for the Alien franchise creating a series of intertextual relationships. Littau’s work suggests that

origins and intertexts are important for a franchise, even if they are retroactive constructions.

Rebecca Williams’ (2013) work on franchises considers a wider array of texts, including

the popularity of music featured on a franchise’s film soundtrack. As such, Williams refers to

the franchise as a way of examining interrelated media that make up fan objects. Fan objects

highlight the web of media and productions, rather than one film or production. Through

fandom, William stresses the discourse, both positive and negative, which is associated with

franchise productions. Franchises are persistent as part of “mechanisms of branding, licensing,

co-ownership that support the economic goals of the media industries” (Williams, 2013, p. 331).

Arnett (2009) uses the franchise to address the reboot of the James Bond series of films.

Using the term franchise, he is able to differentiate his work from other studies of the popular film series. He proposes that the current Daniel Craig franchise is a form of remixed media, which takes from the aesthetics and narrative of the original, but challenges the stability of the original while remaining recognizably part of the franchise. In particular, Arnett examines how REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 26 the franchise maintains ties to the past texts, but avoids the cliché and parody apparent in the

Brosnan Bond films.

Through the lens of franchise, Williams (2013) is able to address the popularity of the

Twilight franchise and its role in developing fans of the band, Muse, featured in the films’ soundtracks. Unlike other studies of franchises, Williams’ work addresses the complexity of fandom and the franchise’s building of intertextual relationships. Williams examines Muse fans, who start as Twilight fans. She considered the relationship between fans following Twilight and become Muse fans because of the band’s inclusion on several of the film’s soundtracks and author Sarah Meyers’ interest in the band. She notes that this pattern of fandom for Muse is actively dismissed by fans who are solely interested in Muse and their music.

Lincoln Geraghty (2008) uses franchise to refer to the Transformers (1984-1987) television show and films to examine intertextual relationships and their impact on fans.

Through the notion of franchise, Geraghty is able to show how adults re-engage with their childhood through Transformers’ fandom. He argues that franchises need to be examined for their cultural impact, which is often overlooked because of the industrial motivations of their production. Geraghty demonstrates how the Transformers television show and toys become part of adult play by examining new intertextual relationships around the franchise. Through collecting DVDs and toys, Geraghty argues that multiple engagements with the franchise are developed: childhood memory, and subcultural capital. He draws on Wyatt’s notion of high- concept to suggest that franchises feature a particular style, marketing approach, and story.

Geraghty notes that franchises are typically science fiction or fantasy productions, as these genres allow for continuous new productions and characters. Similarly, Geraghty suggests that franchises, aimed at children, prompt ongoing remarketing and rebirth. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 27

Geraghty textually analyzes an episode of the original Transformers TV show. After looking at the episode’s presentation of childhood play, Geraghty examines fans’ websites, blogs, and collections, to argue that fan consumption of the franchise offers a connection to their past childhood, or nostalgia. Geraghty’s work is similar to Annette Kuhn’s (2002) study of individual’s remembrances of going to the movies. While Geraghty posits that Transformer fans may be involved in a form of remembrance, Geraghty relies on a small section of fans, and only presents a few examples to support this assumption. The majority of Geraghty’s work focusses on the textual analysis of the television episode. While limited, Geraghty’s work does suggest that the intertextual relationships associated with franchise production and the meaning of the paratexts they produce can have an important social function.

Production culture. Based on the production culture and industrial reflexivity noted in

John Caldwell’s (2008) work, several scholars have viewed franchises as an extension of the increasingly collaborative productions and the public discourse on production culture. As one of a few media studies scholars to regularly study media or entertainment franchises, Johnson

(2009b, 2011, 2012, 2013) offers both a history of the industrial use of the term and some of the only work to address a historical case study of franchises: Star Trek, X-Men, and Transformers.

Johnson refers to the production relationships, particularly the intellectual property ownership arrangements. In his work, Derek Johnson (2013) finds franchises as a perennial extendable network of content in the service of several wide reaching cultural industries (p. 14). He argues that franchises are produced through negotiation and industrial relationships, suggesting that franchises are a cultural process in their own right. Franchises, he asserts, are not solely an act of convergence or determined by production practices, but a process. This process, he claims, should be examined to understand what hinders and supports franchise expansion. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 28

In a similar vein, Jennifer Proffitt, Djung Tchoi, and Matthew Mcallister (2007) use the term franchise in relation to what they describe as contemporary corporate mediated texts. The franchise typically features various products which are purchased by fans. These scholars argue that the franchise is characterized by a multi-media marketing approach that provides several streams of revenue. Simone Murray (2004) uses the term franchise to refer to commercially driven films with several productions that are interrelated. She argues that the commercial basis of franchise production should not be seen as an exploitation of these texts, but that successful franchises require fan participation and a more open IP approach.

For example, Nicola Evans (2010) uses franchises to refer to both a series of Superman films and the behind-the-scenes, or making of, films produced to promote these films. While

Evans does not define what he means by franchise, the scope of her research does consider the films and supplementary material important to understand the Superman films. She associates franchises with fantasy driven blockbusters. Similarly, Pavel Skopal (2007) uses the term franchise movie, as an extension of production studies and convergence discourses. Skopal refers to the franchise as an industrial practice associated with the creation of a series of texts.

Skopal suggests that these texts focus on recalling the audience’s anticipation for the central text.

Further, Skopal’s use of franchise implies that these subsequent texts are of significant commercial value. Skopal associates franchises with sequels and blockbuster filmmaking; however Skopal also posits that DVD releases increase the potential audience and revenue for future sequels.

Commonalities Across Approaches to the Study of Media Franchises

Across these definitions of franchises, scholars have been able to examine what were traditionally ancillary materials as windows into production practices and cross-media REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 29 production collaborations. For example, Derek Johnson’s (2009a) history of the industrial expansion of the X-Men franchise offers a series of processes and interactions that shape

Marvel’s corporate use of the franchise. Documenting the history of X-Men productions across media (comics, TV, and film), Johnson describes a series of corporate decisions that hinder or support the franchise’s intellectual property management. By discussing an industrial approach,

Johnson is able to connect X-Men’s comic books with what he calls secondary industrial relationships, such as Fox TV. Johnson describes franchise management as an important aspect of production culture, where horizontal or a vertical management model cannot be applied.

By using franchises, Proffitt et al. (2007) address not only the Matrix films, but also the cluster material, including making-of films, DVD extras, websites, and videogames. In particular, they describe ancillary products as a marketing approach to maximize consumption.

In their conclusion, they note that franchise texts, like The Matrix, are tied to the generations

which consume them; however they do not go on to explain the possible impact of this generational association. While drawing on the corporate notion of the franchise, Murray (2004) examines fans’ relationships to the text by the key creative thinkers involved, particularly Peter

Jackson and George Lucas. She argues that successful franchises use digital technology to both connect with fans and to acknowledge fans’ perceived ownership of material.

Evans (2010) uses franchise to unify all the Superman films produced from 1980-2006.

By using the term franchise, Evans looks at both production culture and industrial reflexivity arguing the DVD extras and making-of films are used both for marketing and then engagement.

Evans suggests that these texts change the readings of the original film. Skopal (2007) outlines a

particular approach to DVD marketing that is associated with franchise film releases, in

particular the use of paratexts to add additional value to DVD releases. Using the lens of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 30 franchise paratexts allows for an examination of the marketing of film within its extended interaction and shifted reading of the text. In particular, Skopal argues that the paratexts offer insights into the production cultures that create the franchise. They evoke the filmmakers’ recollection of production, and the audience members’ anticipation for the original film. He argues that DVD extras are meant to follow the logic of the film and reframe the memory of watching. Skopal (2007) refers to this as “virtual, nostalgic return” (p. 191).

The majority of literature on media franchises stresses production and marketing over studying their social impact (Johnson, 2011).4 Derek Johnson (2011) stresses the economic

rationale of franchise production, while noting this corporate value needs to be tied to fan

loyalty. Johnson argues that a strictly industrial definition of franchises is insufficient. He

asserts that the franchise’s role as a form of culture needs to be addressed, possibly by

considering the franchise’s role in building and branding. Similarly, Johnson argues that

economic value of franchises is associated with gender, particularly men. Johnson considers

three franchises, Gossip Girl (2007-2012), Lost (2004-2010), Battlestar Galactica (2004-2009).

By examining the way that gender is associated with franchises, Johnson is able to consider the

cultural function of franchises, rather than continue to study the franchise from an industrial

perspective. In this way, Johnson examines trade and popular press coverage of three franchises

that aired at the same time, but targeted different audiences. He stresses the importance of

4 While little work has addressed the social function or reception of the media franchise specifically, media studies has a long tradition of reception studies of popular culture. Often the popular culture products associated with these reception studies would fit under the modern definition of the media franchises, such as Henry Jenkins and John Tulloch’s (1995) work on Star Trek and Dr Who fans. For more information see Matt Hill’s (2002) work on fan culture and Janet Staiger’s (2002) work on the history of reception studies. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 31 examining franchises outside of convergence research, which tends to focus on a masculine tech- savvy audience and associates the franchise with sci-fi, action, adventure genres.

Franchises’ Connection to Memory

While franchises originated as a form of commercial distribution, the term has had several applications in media studies. While the increasing number of media franchises seems like a contemporary phenomenon, these franchises built on older material. Many franchises’ origins are older than the term media franchise. The term franchise is newly applied to Star

Trek, Transformers and Batman, whose origins date back to 1960s TV shows, 1980s toys, and

1930s comic books. When considering complex web productions and cross-media merchandise, the term franchise is a relatively new term describing much older popular culture.

The two works, which most closely mirror this study’s approach to the Muppet franchise, are the works of Derek Johnson (2013) on the transnational and transgenerational press coverage of Transformers and Lynn Spigel and Henry Jenkins’ (1991) work on fans’ memories of the

1960s Batman TV show.5 Both studies suggest that a franchise’s longevity can have an impact

on the remembrances of the past, though neither study fully delves into, or unpacks the

implication of this claim.

As Johnson notes in his 2013 monograph, “[f]ranchises do not replicate themselves: they

are produced in negotiated social and cultural contexts that demand exploration” (p. 3). Thus in

Media franchising: Creative license, Johnson (2013) notes that franchise culture not only creates

productions across media forms, but also across time. Johnson offers a nuanced and inclusive

5 Though Spiegel and Jenkins (1991) do not refer to the Batman television show as a franchise, this term could be easily applied. In fact, Eileen Meehan’s (1991) work, in the same collection, represents one founding text for a political economic approach to franchise culture (Johnson, 2013). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 32 history of the commercial and production cultures that create a franchise; however, he overlooks the cultural and social value of products that become cultural icons, because they are available across geographical locations, media formats, and generations.

While looking at the transnational collaboration featured in the Transformers franchises,

Johnson notes the nostalgic reference made to the franchise, through various newspaper and trade press articles. Johnson (2013) argues that these nostalgic claims and attachments to the franchise disavow “the transnational and transformative character of media franchising” (p. 157).

However, this claim is shaped by Johnson’s focus on production culture, which stresses production relationships. Thus, Johnson’s explanation of the intergenerational appeal of the

Transformers franchise focusses on a popular presses’ association with the franchise of the

1980s and commercialism, while overlooking the way in which Transformers offers a shared

cultural resource. Thus, Johnson (2013) stresses the commercial interest in this kind of

nostalgia: “nostalgia supported by mass marketing efforts aimed at reproducing interest in the

franchise across successive generations of children” (p. 188). Regardless of the production

culture framework, Johnson notes the importance of the franchise’s tendency to blur generational

lines, and appeal to children and nostalgic adults, even if Johnson’s work does not unpack their

cultural implication. Instead, he focusses on these nostalgic associations as observing the complex transnational production practices that perpetuate the franchise’s continuation.

Lynn Spigel and Henry Jenkins’s (1991) work on the 1960s television incarnation of

Batman examines how generational factors affect the understanding of the television program.

They look at two interpretative communities for the program: one represented by the program’s contemporary criticism and the second the communities of adults who were children during the

program’s first airings. These communities demonstrate that the text’s meaning is constructed REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 33 through both the pop cultural movement, central to its critical reception, and to the nostalgic generational interpretation, centered on childhood remembrance. Like Johnson’s work on

Transformers, Spigel and Jenkins suggest that the impact of popular cultural products are a form of nostalgia and more so, a remembrance of a particular time period.

While franchises, mainly food, have been considered for their social impact, often the focus is on the globalization of franchises rather than the impact of their longevity (Ritzer, 2004).

Though media franchises may be perpetuated by particular corporate needs for predictable audiences and calculable profits (Murray, 2005), this does not limit their social impact.

Scholarship has yet to engage with the longevity of franchise materials and their social function beyond Johnson’s 2013 monograph. Yet, scholarship on the implication of the longevity of brands is emerging (Meyers, 2009). As reviews, remakes, sequels, and prequels continue to dominate new film and TV productions, media franchises challenge scholars to look beyond their intertextual narrative structures or production context, and instead examine their social impact.

The Benefit of Memory Studies to Understanding the Social Function of Franchises

This study uses a memory studies framework to consider the social impact of franchises.

In particular, the study unpacks how the longevity of the franchise offers a connection to the past. In doing so, the study describes a series of mnemonic frameworks that emerge for the analysis of popular and trade press coverage of the Muppets. These mnemonic frames meet

Nora’s requirements for a site of memory. Thus, franchises can function like other shared connections to the past: memorials, symbolic figures, and rituals. All of which connect generations by providing a set of shared experience references.

Outline of Study REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 34

In the following chapters, this study uses the Muppet case to demonstrate the viability of considering this franchise as a potential mnemonic resource, specifically as a site of memory.

The second and third chapters describe the theoretical framework and methodology for study.

Chapter 2 reviews memory studies’ scholarship, emphasizing its value for addressing commercial popular culture, particularly issues of longevity and recirculation. The memory studies literature has yet to look at film and TV productions of this nature, though it has considered the mnemonic function of journalism and the media representations of history events.

Lastly, Chapter 2 argues that this study’s use of mnemonic frames responds to criticisms of memory studies, particularly its over application and under-theorization. This study’s mnemonic frames are a response to these criticisms. Frames offer insights into the ways collective memory is built through the popular and trade press coverage of the Muppets, thereby engaging with practices and ideas within existing memory studies literature. For memory studies, the value of this synthesis reflects critical insights in the field by several scholars, such as Jeffrey Olick and

Joyce Robbins (1998).

Chapter 3 reviews the methodology of frame analysis, asserting its prominent use for examining press coverage and discursive themes. While less common in memory studies, works including Iwona Irwin-Zarecka (1994), present the methodology’s relevance to memory studies.

The first section of the chapter focusses on a description of the methodology and its relevance to memory studies and the examination of press coverage. The second section of the chapter outlines the operationalization of frame analysis as a method: data collection and data analysis.

The last section of the chapter outlines the development of mnemonic frames, including the importance of a performance studies approach to archival material. This ontology underpins the treatment of the press coverage, in which historical material is treated as living and active. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 35

Frames emerge from the press coverage rather than being imposed on it. Further, this approach stresses building a dialogue between frames in historical material and theoretical issues, to produce an insight which contributes to both the understanding of the franchise and advances the theoretical approach.

Chapters 4 to 7 comprise the mnemonic frameworks used in response to particular ruptures. Similarities between frameworks are stressed, while acknowledging differences that reflect the changing contexts of each frame. Chapter 4 outlines three mnemonic frames that emerge from questions of ownership and franchise value: homecoming, legacy, and repatriation.

These frames emerge from the coverage of the Muppet franchise’s failed merger with the Walt

Disney Corporation (WDC), its sale to EM.TV, and its eventual WDC purchase. By addressing similar contexts and challenges across the thirty year period, these frames include the framing devices used by different organizations to legitimize their claim of ownership of the Muppet franchise. It also highlights how these claims of ownership are based on arguments of continuity, which can position the franchise as a potential memory resource.

Chapter 5 looks at the mnemonic frames emerging from the death of the key creative figure for the Muppet franchise: Jim Henson. The mnemonic frames that appear from the analysis of the press coverage in response to Henson’s death include surrogation, resurrection, and veneration. These frames emerge in the coverage of Jim Henson’s funeral, Kermit the

Frog’s continuation, and museum exhibits’ development. Frames articulate the mnemonic value of the franchise through the origins of characters and the connection to the past facilitated by the characters’ continuation.

Chapter 6 focusses on the mnemonic frames that emerge when the popularity of the

Muppet franchise wanes or increases. The following three frames build continuity for restoration REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 36 of the franchise: reconstruction, revival, and renaissance. They emerge during changes in the production context, such as the release of The Muppet Movie (first feature film), The Muppet

Christmas Carol and Muppets Tonight (first post-Henson productions), and Kermit’s fiftieth birthday (first event after WDC ownership). In particular, these mnemonic frames build

connections between past and present Muppet productions. Through these comparisons, the

franchise presents the connection to the past in the context of evolving cultural conditions.

Chapter 7 features mnemonic frames that emerge from the recirculation of franchise

material through second-run syndication, home consumption, and holiday productions. By

looking at these forms of recirculation, the mnemonic frames of ritual, memento, and tradition

stress continuity with the past through the needs of the present—both technical and cultural

contexts. These frames offer the permanence of franchise content, which changes the form of its

availability.

The conclusion, chapter 8, reviews the key features of the mnemonic frames discussed in

chapters 4 through 7 and suggests implications for the current study of franchises. This chapter

describes how the Muppet franchise and its framing in popular and trade press reflects Nora’s

definition of the site of memory, while acknowledging the limitations of this approach. The

chapter also addresses the implications of media franchises role as a memory resource. It

highlights this study’s contribution to the social use of franchises and potential future research on

media franchises using a memory studies framework. Further, it stresses that continuing

scholarship on the reception of franchises should focus on intergenerational viewing and the

social implication of commercially-driven remembrance.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 37

CHAPTER 2—MEMORY STUDIES APPROACH TO MEDIA FRANCHISES

Rainbows are visions, but only illusions. —The Muppet Movie (1979)

This study uses a collective memory theoretical framework to examine the social functions of media franchises, particularly the impact of franchises’ longevity and content recirculation. Memory studies considers the ongoing use and continual engagement with cultural objects as society’s need for continuity—found through a connection to a notion of pastness.

In this chapter, the key concepts of memory studies are outlined: the difference between collective memory and individual remembrance; and the difference between collective memory and history. While these distinctions explain collective memory’s appeal, they also highlight common criticisms of the approach, particularly the failure of scholars to move beyond application. As such, this chapter outlines how this study’s use of a more action-based conception of shared memory responds to these criticisms. It also articulates how a focus on mnemonic frames addresses criticisms that memory studies is rooted in the study of national identity.

The second portion of the chapter focusses on sites of memory. It outlines the critical literature on this concept and its common application. This section offers a justification for studying film and television products as sites of memory. While memory studies has yet to specifically examine media franchises, this chapter concludes with scholarship that addresses other forms of popular culture’s remembrance function, the majority on journalism or media technologies.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 38

Definitions of Memory

Studying collective memory involves the analysis of the dialogic activities of groups and individuals as they represent or use the past. Studying memory is an examination of both

“mnemonic device[s] and way[s] in which individual memories are relived, revived, and refashioned” (Winter, 2010, p. 11). Memory studies addresses the use of the past, but is not concerned with the veracity of the past. The past is considered a construction of the present.

Memory, rather than conceptualized as a psychological process, is used as a concept or metaphor for continuity with the past.

This study considers memory as the shared remembrance of this past. Remembrance stresses the activity of the individuals involved. This focus creates a useable past in which remembrance informs the present, through political, traumatic, or commercial appeal (Winter,

1995). Remembrance is tied to the act of forgetting. Thus, these constructions of the past are important for both what is recalled and what is omitted.

Appeal of Memory Studies

The appeal of memory studies is rooted in its interdisciplinary nature. This interdisciplinarity is apparent by the number of terms used to examine various objects or spaces of remembrance: popular memory, social memory, and cultural memory. These terms are the result of the engagement of different disciplines with the work of Halbwachs. James Wertsch and

Henry Roediger (2008) identify Halbwachs’s notion of collective memory as the one shared aspect across the field of the memory studies. Halbwachs (1980), in The Social Framework of

Memory, argues that memory is produced through social interactions; hence, the majority of individual memory is in fact a form of collective remembrance. He states that individuals require social interactions and conventions in order to remember; therefore, a group’s memories REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 39 are held and shared by individuals. Halbwachs’s emphasis on memory, as a constructed use of the past for the present, offers a new conception of how social groups draw on the past.

Halbwachs’s Notion of Collective Memory

In his later work, The Legendary Topography of the Gospels in the Holy Land,

Halbwachs (1941, republished 1992) moves away from the study of small collective groups to larger, politically-driven groups, who use the past to solidify their ownership of a geographical territory. Rather than individual locations, Halbwachs claims that territories are a series of constructed claims that assert the group’s continual claims to an area, by blending past association with the group’s contemporary desires. Halbwachs discusses how changes in political ownership are supported by the memory of individuals. Thus, he argues that the past can be constructed to serve the needs of current residents, who want to legitimize their ownership of a territory.

Central to memory studies’ scholarly appeal is its treatment of memory as a social construction. While memory studies has frequently focussed on the notion of shared remembrance, it also stresses how this engagement with the past is different than history.

Memory studies’ rise in popularity mirrors the rise of social history and the expansion of

historiography. As a construction, it does not express the same fixedness of history. Scholars

often draw on Halbwachs’s distinction between history and memory, where history is

documented, stable, and no longer part of the social expression of the group (J. Assmann, 2002;

Cubbit, 2007; Rigney, 2008; Schwartz, 1990). In opposition to the fixedness of history, memory

is unstable, changing as different groups challenge dominant versions of the past. Halbwachs’

notion of collective memory responds to the increasing sense that writing about the past, as

found in the discipline of history, is a construction. Because memory studies is not concerned REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 40 with the accuracy of a recollection, it discusses the social function of recollection. The study of memory becomes an alternative to the pitfalls of positivist history, allowing a focus on the constructed nature of the past as it serves the needs of the present.

Criticisms of Collective Memory. Though Halbwachs’s works provides the foundation of collective memory, the theoretical approach pieced from his examples and applications is underdeveloped (Misztal, 2003b). It is problematic to apply them to contemporary phenomena.

For example, Halbwachs is inconsistent on whether there is any form of individual memory separate from group memory. Similarly, Halbwachs’s approach to memory does not address the interactions of the multiple forms of memory, as individuals are simultaneously part of familial, religious, and national groups (Gedi & Elam, 1996). Yet, his use of religious and national examples continues to influence memory studies’ continual case studies on these expressions of memory. Along with a focus on nationalism, memory studies has often studied traumatic memory. A large body of work examines Holocaust remembrance, within Israel, Germany, and across the global Jewish diaspora (A. Assmann, 2010a; Cubbit, 2007; Misztal, 2010; Olick &

Levey, 1997; Winter, 2002).

Some criticisms of Halbwachs can be explained as a product of his historical context, a sociologist working during 1920s (Marcel & Mucchielli, 2010). Halbwachs’s conception of collective memory arises out of Durkheim’s approach to sociology bridged with Bergman’s approach to psychology, both scholars with whom he studied. The concept of the collective memory that has been taken up by academic scholars comes mainly from the translation of

Halbwachs’s work into two posthumously published collections: On Collective Memory (1992) and The Collective Memory (1980). While Halbwachs is the founding figure of the field, the majority of criticism on memory studies is rooted in the continued application of his theory REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 41 without adaptation or refinement. Astrid Erll (2008), in the introduction to Cultural Memory

Studies, suggests that the field of memory studies features little theorization in comparison to the larger literature of applications and case studies. She suggests that the popularity of memory studies limits the development of the field, stressing that its interdisciplinary nature and its broad application to subject matter has limited its theoretical development.

Similarly, Barbara Misztal (2003a) argues that placing Halbwachs’s work as the foundation of the field limits the concept of collective memory. In particular, Halbwachs’s focus on collective constructions, such as religion or nationalism, fails when applied to the complexities of globalization and the increasingly interconnectedness of cultures. Rather than augmenting Halbwachs’ concept, Misztal argues that scholars have continually returned to his concept and produced a variety of new case studies. Misztal proposes that memory, as discussed by both Durkheim and Halbwachs, is no longer applicable, particularly in its reference to a singular nation. Yet, Misztal (2003a) still considers the study of memory and remembrance as important, but notes that scholars need to seek out a wider array of theoretical sources to meet the “new challenges in modern, fragmented and pluralistic societies” (p. 138).

Second Wave of Memory Studies

Despite criticisms, Erll (2008) and Misztal (2010) posit that Halbwachs’s interest in shared remembrance is of value; however, they also acknowledge the need to move beyond the singular assumed shared national identity prominent in Halbwachs’s theory and the need to seek out points of contestation. Since Halbwachs’s work, two prominent scholars have attempted to adjust and advance the theoretical underpinning of his work: Jann Assmann (2002), and Pierre

Nora (1989). While these scholars have struggled to examine shared memory outside the national context, they clearly differentiate between group and individual remembrance. They REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 42 also move away from the psychological aspects of memory to focus on the communication and construction of the past.

Assmann’s Cultural Memory

J. Assmann’s (2002) reading of Halbwachs focusses on the movement of memory away from a cognitive or biological function towards a culture practice. Thus, Assmann ties the notion of power and ideology to the formation and maintenance of memory. This connection allows memory studies to understand the importance of memory in legitimizing group identity.

Assmann divides Halbwachs’s notion of collective memory into communicative and cultural memory. Assmann makes a clear distinction between communicative memory, which is mediated through individual and group interactions on the daily level, and cultural memory, which is constructed, maintained, and legitimized by the organizations in power. J. Assmann

(2002) positions communicative memory as the interpersonal group formation of knowledge of the past. Thus, cultural memory focusses on material constructions that present knowledge of the past. Assmann’s work emphasizes the political implications of cultural memory and the ways in which it is used to support conflict and violence.

By focussing on cultural memory, J. Assmann (2003) is able to examine how national remembrance is produced and maintained by government organizations, such as archives and museums. While Assmann addresses some of the limitation of Halbwachs’s work, Assmann

does not attempt to examine collective or bonding memory. In Assmann’s work on

remembrance, the individual’s ability to recall is not discussed beyond how these recollections

are shaped by power structures that confer and legitimize particular versions of the past. Thus,

individual involvement and agreement with these models of memory are either assumed or not

addressed. The focus on an institutional presentation of memory can lead to the assumption of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 43 its collective acceptance, even though Assmann directs scholars to seek out conflict and negotiation as way of avoiding false collectivities.

J. Assmann’s (2001) cultural memory shifts research away from the engagement between individuals and groups towards the discussion of memory as the “institutionalized heritage of a society” (p. 130). He moves in the direction of the study of the transmission of knowledge about the past. Thus, Misztal (2003b) notes that cultural memory’s focus is on regularly repeated practices or institutionally created spaces, where memory can be independent of individuals.

Cultural memory becomes an almost archive-like approach to memory, what Halbwachs would have considered history, argues Misztal. As a result of this focus on institutional constructions of the past, critics question cultural memory’s validity, particularly in terms of audience reception. Thus, Susannah Radstone (2008) argues that cultural memory lacks critical methodology, particularly in regards to representation and reception.

Nora’s Sites of Memory

While J. Assmann (2010) focussed on memory objects as the materialization of communication, Nora (1996) considers the activities around particular objects of remembrance, which he refers to as les lieux de mémoire [sites of memory]. Rather than distinguishing individual memory from shared memory like Assmann and Halbwachs, Nora (1996) suggests that this distinction is unnecessary as modern society has little memory. Nora (1996) provocatively asserts that “memory is constantly on our lips because it no longer exists” (p. xv).

Rather Nora focusses on the difference between memory and history and how this distinction is

increasingly complicated as memory is crystallized into sites, physical and cultural. By stressing

the constructed nature of memory, Nora continues Halbwachs’ distinction between memory and

history, while suggesting that memory is increasingly being treated as history. In the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 44 introduction to his four volume English collection, (Nora, 2006) locates his work on sites of memory as a continuation of the Annales school. This school, he argues, deals not with history, but the study of knowledge. He refers to Ludien Febvre and Marc Bloch as a foundation for the study of memory, as their work focusses on the importance of the day to day in the construction of history. Rather than focus on how memory is produced, Nora continues the Annales school’s resistance to official institutions by looking at how memory is in-grained in everyday life. This resistance to official institutions continues in the sites of memory by addressing how remembrance connects the individual to a sense of pastness.

Nora’s discussion about the lack of memory in modern society leads him to define sites as objects of remembrance. In Realms of the Memory, Nora (1996) includes a variety of subjects from traditions to monuments, all of which address the changing views of the nation and history.

He describes these sites broadly as an “inexhaustible repertoire of personalities, scenes, lines, intrigues, dates, good and bad people” (Nora, 1996, p. xiv). Despite the disparate types of memory presented, Nora argues that they respond to the same need for consecutiveness, arising out of modernity and post-modernity. He notes that by gathering a series of lieux [sites], their similar usages and purposes are shown more clearly. To understand the construction of the past,

Nora prompts one to study the activities around sites. As a result, a site of memory is not an actual link to the past, but a constructed or selected material location around which mnemonic activity occurs.

Nora (1996) argues that constructed or selected material locations become embodiments of mankind’s consciousness of the past, in other words, sites of memory. He suggests that with the development of the ritual practices, societies have created artifices with which to hold onto a sense of the past. Memory is then reconstituted outside of the daily social interactions of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 45 individuals through interactions with a material object, one that modern society can reproduce or preserve. These material locations are the remnants of collective memory, in which societies find refuge from modernity.

Nora (1996) proposes that the qualities that create a site of memory are not the innate qualities of the object, but the actions around it. The connection of the object to the site is therefore built, rather than exists, as an aspect of the site itself. Nora highlights the qualities of a site of memory through particular functions: material, symbolic, and functional. Nora notes that sites of memory often have other uses before they become repositories of remembrance. These functions associate or tie sites to a constructed nature of memory. Sites of memory include non- realistic, fictional, and misunderstood people, places, and ideas. Regardless of the type of site, his underlying criterion of a site of memory is a will to remember.

Nora (1989) asserts that without this conscious choice to remember, all sites of memory would remain historical artifacts. The object can be used both as a part of “the cult of continuity” and as a space where the past is contested (Nora, 1989, p. 12). Sites of memory need to be open to resistance and conflicted remembrance. Nora’s work suggests understanding of both the power demands of those who create the site of the memory, and the meanings made by those who use the site. Nora’s approach seeks out resistance, rather than assuming collectivity.

As Nora notes, a site of memory only exists because of its range of possible meanings and the various constructions of the past that these meanings allow. Material culture becomes a site of negotiation between the individual, the group, and collective remembrance.

Criticism of Nora’s sites of memory. Nora’s work, particularly its application, has been a focus of criticism, with scholars arguing that it overlooks reception and minimizes activity, for example Ann Rigney (2005) and Barbie Zelizer (1999). These criticisms have focussed on the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 46 following: his idealization of shared memory, the creation of false collectives by focussing on nationalism, and a lack of concept specificity. While these criticisms of Nora’s concept are valid, they are all related to its application rather than its original articulation. Many of these criticisms can be addressed by this study’s use of mnemonics frames. By focussing on mnemonic activities, Nora’s sites of memory become a focal point for various remembrances offering continuity between past and present.

Nora’s problematic distinction between memory and history. Nora’s sharp distinction between memory and history reflects one of the ongoing problems within memory studies. As

Noa Gedi and Yigal Elam (1996) note, memory studies is a field in which application continues to outpace theorization, particularly true in the case of sites of memory. Nora (1989) asserts that the increased interest in memory is a signal of a lack of true memory, which leads critics to suggest that Nora’s sites of memory are examples of elite institutions. For example, Kansteiner

(2002) argues that Nora’s sites of memory offer a Eurocentric approach, which focusses on elite constructions that serve a specific conception of the nation. Stephen Legg (2005) echoes this position; he suggests that Nora’s claim of the end of memory resulted in sites of memory being associated with official rather than popular memory. However, this criticism conflicts with

Nora’s hope that sites of memory would undermine official French history. Thus, Legg notes that sites of memory’s institutional association is not necessarily a flaw in the concept, but in its application. Hence, Nora and others scholars have chosen to focus on the construction of commemorative aspect of sites of memory, over popular culture’s metamorphosis of the same sites. In a similar fashion, Aledia Assmann (2008) stresses that external structures have been the focus of memory studies, overlooking the importance of embodied experiences in which contestation is more likely to occur. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 47

Like Nora’s troubled assertion of the end of memory, Legg (2005) argues that sites of memory are flawed because of Nora’s nostalgia for les milieux de mémoire [environments of memory]. Thus Nora’s sites are linked to nostalgia for memory-based social interaction, rather than memory from mediated objects. Nora’s milieux de mémoire evokes J. Assmann’s distinction between cultural memory and communicative memory. John Bodnar (2000) suggests that Nora’s nostalgia for a shared singular memory explains Nora’s distinction between memory and history, but does not undermine sites of memory’s applicability to the remembrance of conflicting groups. Bodnar, recognizing Nora’s nostalgia for memory, suggests that Nora’s emphasis on the hybridity of sites stresses the contrasting interests of groups and their differing interpretation of sites. Misztal (2010) suggests that Nora’s concern for a lack of memory is the product of French postwar commemoration, where formal commemoration was used to overlook

Nazi collaboration. By reviewing Nora’s work alongside Raphael Samuel, Bertrand Taithe

(1999) reads Nora’s compendium of sites as a study in the forces of tradition, rather than a dialogue between memory and history. He argues that Nora’s definition of true memory speaks more to the changes in memory and its move away from tradition.

Nora’s focus on national collective memory. Nora’s emphasis on national identity in his collection of French sites of memory is criticized for creating a false sense of collectivity, while overlooking counter-memory, colonization and other opposition. Because the concept of sites of memory is rooted in Nora’s attempt to revise French history, sites of memory are frequently used to understand national memory. Recently, the field of memory studies has increasingly looked for groups or “collectives” beyond the national framework, which fails to reflect the expanding interest in globalization and cosmopolitanism. Nora’s les lieux de mémoire are a catalogue of symbols and icons denoting French identity. In application, a series of similar collections were REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 48 created including German, Italian, and American sites of memory, linking the term to the study of national memory. Thus, refined through case studies in national memory, sites of memory and national memory become intertwined.

Hue-Tam Tai (2001) discusses how Nora’s focus on French identity overlooks the role of imperial and colonial French identity. Yet, Tai notes that over the course of the seven volumes

of the collection, the concept of sites of memory becomes increasingly open to variation, making

space for negotiation and counter memory. She posits that Nora was unable to address the increasing complexity of the concept through application and failed to revise his earlier definition. She highlights that this is not a limitation of the concept, because issues of colonization and local sites of memory are more prominent in English and American studies of

sites of memory. Zelizer (1999) notes that sites of memory are places, whether physical,

cultural, or ideational, where “memory settles and takes on collective meanings” (p. 202).

Further, she agrees that Nora refines the concept through his plurification of sites, rather than

offer a revised definition. Thus, she argues that sites of memory are not solely national, but

rather that the concept is a framework to examine various constructions of the past.

Tai (2001) suggests that part of Nora’s national focus on sites of memory comes from his

emphasis on how sites are constructed rather than how they are perceived. Tai suggests that it is

this focus on construction that gives the false impression of their universal acceptance. She

argues that sites of memory should incorporate counter-memory, which can be achieved by looking at their reception. Legg (2005) repeats Tai’s idea that sites of memory, as a concept, can be used to address counter-memory. He considers the American application of the concept, noting that in America, the concept is used to champion counter-memory opposed to national memory. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 49

Similarly, A. Assmann (2010a) notes that memory is increasingly examined outside a national focus. She acknowledges that the Holocaust is no longer a national site of memory, but part of the memory of the Jewish Diaspora, Germany, European nations, and other groups. Pim

Den Boer (2010) separates sites of memory from the French national context. Thus, Den Boer

(2010) suggests that sites are “mnemotechnical devices” (p. 21), the majority of which were either constructed or appropriated for the purpose of the state. Udo Hebel (2010) applies Nora’s concept of sites of memory to American history. He suggests the value in the concept is not in its national focus, but in its incorporation of fictional literature and interpretations of the past.

Rather than using the concept to introduce a series of universally accepted American sites of memory, he addresses the plurality and availability of sites. In particular, he suggests sites of memory are important both for remembrance and for the industries that produce them, such as

Hollywood. Increasingly these industries, such as media corporations, are less interested in types of remembrance, but in the profits which can be drawn from remembrance.

Nora’s vague definition of sites of memory. Where Tai (2001) and Legg (2005) use sites of memory’s versatility to apply the concept beyond a nationalistic context, other scholars imply that Nora’s concept is too open, allowing everything from the past to be examined as a site of memory. Taithe (1999) notes that Nora’s concept and its wide application could lead to an infinite number of sites. Thus, Taithe (1999) concludes that sites of memory may be “a better formula than concept,” as its application has surpassed its theorization (p. 131). Erll (2010) suggests that sites of memory, as a concept, may be so broad as to undermine its usefulness.

Rigney (2005) argues for a greater emphasis on the scarcity of sites, evoking Nora’s idea that sites are characterized by a will to remember and a maximization of symbolic value. She suggests that by emphasizing selectivity, the concept could gain specificity. She argues for a REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 50 greater emphasis on the changing uses or perceptions of sites of memory. Like Rigney, A.

Assmann (2010b) stresses the need to examine a different set of relationships on which sites function. Rather than study what constructs a site of memory, typically a story of institutional or dominant decision-making, she looks at the reception or use of the site, which Rigney refers to as

the dynamics of memory.

An Active Definition of Memory

Considering the criticism of Halbwachs, J. Assmann and Nora, this study looks to

contemporary works in memory studies that stress activity rather than focus on objects, in order

to address the social function of franchises. This definition, stressing activity, is most strongly

related to Nora’s concept of sites of memory, in which the material object is a hub for the

remembrance activity around it. Several scholars have also returned to Nora’s work with an

emphasis on activity (Meyer, 2009; Olick, 2010; Rigney, 2010; Van Dijck, 2007). As such, they

found that activity addresses criticism that memory studies assumes agreement about the past.

Further, an active definition of memory fits with methods used in communication studies and

cultural studies, responding to criticisms about the selection and analysis of memory.

This study focusses on the reception of the Muppet franchise, much like Rigney’s (2010)

dynamic approach to the study of sites of memory. By focussing on the action around the

Muppets, contestation amongst various groups can be addressed. By combining an active

definition of memory with an emphasis on the use of material sites, this study is able to

overcome the limitation of Nora’s concept. Rigney’s (2005, 2010) work suggests that a focus on

an active definition of memory can refine site of memory into a concept which addresses

contestation and adds specificity.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 51

Material Objects are Anchors for Remembrance Activity

Erll (2010) stresses that Nora’s sites of memory describes the role that material objects play as anchors of memory. In particular, Erll (2010) draws on Rigney (2005) to suggest that the performance or the dynamics of memory offers a framework to study the interplay between structures and individuals. Thus, by focussing on a site, one can account for the “mediation of cultural practices . . . that change over time” (Rigney, 2010, p. 345). Like Bodnar’s (2000) reading of Nora, sites of memory become a way to study heritage, which is increasingly nomadic in nature. This approach to sites of memory moves outside the archive, to embrace the activity or social actions that create them. Thus, Rigney (2010) defines a site of remembrance as an embodied or material association of a series of social actions.

Building on Nora’s conception of the sites of the memory, Jay Winter and Emmaunel

Sivan (2000) do not focus on memorials and cenotaphs, but the actions around them. Winter and

Sivan attempt to refine the concept of collective memory, while maintaining its role in the construction of a collective of people. To do this, they emphasize a shift from the content of memory towards to acts of remembrance, in which ideology and power constructions create imaginary notions of publics and collectives. Winter and Sivan propose that remembrance, a public action, demonstrates the intersection of private, familial, and collective memories, creating the framework for a collective action out of the personal. Winter (2002) notes that the material manifestation of the memory becomes increasingly important as firsthand knowledge of the events is lost. He proposes a shift from collective memory to the action of remembrance as a solution for collective memory’s generalization of all individual memories as products of society. In other words, by looking at the expressive forms of civil society, one finds collective, but also individual memories. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 52

The Benefits of an Active Definition of Memory

By considering the action around a particular site, as opposed to with it, an activity-based approach to memory seeks out contestation and conflicting remembrance. This activity-focussed approach is important because it ensures that false collectives are not assumed. Alon Confino

(1997) posits “memory is everywhere” and scholars have selected historical events based on their ease of interpretation (p. 1387). He distinguishes memory uncovered in a text from memory as a functionality which expresses the tensions and relations between culture, society, and the political. He conceives memory as a mentality between representation and social experience, “part of the mental equipment of a society” (Confino, 1997, p. 1402). Through this focus on the acts of remembrance around particular objects, contestation and tension are more likely to be considered.

By examining the shared sense of knowledge around particular events, Geoffrey Cubbit

(2007) argues that negotiation and contestation become clear. This active-focussed definition of memory stresses that shared awareness is not a sign of agreement or that it represents the meanings held by the individuals. Memory and remembrance become ways to study how knowledge about the past is created, sustained, and augmented. Cubitt suggests that there is a shared sense of knowledge around particular events, while recognizing that all individuals are not in agreement with the meaning regarding the event’s representation of the past. The sharing or awareness of memory does not necessarily correspond with the notion of its meaning held by the individual.

Focussing on an active definition of memory also allows scholars to consider how individuals participate in different groups with different remembrances. In particular, it addresses this diversity by seeking out popular, rather than institutionally driven culture. Popular REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 53

Memory Group of the Centre of Contemporary Cultural Studies asserts that the study of popular culture as memory validates the experience of non-dominant groups (Johnson, 1983). This social framework of memory does not ignore national heritage, but examines how memory is expressed and circulated, through various types of popular culture, to offer alternatives. Rather than focus on one group membership, these scholars attempt to understand the multiple social formations with which individuals share memory. Thus, memory is seen not only as national, but generational, geographical, and cultural. Like other British memory studies scholars, they stress how material objects are the focus of competing remembrance activity. Scholars, like

Raphael Samuel (1994) and David Lowenthal (1985), seek out remembrance in popular cultural rather than heritage institutions.

By moving away from the study of heritage institutions and commemorative memory,

British memory studies is able to question national memory’s shared consensus. By emphasizing popular culture as an object of remembrance activity, these scholars can address elements of contestation or agreement amongst various invested groups. For example, Samuel (1994) and

Lowenthal (1985) highlight that the individual’s relationship to the group is no longer expressed

by a singular collective memory. Both scholars talk about various trends with which individuals

engage in remembrance of the past and that these activities are diverse and selected by

individuals. This approach allows for a multitude of memories to be drawn from a series of

resources that provide a sense of pastness. Samuel and Lowenthal argue that the way memory is

expressed and constructed is important; however, they also acknowledge that an individual’s

sense of the past is created through his/her own activity, construction, or selection from a number

of possible frameworks for creating meaning from the past. The cultural artifacts and cues can

be used for social purposes, as well as, for aspects of cooperative activity. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 54

Samuel (1994) points out the inclusive nature of memory, in comparison to the writing of history. By looking at what he refers to as unofficial histories, particularly those of local and popular culture, the fluidity of the boundaries between official, institutional, heritage and individual uses of the past can be seen. Similarly, Lowenthal (1985) is interested in the ways in which the use and presentation of the past are linked to questions of taste and veneration, where fragmented aspects of old or “pastness” are integrated into a tourist perspective, removed from daily human activities. For Lowenthal, pastness becomes less a quality of the individual and self, than an act of consumption, a question of ownership, and an issue of fashion. Lowenthal and Samuel are interested in the forms and frameworks used for remembrance, which suggests that they use an active definition of memory.

Patterns of Remembrance Activities

Mnemonic Frames as Patterns of Remembrance Meaning-Making

By stressing an active definition of memory, what is remembered is secondary to how it is remembered. This focus is best expressed by this study’s used of mnemonic frames, which describe social patterns and genres used to present a form of continuity between the present and the remembered past. Mnemonic frames are the social frameworks used in remembrance and which shape the meaning made from the past. While this study focusses on an object, the franchise, this approach should not suggest that the memory somehow resides in the franchise or the franchise products, as some sort of Muppet memory. It does suggest that memory, particularly the recollection of Muppets, is associated with the past. Memory can be presented to the popular audience through journalism, marketing, and other contexts in which the franchise is framed as significant, particularly for its role in understanding the past within the present. Thus, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 55 this study focusses on the role of the performance of memory, where the individual, institution, or group presents possible memories around the franchise.

Remembrance may seem fragmented when focussing on memory activity. While the

notion of a collective breaks downs, memory studies is better able to address the social

frameworks, patterns or genres used to construct relationships between a present material form

and the past. Activity-focussed memory increases the importance given to the forms and

framework invoked by the activity. As Jeffrey Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel

Levey (2011) argue in their introduction to The Collective Memory Reader, memory studies

focusses on how knowledge about the past is created, circulated, and includes shared structures.

This study refers to these as mnemonic frames; however several other memory scholars have

similarly studied how various remembrance activities are created and reinforced overtime using

different terminology. Paolo Jedlowski (2001) finds that mnemonic practices construct a sense

of the time—e.g., heritage, traditions, rituals, and institutions. In a culture that increasingly

relies on the past in terms of its use for the present, he argues that it is important to consider

“practices of memory” by examining the habitual mnemonic relationship attached to shared

meaning (Jedlowski, 2011, p. 40).

Mnemonic frames reflect memory studies scholarship’s shift away from the practice of

recollection towards how knowledge about the past is sustained and evoked in particular

contexts. This analytic approach requires scholars to focus on memory as actions that construct

and perpetuate knowledge about the past. The material manifestation of the memory is still

studied, but the focus is on the actions that take place in its construction and continued use. This

approach highlights the material use of the past and contestations over its construction.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 56

The Benefits of Studying Patterns of Remembrance

Olick and Robbins (1998) in their history of memory studies posit that mnemonic practices, rather than collective memory, “enable us to identify ways in which past and present are intertwined” (p. 112). They follow Nora’s work on the acts of remembrance to argue that a focus on understanding how memory practices and the sites where these practices occur may reveal social reproduction, providing insight into the flexibility, continuity, and negotiation of the past. Olick and Robbins present three motivations for the use of mnemonic practices: instrumental, cultural and inertial. Instrumental motivations use mnemonic practices for an intentional use. Cultural motivations focus on the use of the mnemonic practices that continue the past by adapting it to a new context. Lastly, inertial mnemonic practices occur out of habit rather than conscious referencing. In addition, these three motivations for using mnemonic practices can also be used to understand forgetting.

Building on the examination of mnemonic practices, Olick (2007a) suggests that looking for memory traces, earlier usages of an approach or reference, would provide an understanding of how memory is constructed, but also how it adapts to particular situations and events. These

traces, whether styles or genres, are mnemonic activities that locate memory within a temporal frame of reference. Olick suggests that the mnemonic practices are not an aspect of the past or present, but mediate between the two. Further, Olick (1999) posits that to examine the mnemonic practices used by institutions, organizations and other groups involved in commemoration, one has to understand the accumulated meaning of the events. Olick (1998), in his study of German memory since unification, stresses how each of the two Germanys had defined regular rituals, a genre with a specific style of language, to address WWII. He studies the impact of unification, particularly how it challenged the continuity of those genres. Jeffrey REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 57

Olick and Daniel Levey (1997) argue that memory persistence creates its own patterns or genres which draw not only on events, but on past remembrance. Olick (1999) demonstrates how cultural processes used to create memory are not an invention of the present, but are rather resistant to change. This resistance implies that each commemoration impacts future commemorations. As a framework, current commemorations are studied for how they are connected to past through the notion of genre. These frameworks offer an intertextual approach to memory, which Olick (1999) discusses as a “history of mnemonic practice”(p. 383). This study seeks to similarly study mnemonic practices through the examination of mnemonic frames.

Olick (2007b) sets out more specific criteria for the location of the memory traces. He suggests that researchers need to understand the field, the medium, the genre, and the profile of the memory construction. By the field, Olick refers to the context of the construction. By medium, Olick is referring to the form of the presentation of the past. Olick defines the genre of the memory construction as the intertextual relationship between mnemonic practices. Lastly the profile of the memory construction describes all the previous meanings given to this memory trace in the past. When reviewing the field of memory studies, Olick (2009) continues to encourage scholars to study the “processes of cultural transmission and commemoration” by examining a variety of mnemonic products and practices, forms and functions (p. 249). He argues that this approach offers the most promise. This study’s use of mnemonic frame responds to this call.

To operationalize the study of memory and its construction, Irwin-Zarecka (1994) adapts

Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis, allowing Irwin-Zarecka to deconstruct the text in a systematic way, thereby revealing the dynamics of collective memory. Irwin-Zarecka considers that the framing of content used to perform memory reveals the dynamic interactions of the material REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 58 aspects of popular culture. Of relevance to this study is her examination of how the shaping of events, at the level of press coverage, plays an important role in shaping the perceived historical importance of these events. The first step of her construction recognizes the possibility of communities of memory, over the concepts of collectivities. This allows for multiple forms of the memory to be used by different groups. In this way, she avoids the question of the relationship between individual and group memory, rather looks at how the past is mediated, framed and represented. She attempts to construct the relationship between private and public memories. This relationship focusses on the distinction between those who experience the event, and those who learn of the experience through representations.

Past Studies on Patterns or Structures of Remembrance

Mnemonic frames focus on the patterns used to prompt remembrance activity. More importantly, frames should not be just tied or applied to an object or a site. They should be versatile, and be invoked by remembrance activities at other sites. Thus mnemonic frames reflect media studies’ interest in myth, narrative patterns, repeated rhetorical techniques, and rituals. In his review of the theoretical development of memory studies, Jedlowski (2001) highlights that structures, particularly narrative practices, are used to offer language and discourse to build memory. Jedlowski maintains a focus on the mnemonic practices that are used to construct a sense of the time, through the practices that overlap with heritage, traditions, rituals, and institutions that concentrate on continuity. In a culture that increasingly relies on the past in terms of its use for the present, it is important to examine the habitual mnemonic relationship attached to shared meaning. Thus, he argues that memory practices change to suggest a prolonging of the past. Practices are “a system of operative, cognitive, relational habits that constitutes the framework of continuity” (Jedlowski, 2001, p. 40). Therefore, these practices REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 59 are similar to mnemonic frames, which organize and make meaning of the past to build continuity with the present.

Like this study’s use of mnemonic frames, Confino (1997) finds that through remembrance, memory studies examines the making of “a shared cultural knowledge by successive generations in vehicles of memory” (p. 1386). He suggests memory and commemoration help society to continue and understand the world, much like myth. Therefore,

Confino (1997) argues that memory “is an explanatory device that links representation and social experience” (p. 1402). Confino (2008) discusses the structures of remembrance by building on the Anneals school’s interest in mentalities, which he argues allows scholars to consider “the way people acted, shaped, internalized and change images of the past.” (p. 81). Thus memory becomes a way to structure behaviours.

Socially constructed patterns of remembrance. In their introduction, David Middleton and Derek Edwards (1990) consider the social practices of commemoration as a framework for remembrance. They consider remembrance as a form of social practice that offers a sense of continuity. They propose how certain rhetorical structures are used to organize this continuity—

particularly through ongoing adaptation of the past and present. Similarly, Winter’s (2008) study of forms of remembrance for the First World War (WWI) operationalize this structural approach.

He examines how forms of remembrance interact and reinforce each other. Winter considers

how various frameworks and constructions of the past impact acts of remembrance, such as

history. Winter considers the impact of historians’ interpretation of the past as similar to the way

calendars offer a pattern to organize the past. He suggests that various institutions and practices

can structure individual remembrance. They offer a typical form or common frames for

understanding the relationship between past and present. For example, Winter argues that the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 60 focus on democracy after WWI impacts the ways in which war memorials were constructed, such as listing names alphabetically rather than rank. In particular, Winter highlights that the organization of names on war memorials, served as a large organizational structure for the purpose of mourning, which stressed democracy.

Both Paul Connerton (1989) and Eviatar Zerubavel (1996, 2003) also address socially constructed patterns of remembrance. While Connerton focusses on bodily practices, Zerubavel focusses on temporal constructions. In particular, Connerton (1989) stresses ongoing actions that give memory an embodied form through habit. For example, Connerton considers manners and fashion as embodied forms, which could suggest a mnemonic practice that frames and structures remembrance. Connerton argues that notions of the past are sustained through performance.

Connerton’s social memory mirrors the refocussing of memory as a result of practices and actions. In this way, Connerton suggests that actions or practices both draw on a sense of the past and construct knowledge of the past. The notion of performativity allows Connerton to bridge the experiences and actions of individuals with the power structure of the group or collective. For Connerton, memory does not support group identity, but does support social structure. He suggests memory is a liminal space, where the norms of behaviour are suspended, and memory can be preserved or altered. Memory gives a sense of how the individual can be both incorporated in and struggle against the group.

Zerubavel (1996) suggests that social forms allow one to construct memories for events that occur before birth. Thus, remembrance occurs through interpretation driven by social and cultural contexts. For example, Zerubavel argues that one of the most common mnemonic patterns is calendars, because they offer a basic temporal structure. Zerubavel (2003) also engages with memory in terms of mnemonic practices that create what he refers to as, time maps. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 61

Zerubavel studies these mnemonic practices at a macro-level, by outlining a series of temporal practices that span over cultures and civilizations. He suggests that mnemonic communication

facilitates a shared an interpretation of the past. Zerubavel’s (2003) macro-patterns of memory

construction provide a series of possible mnemonic practices that focus on the construction of

congruency between past and present and the maintenance of social tradition.

Cultural patterns of remembrance. Rigney (2005) argues that “vicarious recollection”

(p. 14) is best done by examining the models of remembrance and memory translation. Rigney

(2005) notes that there is a “repertoire of memorial forms” through different media (p. 22). The forms are not new, but a recycling or also adaptation of the older “recursive acts of remembrance” (Rigney, 2005, p. 25). In the introduction to Imperfect histories, Rigney (2001) discusses the blurring between memory and other representations of the past in order to examine the dynamics between history and the representation of the past available to us. Rigney notes how these models can be used and disseminated by literature. Thus, her study of Walter Scott’s historical fiction demonstrates how fiction offers mnemonic models, which provide a representation of past that is appealing and easily used in the readers’ remembrance.

Longitudinal studies of patterns of remembrance. While several scholars articulate

how previous remembrance impacts future remembrance, there are few studies that address this

impact through longitudinal case studies. The most prominent works to use a longitudinal case study are those by Barry Schwartz (1990, 1991, 1997a, 1997b), Michael Schudson (1990, 1991) ,

and Barbie Zelizer (1992), who all focus on presidential memory. Schwartz’s (1991, 1997b) works focus on the shifting remembrance of Washington and Lincoln. In particular, he argues that these historical personas are reintroduced and used as a resource for contemporary political issues, offering a present interpretation of the past. Further, by performing a semiotic analysis of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 62 the use of these figures, Schwartz (1997b) notes how a series of commemorations influence each

other, revealing a network of memories—reflecting the structure and interconnection of

remembrance. By examining the longitudinal representation of memory, Schwartz posits that

these mnemonics networks can be understood. The webs, in the case of his work, organize

memories about the president and provide an understanding of how the president becomes a signifier of accumulated meanings. Schwartz’s (1990) work on Lincoln suggests that his periodic commemoration is tied to society’s “symbolic order,” maintaining the memory of a particular figure (p. 82). Structures are required to continue recall; in the case of Lincoln, these structures ensure a relevant Lincoln representation. Schwartz considers that these structures refashion the past for contemporary needs. Schwartz avoids the homogeneous sharing of collective memory by highlighting that memory is tied to shared constructions, which can be selected and allow for fragmentation.

Schudson’s (1990, 1991) work is similar to Schwartz’s, but focusses on the longitudinal remembrance of presidents Regan and Nixon. Schudson considers how the remembrance of these presidents becomes references for future events. Thus, Schudson (1991) examines the use of the suffix “gate” to refer to political scandals post-Watergate. He argues that this suffix offers an available past to understand a contemporary event. Gate continues to be used even though the scandal is considered forgotten. Schudson looks for the forgotten memory of the Watergate scandal and finds its continuation in unusual spaces: taxi drivers showing the hotel, celebrations of attorneys involved, and the continual appointments of a special prosecutor. However,

Schudson argues that the strongest ties to the memory of the Watergate scandal are in the linguistic use of the word gate to infer scandal. Thus, Schudson argues that each subsequent gate, such as Iran-Contra Gate, continues the memory of the event, without specifying the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 63 president or the particular scandal. Therefore, Schudson considers these structures of remembrance part of the challenge of memory studies. In his later article, Schudson (1997) suggests that implications of memory are not always expressed in monuments or commemoration, but continue on in subtle ways.

Similarly, Zelizer’s (1992) work on remembrance demonstrates how news

representations of historical events structure remembrance, particularly the coverage of John F.

Kennedy’s (JFK) assassination. Rather than simply study the coverage of the event in 1963, she

expands her study to include both examples of commemoration and memorialization. Zelizer

studies of the JFK’s assassination over 25 years to understand the way in which the repetition

and change in the coverage of the assassination reframes the events for new contexts and new

audiences. In her later work, Zelizer (1993) argues that journalists and their coverage of historical events act as interpretive communities. They present collective interpretations of key public events.

Sites of Memory as Products of Patterns of Remembrance (Including Mnemonic Frames)

This study’s focus on mnemonic frames can be used to understand the actions that Nora posits create a site of memory. In her work focussed on semiotics, Brigittine French (2012) posits that sites of memory are made, read and contested through the “circulation of semiotic practices” (p. 337). French (2012) considers memory as a presentation of the past. This representation is communicated through “forms, codes, media, and texts” (French, 2012, p. 344).

Each of these disseminates and structures the representation of memory.

Olick (2006) considers the intellectual structure of memory as “the collective perception

of human activities” (p. 99). This definition mirrors that of mnemonic frames, which are

common structures used to bridge the past and present. Olick suggests scholars focus on social REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 64 frameworks and the structures that pattern representation of the past, like Nora’s pursuit of sites.

Olick reshapes cultural memory into a study of mnemonic products and the practices that create them. Practices, such as acknowledgment and celebration, are similar to this study’s focus on mnemonic activities. The resulting mnemonic frames can address the dynamic process of remembrance, by considering the structures used in various forms of remembrance across contexts. In the conclusion of their review paper, Olick and Robbins (1998) argue for studies that acknowledge changing mnemonic practices as well as engage in contemporary memory theory. This study’s focus on mnemonic frames responds to their call by connecting the remembrance activity around the Muppets to mnemonic frames, which structure the experience of continuity. Mnemonic frames are transmitted and shared amongst mnemonic communities, like Olick’s (2007b) mnemonic practices.

By combining Nora’s site of memory with an active definition of memory and a focus on patterns of remembrance, this study is able to add specificity and nuance to memory studies.

Moreover, it is able to avoid assumed collectivity and seek out negotiation and multiplicity in remembrance. These frames look at both what is used for remembrance activities by examining how new sites of memory are formed and how remembrance activities around previous sites draw on past remembrances. By examining all remembrance activities around a site, though limited by its reliance on press coverage, this study takes into account various groups who have an interest in the Muppet remembrance.

Memory Studies Scholarship on Popular Culture and Media

As memory studies attempts to engage in transnational or global remembrance, scholars shift their focus from the monuments and sites associated with nation memory to examine the role of popular culture, media technology, and media commemoration, particularly journalism. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 65

Along with addressing globalization, these topics also demonstrate scholars’ use of an active definition of memory and an interest in patterns or structures of remembrance.

Memory Studies’ Approach to Popular Culture

Celebrity. With the interest in the globalization of memory, popular culture is increasingly examined as an object around which memory is built. For example, Grace Bolton and Nerina Muzurovic (2010) present the unique case of the memorialization of Bruce Lee in the city of Mostar, where Serbian and Croatian ethnicities remain in conflict. They argue that the statue of Lee in Mostar was an attempt to offer a post-war object of remembrance, which appealed to youth and allied with neither of the city’s ethnic groups. The statue builders hoped that Lee, as a global icon, would overcome the tension between both groups. Bruce Lee was a possible hero figure for the community because of his status, but the memorialization was rejected through vandalism. As a result, Bolton and Muzurovic argue that the remaining concrete base now marks the failure of the attempted shared memory.

Music. Ana Sobral (2010) uses her own experience of cosmopolitan music as globalized cultural memory. Sobral’s (2010) study of several global popular music artists considers both popular music and memory as no longer constricted by national lines. She interprets song lyrics, showing that these songs not only question the construction of memory, but advocate memory from ethnic backgrounds different from that of the singer. She describes the biblical references, utilized by a contemporary Jewish American rapper to express his memory of Jerusalem, to illustrate this point. Sobral (2010) concludes that lyrics, which include and exclude aspects of the past, “highlight the relationship between collective memory and processes of selection based on changing historical circumstances” (p. 219). Using a cultural memory framework, she REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 66 stresses that the songs, and not the activities, are global remembrance, which problematically implies that memory is located within the songs.

Literature. Rigney (2005) focusses on literature as an example of the global remembrance of popular culture. Rigney’s (2011) analysis of Robert Burns’ centennial birthday stresses performance as a dynamics of remembrance. In particular, she examines the mnemonic practices of the commemoration as a “form of social action,” rather than static sites (Rigney,

2011, p. 77). She stresses how media facilitated cross-national remembrance, not only for the poet, but for Burn’s useable text. She notes how as a piece of popular culture, Burns’ poems were open to a reimagining of tradition and identity by various overlapping communities:

Scottish, British, European, and Commonwealth.

Stamps. Just as Rigney addresses Burns’ popular poetry, Ekaterina Haskins (2003) examines how stamps can be constructed as a form of popular commemorative memory.

Notably, she stresses how the United States Postal Service (USPS) invited citizens to select the images of the stamps to celebrate the century as a way to bridge institutional and popular memory. Along with considering the consumption of the past, Haskins also examines how these postal stamps represent mnemonic structures that create a stable sense of past. Further, she unpacks how the images are constructions of the present. These iconic images, like sites of

memory, are a condensation of meaning. Haskins (2003) also argues that these stamps include

“both official and vernacular interpretation of the past” (p. 6). She describes how images were also altered to sanitize the past, particularly referring to the removal of Jackson Pollock’s cigarette. She notes how remembrance was used as a way to increase revenues by encouraging young stamp collectors. Therefore, Haskins proposes a tie between popular cultural

remembrance and commercialized remembrance. Haskins (2003) argues that the “sentimental REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 67 identification with material sign of popular culture” allows history to be commoditized “cashing- in on the public’s desire to make history” (p. 9). Yet, she concludes that this commercialisation should not be assumed to erase the political nature of remembrance.

Memory Studies’ Approach to Media Technologies

As memory scholars address popular culture as an object of remembrance, they often end up also considering the role of the media, both as a form that shapes remembrance and as a venue for the promotion of certain interpretations of the past. The latter tends to focus on readings of films and TV programs, over the impact or reception of these programs. With a focus on media, scholars assert that new frames are created and older patterns of remembrance are adapted. Therefore Jedlowski (2001) argues that media, through multiplicity and selection, offers a new resource for memory and with it a new structure to organized remembrance.

Media as a distributor of memory. Rigney (2005) highlights the role of media as a form of representation of memory. Accordingly, Rigney (2005) asserts that “memorial traditions

are reproduced and transformed in a variety of media” (p. 15). Rigney argues that the media’s

role in memorial practices would be conservation, repetition, and duplication. These roles

connect media to various remembrance activities, more symbolic than material. Rigney stresses

the role of repetition because these ongoing media performances become part of shared remembrance and are used in later remembrance.

Like Rigney’s interest in the media’s recirculation of remembrance, A. Assmann (2010a)

offers an example of how media blurs former national or ethnic memory. She addresses how the

Holocaust shifts away from solely Jewish remembrance to a global model for the remembrance

of genocide. She stresses the media’s role in this shift from group memory to global REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 68 remembrance. A. Assmann (2010a) argues that this shift creates “iconic mediatized memories”

(p. 106). She argues that media creates global memory outside traditional memory structures.

Media as a source of artificial memory. Andrew Hoskins (2001) uses collective memory as a theoretical concept to understand new media and the role that it plays in the mediation of memory. Hoskins (2001) suggests that memory is not a site of historical or momentary representation, but a long-term development. Hoskins posits that mediated memory or artificial memory is a response to a media-saturated environment. In particular, he suggests that television is well suited to the development and constant change of memory as television is placeless and timeless. Television and new media technology create a saturation of memory through their constant flow of content.

While some scholars see media technology as a way to circulate memory—particularly globally—other scholars suggest that these technologies of remembrance require new ways to remember. The most provocative of these scholars is Alison Landsberg (2004). Landsberg addresses film and other media, not as continuation of collective memory, but as a new form of prosthetic memory, an innovation of modernity. Prosthetic memory describes technology as a mediator between a historical narrative and a person. This new form of memory, Landsberg

(2004) argues, informs the power of new memory, made by technology. She asserts that the mass media facilitates various groups to share certain memories, allowing for a new collectivity and shared remembrance outside class, gender, nation or ethnicity. Landsberg argues that media expose audiences to memories that they would not have had access to without the technology.

Thus, Landsberg (2004) claims that “the cinema offers spectators from diverse backgrounds and ancestries a shared archive of experience” (p. 14). She suggests that individual and public memory and history are mutually constructed and unable to be separated from the experience of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 69 mass media’s representation of the past. In this way, she distinguishes prosthetic memory from media as souvenir-like remembrance resource.

Media as a catalyst for new forms of memory. Jedlowski (2001) sees the use of the new technology as sparking a plurality of memory, which meets new needs for remembering and forgetting. However, Jedlowski (2001) does argue that the younger generation, while needing a sense of past, rely on the “undemanding forms of the memory” rather than forms that would require greater reflection (p. 40). Technology and recirculation of objects or content may impact memory, but they should not be separated from the notion of the action, or the remembrance side of the memory. Elzbieta Halas (2008) argues that the media revolution, with its new creation and distribution of the past, creates a new collective built on populism. Like Jedlowski, she suggests that these new forms of memory are substitutions for older forms of memory.

An example of the impact of new media and its shaping of memory is Aledia Assmann and Corinna Assmann’s (2010) analysis of Neda Sulta. They examine technology’s role in the

transformation of Neda Sulta into a global icon of resistance to Iranian state power. They note how the video of her death was circulated through the internet—reproducing both the video, but images of other Nedas. With the rising remembrance of Neda, A. and C. Assmann discuss ways in which the Iranian government attempts to rewrite her death, stressing Western involvement.

The authors conclude that, through media technology, her image was recreated and spread, becoming a shared icon used by various groups to give power to her memory, including power that she did not have access to in life. A. and C. Assmann examine the ways that Neda, a non- political casualty, became a symbolic representation for Iran’s election conflicts and the crimes committed against protestors. They argue that increasingly journalists rely on individual figures as representations of events, particularly when they have limited access to the country. In fact, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 70 the accuracy of the name, image, or place has little consequence in terms of the resulting memory. They conclude that even within the context of new media, the older practices of martyrdom continue, as with Neda. This study suggests that culture within the context of globalization uses technology to enact remembrance.

Jens Brockmeier (2010) posits that the new technology will allow for a new integration of autobiographical memory with social memory or communicative memory. She proposes that technology will reduce the elusive nature of the memory by offering both mental and material cues. Thus, she posits that technologies facilitate memory activities, but are not the essence of memory. Brockmeier (2010) argues that technologies are an extension of other objects and artifacts that serve an “essential mnemonic function” (p. 27). Similarly, Erll (2011) suggests that memory events are likely to be part of an inter-medial dynamic in which they are represented repeatedly. She indicates that memories are remediated, providing a schemata for future representation, as well as, recirculation.

Media as catalyst for increasing remembrance. Several authors suggest that media technology increases or decreases memory. A. Assmann (2010b) discusses how new technology creates a vast archive. José Van Dijck’s (2007) work on digital technologies’ mediation of memory suggests that technology provides the resources for private and public recollection.

While Van Dijck’s emphasis is on personal memory, she proposes, as does Brockheimer (2010), that technologies, can be used to connect personal remembrance with shared patterns, genres, or forms of remembrance. Notably, she examines the ways in which photographs, camcorders and other technology reflect a larger discursive framework of communication about one’s past. Van

Dijck goes as far as to challenge the distinction between memory and media, suggesting that they are mutually constructing, using the example of America’s Funniest Home Videos. In later REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 71 sections of the monograph, Van Dijck (2007) considers the role of collecting (music), creating

(digital photographs), and archiving (the personal computer).

In a later work, Van Dijck (2008) explains home video as tri-mediated memory to emphasize technology’s role in connecting personal and popular remembrance. All home movies are first “mediated acts of cognition” as the camera is used to create images (Van Dijck,

2008, p. 71). Secondly these images are then created for future remembrance. Lastly, the video can be reused in productions of remembrance. This tripartite mediation results in “cinematic hindsight” wherein the product reflects the tropes and techniques of film and television production (Van Dijck, 2008 p. 71). She concludes by noting that though technologies change, they continue to promote a desire to preserve our present for the future. Technology increasingly allows the home-user to film the present for the future, but using the tropes and styles of publically circulated media productions.

Media technologies as an object of remembrance. Will Straw (2007) uses a definition of cultural memory which places memory in the object, or in the form of the presentation, highlighting technologies’ remediation. He argues that through remediation the form changes the content of memory, allowing for the persistence of the old amongst the new. In particular,

Straw (2007) argues that through remediation, the internet “strengthen[s] the cultural weight of the past” (p. 4), because of circulation and storage.

Kate Bowles’ (2011) work on the reception of 3D technology is the closest attempt to understand the remembrance of a media technology. Bowles uses memory as a theoretical frame in her analysis of the effect of 1950s 3D memory on perceptions of contemporary 3D film technology. Notably, she focusses on the photographs of 3D movie audiences and how these images continue to shaped contemporary responses to 3D technology. She argues that the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 72 glasses are different, 3D glasses remain associated with isolation and separation from other audience members.

Similarly, Annette Kuhn’s (2002) work on the remembrance of cinema-going focusses on the experience of a media form, rather than the remembrance of a particular film. Kuhn (2010) focusses on narratives of media reception, in particular how media offer embodiments or sites around which individuals can create memory texts. In her monograph, Kuhn (2002) interviews members of the first “movie-made generation,” those who grew up in the 1930s (p. 1). Kuhn

(2002) combines these interviews with press coverage and film readings to suggest that cinema memory is a form of cultural memory. Kuhn (2002) argues that this approach contributes to memory studies’ understanding of how acts of memory organize “personal and collective imaginations” (p. 238).

Memory Studies’ Approach to Media Content

In his analysis of the popularity of memory studies in sociology, Brian Conway (2010) finds that the majority of work focusses on content, particularly textual research. Similarly, the majority of work on mediated memory focusses on a textual approach to documentary and fictional historical programs. George Lipsitz’s (1990) work, Time Passages, demonstrates the role that historical themes play in music, theatre, novels, television and films. Edited collections, such as Vivian Sobchack’s The Persistence of History (1996), David Cannadine’s History and

Media (2004), and David Ellwood’s The Movies as History (2000), address the selection and maintenance of memory in media representation of historical events. In terms of television programs and films, collective memory has been used as a theoretical background to understand why the forms of the presentation of historical events in television and film are important. In REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 73 terms of understanding memory within the media, there has been a focus on the object, or text, as an expression of memory.

Though the focus of the majority of the film and TV topics studied is non-fictional, a few studies have examined fictional programs. Even the fictional programs discussed explicitly represent historical subject matter. Paul Frosh’s (2011) reading of Life on Mars (2006-2007) is an exemplar of this approach, where the focus is on its presentation of past events, rather than recirculation. Frosh’s reading of the program focusses the program’s representation of an imagined past. He concludes that television allows for an imagining of the past. Sabine Moller

(2012) similarly examines film as an imagined past in her exploration of the film, Forrest Gump

(1994). She argues that the allure of the film is rooted in its appeal to familiarity, offering a form of cultural memory. Thus, memory does not serve as an analytical tool in either study; it merely supports a case study approach or an examination of historical accuracy.

Reception-focussed studies. A few scholars have focussed on the reception, rather than the textual analysis of shows and films. Wulf Kansteiner’s (2004) work on the TV reception in

West Germany focusses on the viewing of programs on Second World War (WWII) and Nazism.

It is one of the only studies to address reception of media representations of WWII through the lens of memory. Kansteiner bases his findings on commercial audience ratings and content analysis of programs. He finds a shift in the presentation of Nazis that occurs as generations become more separated from the event. Kansteiner argues that TV viewers should continue to be studied to offer a greater sense of how viewing affects daily life. He argues that this daily popular form of media memory has been overlooked as scholarship focusses on intellectual and political debates. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 74

Jérôme Bourdon’s (2003) work is similar to Kansteiner’s (2004) attempt to understand the role of television in the remembrance of the past, stressing the value of daily rather than event-based memory. Working with a collection of life stories of viewers, Bourden’s (2003) work, though similar to Kuhn’s (2002) work on memory of cinema-going, does not seek to construct a history of TV reception, but to examine how TV facilitated a shared sense of memory, combining Halbwach’s collective memory with Fish’s interpretive communities. His findings suggest that not all programs are recalled, but that TV connects audiences to particular events. He compares these flashbulb memories with the recollection of TV daily seriality, what he calls wallpaper memories.

Journalism-focussed studies. A prominent focus within the study of media commemoration is the role of the journalist in framing the remembrance of events. Zelizer

(2008) has been vocal about recognizing the place of journalism in understanding memory.

Zelizer (1993) argues that journalists and their coverage of historical events act as interpretive

communities. They present collective interpretations of key public events. In particular, Zelizer

(1992) is making a reference to her own work on the JFK assassination, as discussed earlier. In her 2008 article, Zelizer addresses the role of the journalist more directly in the role of memory work. She makes clear that journalists are often key agents in memory work, though they do not self-identify as such. She suggests that journalistic practices seem to focus on the present; however, journalists also play an important role in interpreting events by invoking the past.

Zelizer (2008) notes that “practices such as rewrites, revisits to old events, commemorative or

anniversary journalism and even investigations of seemingly ‘historical’ events and happenings are regular occurrences in the daily register of news-making” (p. 82). In fact, she argues that memory work is incorporated into journalistic form. She suggests that journalists use mnemonic REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 75 forms, such as drawing on previous events to understand the present event. Her work on memory studies emphasizes the cultural and material aspects in constructing meaning (Zelizer,

1995).

In her more recent work, Zelizer (2011) highlights the role of journalism in the mediatization of memory. She stresses how journalists use structure to reshape local events as global remembrance. In particular, she is interested in how the initial reference to the past is used to locate a contemporary event in comparison to the past, a mnemonic connection. Zelizer

(2011) argues that these are one of the “mnemonic impulses” that are used to organize and make meaning of daily life (p. 28). Zelizer argues that the media’s interpretation of current events as objects of remembrance is a four stage process: minimization of local remembrance; replacement with other mnemonic events; displacement of local meaning; transportation of global meaning.

Cumulatively, these four stages create a physical form of the politics of remembrance.

Jane Hume and Noah Arcenaux (2008) continue the tradition of examining journalism as a way to study memory. In particular, Hume and Arcenaux (2008) stress that “journalists reference the past in storytelling” to “support contemporary events” (p. 156). Their study focusses on the American Juneteeth holiday to understand how its press coverage bridges the holiday’s civil war origins along with contemporary racial challenges. Similarly, Dan Berkowitz

(2011) describes the way in which journalists practice interpretation by referencing familiar events. Thus, he argues that all news coverage involves a connection to the past. To support this assertion, he examines the coverage of two events, the Virginia Tech massacre and Obama’s inauguration, to understand how the past is used to make meaning of these events, while arguing for these events’ future remembrance. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 76

Carolyn Kitch (2008) examines journalism as a form of memory construction, particularly the everyday news. She posits that though journalism is read by audiences in terms of news, it also functions as the starting place for the public perception of the events. She suggests that reporting continues traditional expressions of memory creation, like storytelling and rituals. Rather than focussing on the role of journalism as flashbulb memory, Kitch argues that journalism reflects the diverse subject matter of memory, which has yet to be studied. Soft news, particularly nostalgia, is a fertile space to understand the presentation of the past in the context of the everyday. Though she expands Zelizer’s argument, Kitch concludes that journalism is not only a conduit for memory, but a form of memory itself.

In her later work, Kitch (2011) studies commemorative magazines as combination of journalist interpretation and media form. She argues that journalistic products that are meant to be collected and kept represent a new practice, which she calls keepsake journalism. She presents how this practice is commonplace amongst elite media institutions, such as The New

York Times, 60 Minutes, and Time magazine. She uses a case study of Obama’s inauguration to examine how journalists frame the event. She argues that scholars and cultural critics overlook the complexity of keepsake journalism because they rely on the recycled and reused aspects of

these creations. She concludes that these magazines use various forms to reaffirm the

importance of events for future remembrance: special paper, different titles, and visual appeal.

Keepsake journalism highlights the future remembrance of the present.

Media and the Commercialization of Memory

Within the study of media technology and media commemoration, several scholars are

wary of the commercialization of memory, when institutions use memory to both promote

consumption and to engage individuals in remembrance as objects of taste or preference. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 77

Media’s role in memory is criticised as forming less challenging remembrance to make the past more palatable for consumers. As a result, several scholars suggest that the shift to commercial memory reduces the political potency of remembrance.

The commercialization of memory is a concern for many scholars, though generally only mentioned in passing. A. Assmann (2010b) argues that one aspect of the memory boom is the increasing influence of a particular group in the retelling of the history event of the media. A.

Assmann (2010b) likens media’s potential manipulation of the past to “marketing strategies or the demands of specific groups” (p. 39). Thus, the media’s presentation of memory often overlooks contestation in order to apply to the widest possible audience. Winter (2001) also identifies that the influx of memory, particularly the commemorative genre, is economic. Post war wealth allowed countries to expand education and funding for heritage activity. This expanding heritage activity increases the commercial appeal of memory-oriented marketing. In addition, he argues that memory sells goods. As a result, he includes commercial goods as part of the memory boom, suggesting that there is industrial potential in the selling and marketing of memory, such as the creation of the historical blockbuster films. Andreas Huyssen (1995) attributes the increasing need for memory with the increasing boom in consumable nostalgic

products to counteract the sense of the forgetting and loss of memory. Huyssen is also critical of

this commercialization of memory because of its unchallenging engagement with the past.

Even Kansteiner (2002) asserts that memory is becoming a consumable experience, based on consumers’ tastes and habits. While these authors address a concern for this commercialization of memory, Kansteiner is the only one to propose a way or method to understand how commercialization could impact remembrance. Kansteiner suggests that memory consumers can be studied by using media studies’ approaches to reception. In REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 78 particular, he argues that consumers recall events based on practices of reception. He asserts that the commercialization of memory may emphasize certain remembrance practices over others.

Oren Meyer (2009) considers how advertisements position commercial goods as sites of memory, noting that nostalgia is frequently used. She argues that this provides a distinct form of collective memory created for commercial interests. Firstly, Meyer (2009) defines advertising nostalgia, stressing that “advertising markets material products through the promise of nonmaterial gains” (p. 737). Thus, advertising nostalgia presents the past as it should have been, which consumers can attain through consumption. She uses the advertising campaign for the new Volkswagen Beetle, along with two other case studies, to unpack how advertising presents the consumption of material objects as a connection to a site of memory. She concludes that advertisers draw on previous associations and values with their products and use nostalgia to reinforce their products’ status.

Similar to Meyer’s work on the Beetle advertisements, William Foster, Roy Suddaby,

Alison Minkus, and Elden Wiebe (2011) consider how Tim Hortons leverages memory as an asset. In this marketing-focussed application of memory, memory is defined as continuity.

While this work still requires a more nuanced theorization of memory, it does suggest that mnemonic practices are used for commercial commemoration. While commercially-driven remembrance has been a discussed in theoretical studies addressed earlier, this study is one of the few works on the topic. It is also one of the few articles to connect this use of memory to strategic management of brands and their profitability.

Several scholars perceive the commercialization of memory as an explanation for the growth of media’s involvement in remembrance. The most nuanced approach to the interactions between consumption and remembrance is Marita Struken’s (2007) work on tragedy souvenirs REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 79 and objects left at makeshift memorials. She is interested in how kitsch objects are produced to mark traumatic events, such as 9/11. Notably, she describes how teddy bears and other objects are left at sites of trauma. She argues that through kitsch and nostalgia, these objects blend the complicated remembrance of tragedy with childlike simplicity. These products created for

consumptive remembrance, she warns, may smooth over contested memory by simplifying

traumatic events.

Conclusion

As this chapter highlights, the field of memory studies is diverse. This study aligns with

scholars, who move away from studying memory as within an object to studying memory as a

series of actions. This approach builds on Nora’s (1989) conception of site of memory, over J.

Assmann’s (2001) notion of cultural memory. Further, this study’s methodology, frame analysis,

stresses the role of mnemonic frames in making meaning of remembrance activities. The study’s

use of mnemonic frames connects with memory studies that focus on patterns or genres of

remembrance, like Olick’s (1999). These studies tend to use an active definition of memory and use it to examine aspects of memory that Nora connects to the creation of sites of memory.

While this study draws on these two trends in memory studies scholarship, it also uses contemporary memory studies scholarship to address common criticisms of collective memory and sites of memory: both concepts are rooted in nationalism and national institutions and both assume collectivity and consensus. Most importantly, it looks to the rich body of theoretically-

engaged scholarship to advance rather than apply Halbwachs’s concept. In the following

chapters, the concept of mnemonic frames is addressed as a methodology for studying genres or

patterns of remembrance. In particular, it builds on Irwin-Zarecka’s (1994) approach to frame REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 80 analysis and a model for understanding the dynamics of memory. It is hoped that this approach can offer a methodology based on the theoretical synthesis of prominent memory scholarship.

By using an active definition of memory, this study avoids the common criticism that memory studies assumes collectivity and agreement. By addressing all remembrance activities, the study’s analysis involves seeking out contestation and conflict; however, the study’s claims regarding the mnemonic frames and remembrance activities are limited to press coverage. The manner of seeking out contestation is discussed in more detail in the following chapter on methodology.

A focus on media franchises also helps to address the association of memory with national institutions. As discussed earlier in the chapter, this association is not an aspect of the concept itself, but a product of memory studies’ over use of application and underdevelopment of theorization. In studying the Muppet franchise, this study addresses remembrance around a globally circulated media franchise. While the press coverage used in the analysis is restricted to major American cities, the study does not associate the Muppet franchise with American remembrance.

The literature review describes the value of combining memory and media studies. In particular, it describes how this study on the Muppet franchise contributes to memory studies.

While popular culture and media are growing areas of interest in the field, more scholarship is needed to address how the recirculation and adaptation of popular culture functions as a remembrance activity or site of memory. While not the explicit focus on existing research, scholars have suggested that aspects of the study would be fruitful, including the adaptation and recreation of popular culture, and technology’s impact on memory—particularly its impact on circulation. Most importantly, the study offers insights into the commercialization of memory. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 81

As a field, memory studies moves towards an increasingly nuanced examination of popular culture. This study contributes to this movement by addressing fictional popular culture.

Specifically, it addresses fictional popular culture that does not represent a past historical event.

The longitudinal approach of the study considers how the recirculation of popular culture, much likely Rigney’s (2001, 2011) work on Walter Scott and Robert Burns, promotes remembrance activities.

With the focus on the media franchise, this study includes the examination of a wider variety of media forms including film, television, VHS and DVD. By examining several media forms, rather than the single technological form as typical within the field, this study contributes to memory studies’ understanding of the role technology plays in remembrance, specifically how previous content is recirculated. This recirculation suggests opportunities for remembrance activities, as discussed by Erll (2010), Hoskins (2001) and other memory scholars.

Most importantly, this study contributes to memory studies’ interest in the commodification of memory and the implications of the marketing of memory on the types of remembrance activities. Because media franchises are strongly rooted in the economic approach of the culture industry, this study’s focus on the Muppet franchise engages with this growing interest in the commodification of memory, particularly with the media’s role in its growth. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 82

CHAPTER 3—A FRAME ANAYLSIS METHOD TO STUDY MUPPET MEMORY

It’s not starting over, it’s just going on!

—The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)

To examine the potential use of the Muppet franchise as site of memory, this study features a frame analysis of trade and popular press coverage encompassing a period of 30 years.

This chapter starts with an overview of frame analysis as a methodology, first as described by

Goffman (1974). This overview is followed with frame analysis’ applicability to the study of memory, focussing on the work of Irwin-Zarecka (1994). After outlining the appropriateness of frame analysis to the study of memory and the analysis of press coverage, the benefits and limitation of the methodology are addressed. The second half of the chapter focusses on the specific process used in this study to collect and analyse data. This discussion includes the operationalized frame analysis used in the study based on the work of Zhongdang Pan and

Gerald Kosicki (1993) and the process for defining mnemonic frames.

An Overview of Frame Analysis

Goffman’s Approach to Frame Analysis

Frame analysis is a methodology that seeks to uncover the shared cultural constructs that give meaning to actions. The notion of frames as a shared cultural convention originates in the work of Goffman and his lengthy monograph, Frame Analysis (1974). Within the text, he suggests that frames are ways of understanding the “organization of experience” (Goffman,

1974, p. 11). He contends that frames help with understanding the possibility of society, but do not structure it. The appeal of Goffman’s work is that it focusses on the context rather than content, by examining the techniques and practices that create the significance or importance of the content. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 83

As an approach, Goffman (1974) breaks down frames into a number of components, such as cues, keys, and spatial brackets. For example, keys focus on actions—the aspects of the frames that can transform interactions—such as the difference between play and serious action.

While there are various components in Goffman’s approach, the methodology that emerged from his work focusses on Goffman’s more abstract ideas. Thomas Scheff (2005) argues that the departure from Goffman’s more detailed terminology is a result of the recursive nature and resistance to linearity of Goffman’s frame analysis. Thus, the methodology that emerges from

Goffman’s theorization of frames continues to focus on the enacting of meaning.

Frame Analysis as an Approach to the Study of Collective Memory

Frame analysis is well suited to the study of memory, because both frame analysis and memory share a constructivist epistemology. Neither approach considers documents or speech as historical information, but as expressions of cultural conventions and shared knowledge.

Frame analysis, like the scholarship discussed in Chapter 2, highlights interpretation and repetitions. Memory studies examines how knowledge about the past is continually constructed.

Frame analysis unpacks how shared existing cultural constructions are used to create meaning, including ways in which meaning is given to the past.

Irwin-Zarecka (1994) uses Goffman’s concept of frames to examine public expressions of collective memory. Irwin-Zarecka (1994) specifically addresses the value of Goffman’s approach to memory, arguing that it allows for an examination of “public articulation[s] of collective memory” without the frame assuming shared reception or rejecting individual interpretation (p. 4). Frame analysis allows for the examination of the public collective memory that influences the private—offering a “dialectic between public and private” (Irwin-Zarecka,

1994, p. 4). Frames facilitate, as argued by Irwin-Zarecka, a series of readings of a single REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 84 memory text, supporting shared memory. By examining frames of remembrance, Irwin-Zarecka

(1994) combines Halbwachs’s (1980) collective memory with Goffman’s (1974) frames. Irwin-

Zarecka (1994) traces “how—and—which past is made to matter” (p. 8). This study looks at mnemonic frames in a similar manner, to examine how socially shared constructions legitimize particular remembrance and construct these remembrances as a form of continuity.

To operationalize frames of remembrance, Irwin-Zarecka (1994) outlines two functions of frames: to demarcate the content of the past, and to assert the form of the past. In combination these two functions offer insight into the how the past is given meaning. By focussing on frames of remembrance, Irwin-Zarecka can address the status of the memory text, the authority involved in its legitimacy, and the types of engagement involved in its remembrance activity. Irwin-

Zarecka uses frames to look at collective memory, not just in the form of ceremonies and

commemorations, but also in mundane associations. She uses frames to understand the physical

institutions of memory, which evokes choice and conflict in its creation.

While Irwin-Zarecka’s (1994) work supports using frame analysis in memory studies, it

does not offer a detailed description of how frame analysis should be conducted. In part, this

lack of direction is tied to the book’s structure, which does not apply frame analysis to a

particular case study. However, throughout the text are certain references that indirectly imply

what areas to look at for framing activity, what approaches to use to examine frame activities and

what ways framing activities influence remembrance.

Irwin-Zarecka (1994) suggests that framing is most apparent as memory projects are

developing, before they are integrated into existing symbolic resources. She also stresses the

role conflict plays in frame activities. She refers to memory projects as “the explicit editorial”

that provides insights into the “social and political control over memory to the public-at-large” REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 85

(Irwin-Zarecka, 1994, p. 133). Memory projects offer several resources for the examination of framing: journalist coverage, packaging of projects, creator’s justification, project documentation

(internal and external), ritual and acts of commemoration, and critics’ commentary. While these are not exhaustive, Irwin-Zarecka describes a variety of resources for public discourse, particularly for remembrance.

Irwin-Zarecka (1994) stresses that frames should emerge from the analysis of frames and that researchers should not focus on finding particular frames. In discussing her own research on

Polish remembrance of the Holocaust, Irwin-Zarecka suggests that the analysis of material should emerge from the material, rather than the imposition of a theory of remembrance. Thus, she uses the availability of data and a close reading of the material to determine which public discourse should receive priority.

While not explicit, Irwin-Zarecka (1994) addresses a variety of ways in which framing activities can influence remembrance. Throughout the third section of the text—the dynamics of memory work—Irwin-Zarecka identifies, if largely in passing, the functions of frames presented in examples or actions. She describes frames as supporting or encouraging a particular remembrance. She outlines the role of frames in changing or reconstructing the memory associated with particular places or artifacts. She refers to frames as constructing the appeal of memory. Irwin-Zarecka (1994) describes various framing acts as influencing “the symbolic texture of remembering” (p. 150). Frames are invoked as the various meaning-making actions that support and maintain a sense of permanence.

Irwin-Zarecka (1994) notes the applicability of frame analysis to the examination of memory, as particularly well suited to study the construction of sites of memory. As Pierre Nora

(1989) posits, sites of memory are not determined by innate qualities of the site, but the actions REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 86 around it. This action could include how frames draw on pre-existing schemas or metaphors to present objects, sites, events, or people as memory resources. Therefore, what creates a site of memory is not an actual link to the past, but a constructed or selected material location, which are treated as frames in this study.

Frame Analysis as Method to Analyze Press Coverage

Along with frame analysis’s appropriateness for a memory studies study, frame analysis is also commonly used to examine press coverage, the key data for this study. For example,

Irwin-Zarecka (1994) goes into the most detail when describing the framing actions of media, particularly TV remembrance. She describes television framing at its most basic level as a form of exposure. However, she is quick to note that there is more involved, and that future research is needed to promote a better understanding of the role of media coverage in framing the past.

She posits that this would include how TV framing, particularly news programs, draws on existing approaches, such as storytelling and myth.

Many scholars have used frame analysis as a methodology to study the metaphors or constructions used by journalists when presenting news content. In this regard, frame analysis has a long tradition in media studies, particularly the analysis of media coverage as opposed to the study of new content. Paul D’Angelo (2002) posits that frame analysis studies treat journalists as “information processors who create interpretive packages” (p. 877). For example, he operationalizes frame analysis to study media content, particularly news coverage.

In more contemporary approaches, frame analysis has been used to understand the political and scientific meaning-making as presented in the media (Iyengar, 2005; Nisbet, Brossard, &

Kroepsch, 2003). These studies present how frame analysis facilitates studying the ways issues are discussed and how these discussions draw on past understandings and interpretations to REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 87 create meaning. These scholars use frame analysis to find values that have been attributed to events, attempting to understand how coverage could inspire a social response. Similarly, this study examines the role of the press in presenting the Muppet franchise as a potential site of memory.

The Benefits of Frame Analysis

The majority of early works using frame analysis study social movements, particularly how the presentation of social issues affect social actions. David Snow, E. Rochford Jr., Steven

Worden, and Robert Bedford (1986) and Baldwin Gorp (2007), suggest that framing, though focussed on presentation of content rather than the content itself, looks at the process that drives meaning creation, such as cultural resources. Thus, framing allows for the analysis of shifts and changes to social meaning, with the aim of increasing social action.

Framing is a midpoint between the quantitative nature of the content analysis, and the qualitative nature of discourse analysis (Fisher, 1997). This study focusses on Robert Bedford and David Snow (2000) and Zhongdang Pan and Gerald Kosicki (1993), who present a process for operationalizing frame analysis. In formalizing these approaches, these authors stress the value of frame analysis as a methodology and distinguish it from other methods. These uses of frame analysis link to Irwin-Zarecka’s use of the methodology. These scholars are drawn to the methodology’s ability to bridge public discourse with the potential influence on private action.

Coming out of work on social movements, frame analysis also becomes an alternative to content analysis in the study of news coverage. Pan and Kosicki’s (1993) work on frame analysis bridges it with discourse analysis. The aim of frame analysis is to find frames through a bottom up analysis that reconstructs frame packages. This study takes a qualitative approach to the identification of framing devices by coding the press coverage of key events in the Muppet REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 88 franchise. These frame devices were identified through repetition across press articulation. In combination these repeated selections are described as framing devices. As a result, frame analysis requiring frames emerge from the data rather than be attributed to it.

Because this study seeks to understand how the press presents the Muppet franchise as a potential site of memory, it needs a methodology that theorizes how press coverage potentially impacts the audience. Robert Entman (1993) outlines this benefit of frame analysis. Entman posits that frame analysis allows for audience autonomy. It offers a reading of the dominant schemata, but does not require the audience to act on it. It treats press coverage as a way of offering meaning without treating all content as of equal importance, as in content analysis. In his later work, Robert Entman (2010) refers to this process as priming the audience—whereby press coverage’s framing entrenches “the availability and apparent importance of certain ideas for evaluating a[n] . . . object” (p. 391).

Another benefit of frame analysis is its focus on persistence, which reflects memory studies’ interest in continuity. Gorp (2007) asserts that frames, while products of negotiation, rarely change over time. He argues that frames are static, but that different frames can be applied to the same topic over time. Similarly, this study looks for enduring mnemonic frames, but considers how different frames are used at different times to assert the memory function of the Muppet franchise.

Limitations of Frame Analysis

A challenge of frame analysis that is commonly discussed in the literature is the validity and applicability of the frames (Gorp, 2007). Thomas Koenig (2006) argues that each frame analysis produces another set of unique frames, challenging the methodology’s transparency and analytical reliability. This variability in frames could be a result of the method’s emphasis on REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 89 engaging with tacit actions, rather than explicit attribution. To address this limitation, the study synthesizes frames emerging from the press coverage with existing memory studies literature.

This approach identifies mnemonic frames that are applicable to other case studies. This process is described in more detail in the data analysis section.

Methodology for the Study of the Muppet Franchise

Data Collection

This study examines 30 years of press coverage, 1976-2006. These dates were selected as key markers in the development of the Muppet franchise, as well as to provide a sufficient time period to address both the social and temporal aspects of the franchise. 1976 marked the first season of The Muppet Show, when the Muppet characters and their exploits were introduced as a weekly television variety show. The 2006 date, a year after the Disney Corporation’s fiftieth birthday celebration of Kermit the Frog, marks the release of many classic franchise productions within new contemporary packaging. This 30 year period encompasses the majority of the

Muppet franchise. The early years from the mid 1950s to 1976, a period when separate characters were slowly developed through spots on variety shows, are only included in so far as they provide an understanding of the development of the franchise.

Within this 30 year period, this study looks at the framings of the Muppet franchise products. These framings emerge from a series of the written and audio-visual materials which have been preserved or archived. Materials collected must have been presented to the public, whether viewers/readers or industry professionals, because this study is not concerned with individual remembrance, but rather how agents frame meaning around the franchise. In particular, this study is concerned with the frames used to present the franchise as a potential memory resource to a larger group of viewers of the material. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 90

The majority of resources for this study are journalistic, coverage from trade and popular press.6 This coverage addresses a variety of Muppet franchises, including film, TV, and DVD

reviews, biographies of creative individuals, and business reporting. Other memory scholars

have used press coverage to discern changes in remembrance. Ann Gray (2013) uses various texts from a range of sources to understand the reception of television remembrance, including official websites, discussion forums and press coverage. The most prominent memory studies scholarship using media coverage as its data is Zelizer’s (1992) work on the JFK assignation.

Zelizer uses media coverage over a period of 25 years to document the shifting coverage of the

JFK assignation. She approaches particular events to understand how the role of journalists shifts the memory of the event. Her work supports the examination of press coverage as a place where memory work occurs.

To gather the collection of press articles, several indexes, digital databases, and the Jim

Henson Company Archive (JHCA) were searched. Popular magazine articles were identified using a Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, looking for references to Muppet, Henson,

Kermit, and Miss Piggy in article indexes. Further magazine articles were found in the JHCA archive’s press clippings collection. To gather a representative collection of newspaper articles, four newspapers were systematically surveyed: The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The

Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. Both electronic and paper indexes are used to identify all possible articles.7 A secondary search of newspaper articles was conducted using

6 Press coverage provides insight into the generally publically available perspective on the Muppet franchise. The press coverage may reflect certain privileged positions, such as promotional activities of franchise owners. This study’s use of press coverage considers the press coverage on the Muppets as part of journalists’ role as an interpretive community. For more information see Zelizer (1993). 7 The reason for the use of both print indexes and electronic searches is based on their different protocols for result retrieval. Indexes are traditionally based on the metadata created by the reading of the full articles by a human REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 91

ProQuest Historical Newspaper Collection and ProQuest National Newspaper Collection searching for Muppet*, Henson, Kermit, or “Miss Piggy”. Lastly, JHCA’ press clipping collection was examined—focussing on press clipping around the release of major productions.

Because of limited time available to access the archive, a greater emphasis was given to press clippings between 1976-1990, where the electronic newspaper collections are least robust.

Where possible all retrieval information was collected, but some articles lacked identifying information.8

In addition to popular magazines and popular press articles, the trade press coverage and marketing materials are included. The majority of articles are retrieved from The Film Literature

Index, both paper indexes and the digital database. Additional packaging of productions and other general available promotion material are included, retrieved from the JHCA and the Paley

Centre. The breakdown of the articles is presented in Appendix A.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the press coverage was conducted following a variant of Pan and

Kosicki’s (1993) approach. Pan and Kosicki outline a four step process to analysis the content of the article, resulting in a frame. This process, as presented in Appendix B, does not suggest a direct connection between the original story and the later frames. One problematic element of

indexer. Electronic searches run on optical character recognition of the digitized pages or keywords in titles. A test sample was done between the year 1980-1987 between the ProQuest database for Los Angeles Times and the Bell- Howell Los Angeles Times Index. Both searches reveal some common citations, particularly around movie reviews, but also cite a series of different articles. Because this project relies on secondary searches rather than viewing each page of the newspapers, this overlapping approach was used in ensure the validity of the data collection. 8 The JHCA’s press clippings were gathered by a third party service. During the time examined, identifying information was on separate printed labels that were partially adhered the original press clipping. Overtime, these labels were no longer adhered to the original articles and it was no longer possible to associate the label with the document. In these situations, the articles are given estimated publications date based on the material covered and other information within the articles. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 92

Pan and Kosicki’s application of frame analysis is the way in which they blend frame analysis with critical discourse analysis. As a result the terminologies of both methods are intermingled.

Thus, they created a step between the framing devices and the frames that focusses on their perceived structuring of news: referring to syntactical structure, script structure, thematic structure, and rhetorical structure. This step, which is strongly linked to the genre of news reporting, their object of study, is not appropriate for this study and is not be used.

Selecting expressions. Frame analysis starts with identifying particular expressions in

the press coverage, moving from specific to more abstract (mnemonic frames). Using this

approach, expressions are selected that assert the significance or importance of the Muppet

franchise. These expressions do not necessarily have a connection to memory. Rather they

emerge from the press coverage to ensure that the frame analysis is not biased to find memory-

related frames.

This focus on a coding that emerges from the data (press coverage) reflects the frame

analysis’ role of researcher.9 The role of the researcher in frame analysis is as another reader to

“texts” that have already been attributed meaning. The researcher looks for the process by which

this attribution is done. Entman (2007) proposes that the outcomes of the frame analysis should

not be a rote application, but rather requires the researcher to develop a series of interpretations,

a definition of the conception or problem, and to identify the causal relationships. Gorp (2007)

challenges the researcher not only to look for frames, but to maintain an awareness of contexts or

the potential causes of their development.

9Frame analysis’s emphasis on repetition of selected expression aims to ensure an objective analysis. However, there is always a possibility that the researcher’s perspective could influence the research. The researcher has enjoyed Muppet franchise productions, but is not active in the Muppet fan communities. The researcher actively included criticism of the Muppets where applicable, which occurred more frequently after Henson’s death. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 93

Compiling frame devices. The coding process for frame analysis involves starting with the expressions presented by the press coverage, referred to as frame devices. In this study, these expressions involve the significance or importance of the Muppet franchise. These individual expressions that stress the importance or significance of the Muppet franchise are grouped together based on similar purposes to create frame devices.

The determination of framed devices involves selection and salience, which Entman

(1993) claims are the key role of frames. Frame devices are the particular expressions used to organize, define, and legitimize. In the case of the Muppet franchise, this is done through the inclusion or exclusion of features of the situation. Gorp (2007) notes that the way frames manifest is in “word choice, metaphors, examples, descriptions, augments, and visual images”

(p. 64). These frame devices are connected by the particular situation through “culturally familiar symbols” (Entman, 1993, p. 53). Hank Johnston (1995b) similarly notes that frame devices are likely the most variable part of the frame analysis as they are closest to the content and context of the materials discussed.

Building frame packages. The next step in frame analysis is the building of frame packages. Frame packages are another layer of abstraction, examining the frame devices for the ways in which they evoke their context. The texts are coded for the language and forms used to construct the significance of the topic. These forms and language are then coded into frame packages that take the specific reference of the frame devices to produce a more generalized form. Frame devices are larger heuristic tactics that are specific to the context.

The integration of the notion of frame package comes from Gorp’s (2007) work on frame analysis and his interpretations of Goffman’s (1974) original work. Gorp emphasizes the need to examine context. He suggests that the researcher needs to make a distinction between the event, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 94 the media content, and the frame. Frame packages should be constructed before frames. Frame packages contain the framing devices, the reasoning behind the devices, and the implicit cultural phenomenon that the package displays. Unlike earlier frame analysis studies, Gorp identifies the assumptions in the frame analysis of media content as based on the notion of selection and construction. He argues that this assumption views the journalist or producer as the selector of the frame used, and that this selection may be imbedded in their professional practice. By addressing this assumption, he suggests an examination of the relationship between the key event and frame sponsors (journalist, advocates or others), which emerge in the frame package. This examination requires the researcher to be aware of the different forces at play in the construction of frames, integrating the notion of power into their construction.

The construction of frame packages requires key events to be selected, because frames are contextual and frequently change. This study’s 30 year span cannot be examined as one continuous frame. Drawing on Hank Johnston’s (1995a) notion of the key events, in combination with Victor Turner’s (1982) notion of social drama, the samples are examined for framing packages (Appendix C ). Turner’s (1982) conceptualization of social drama proposes that the moments of birth, death, and other changes in life stages are important events in the generational continuity. In terms of this study, this conceptualization stresses the importance of addressing the role of the death, birthdays or celebrations of key individuals. These samples include the death of Jim Henson and its anniversaries (1990 and 2000), Kermit’s fiftieth Birthday

(2005), and Kermit’s move to the Smithsonian collection (1994/2006). In addition to Johnston’s

(1995a) key events, the literature by Jenkins (2006) and Johnson (2013) on franchises proposes that changes in ownership and the release and re-release of contents are key events for frame analysis: the failed Henson-Disney merger (1990-1991), the sale of the Muppet characters to REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 95

Disney (2004/5), and the release of all the major films in theatres and on DVD (1979, 1981,

1984, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005/6). As a starting point of the frame, the initial popularity of The Muppet Show will also need to be examined (1976-1981).

Documents are organized in chronological order and based on their reference to key events. Articles are also separated in terms of their origin in either the trade or popular press.

The results are the starting points of frame analysis and are then compared. As a result, several key choices are made. Trade and popular press frames were not significantly different in their frame devices and packages. Since these are the most content specific part of the frame analysis, the two analyses are combined. Another research design choice was made to reduce the total number of events examined because there were little differences among the frame devices and packages (See Appendix C).

Identifying and defining frames. The last step in the frame analysis is the identification and definition of frame—in this study, mnemonic frames. Kimberly Fisher (1997) argues that reaching the level of a primary frame occurs when the frame can be applied to other contexts and other texts. She suggests that once the frames are constructed, they can be applied to a number of cases. Thus, Fisher argues that Goffman contended that a frame is identified when the frame can be applied to different subject matter without changing its meaning. Accordingly, the frame must be separable from the particular content studied. Ideally the frame identified could be used to study other media franchises. Thus, the final frames are not aspects of the Muppet franchise, but frames that are used to assert or present the significance of the Muppet franchise. The majority of these frames focus on the construction of continuity between past and present.

The potential mnemonic frames that emerged from the frame analysis are defined by returning to the memory studies literature, particularly scholars who focus on recurring patterns, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 96 such as Lowenthal (1985), Samuel (1994), and Zerubavel (2003). By returning to the field of memory studies, this frame analysis responds to the criticism of the proliferation of frames.

Bedford and Snow (2000) argue that criteria need to be created to address the characteristics of the frames. They assert that the most important activities of frames are scope and flexibility, as these look at the relationship of specific text to the larger frames.

For this study, the definition of mnemonic frames emerges from the dialogue between the press coverage frame analysis and existing memory studies literature, following Shannon

Jackson’s (2001) approach to archival material that she calls lines of activity. Jackson uses lines of activity to synthesize various static documents into actions. She proposes that by reading for action the archive can be treated as a source of lines of activity. Jackson’s approach reflects the action-oriented nature of memory and frames. It examines the practices of remembrance rather than documenting what is remembered.

To find lines of activity, Jackson (2001) directs the researcher to recognize the tension between the stability of repetition, the agency of the individual involved in repeating, the challenges of repeating, and repetitions which go beyond the individuals involved. The tensions of these internally disputed orientations create a place for the researcher to unsettle the documented event and understanding of the past. The research should continually keep these orientations in a productive conversation through attending to the variations in power and agency in different repetitions. Thus, Jackson posits that these actions can be read in archival documents and written texts as a language of historical enactment. The language and the past are unable to

be separated; language is a space in which new enactments of history lie. By seeking lines of

activity, the context of framing of the Muppet franchise becomes an underpinning to the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 97 framework of analysis just as Jackson draws on the biographies of individuals recorded in archival letters and documents.

Through a productive conversation between the frames emerging from the press coverage of the Muppet franchise and the memory studies literature, lines of activity are produced and used to define the mnemonic frames. Using Jackson’s (2001) lines of activity to define mnemonic frames involves looking for the shifting definition of continuity and how this continuity is constructed. The press coverage frames are read in dialogue with memory studies literature—seeking out repetition, in terms of historical continuity and the tension between the stability of the franchise characters and programs and the shifting framing of their meaning and use. As a result, the mnemonic frames that are identified from the frame analysis are defined through the existing discussion of memory and the actions used to describe memory. This

approach allows for a data-driven approach rooted in the press coverage of the Muppets, which

results in mnemonic frames that reflect the meaning-making schema that match Nora’s definition

of a site of memory.

Conclusion

This study uses a variation of Pan and Kosicki’s (1993) operationalization of Goffman’s

(1974) frame analysis. This methodology reflects memory studies’ emphasis on the construction of meaning, rather than the innate aspect of an event, person, place or object. The press coverage documents collected from indexes, databases, and the JHCA are qualitatively coded for ways in which significance and importance are attributed to the Muppet franchise. Through increasing levels of abstractions, final frames are identified from frame devices and frame packages. These

final mnemonic frames are defined through a dialogue with existing memory studies scholarship

following Jackson’s active approach to textual material. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 98

The chapters that follow are organized based on the final mnemonic frames and their common strategies for presenting continuity between past and present. These frames are then explained through the frame packages and frame devices that occur in the press coverage. The final chapter presents the culmination of mnemonic frames and how they relate to Nora’s (1989) definition of a site of memory.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 99

CHAPTER 4—THE MNEMONICS OF OWNERSHIP

You can’t take no for an answer. —The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)

During the thirty year period studied, the Muppet franchise is owned by several companies, Henson Associates (HA!), Jim Henson Productions (JHP), Jim Henson Company

(JHC), EM.TV, and Walt Disney Corporation (WDC). Throughout transitions in ownership, each corporation employs a mnemonic frame to assert continuity between the franchise’s past and its future under the new owners. This chapter examines the press coverage of three ownerships changes—proposed and completed—to demonstrate how these changes prompt the construction of continuity, which includes the franchise’s value to collective memory. Thus, these mnemonic frames of ownership assert the franchises’ social and economic value.

Ownership, particularly copyright, is a prominent theme in franchise literature (see

Chapter 1). Similarly, memory studies also addresses issues of ownership, by focussing on who can determine what or how the past is remembered. Thus the ownership of the past is treated as both a legal category and a social right. Both Lowenthal (1985) and Samuel (1994) examine the implication of certain groups’ claims to heritage. The ownership of relics and images gives a group authority to construct and to control versions of the past. Similarly, Irwin-Zarecka (1994)

ties control over the past to ownership. Thus, examining ownership helps understand how certain framings gain privilege over others. The Muppet franchise’s owners use mnemonic

frames to provide a version of the past, which positions the change of ownership as a form of

continuity, rather than a rupture.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 100

Outline of Chapter

The chapter starts by defining—using previous memory scholarship—three mnemonic frames that emerge during periods of ownership transition. Following the definitions of the frames, each potential ownership change is introduced with a brief background summary. The majority of the chapter focusses on describing the various frame devices in the press coverage and explaining how these devices and their overall frame packages build a particular form of continuity or mnemonic frame. The first mnemonic frame discussed is homecoming, which emerges during the potential merger between JHP and WDC. When the sudden death of Jim

Henson (discussed in more detail in Chapter 5), disrupts the merger, both WDC and the Henson heirs use the mnemonic frame of legacy to argue that the Muppets’ continuity required their stewardship. The last mnemonic frame, repatriation emerges in the press coverage regarding

Henson children’s purchase of the Muppet franchise from the German entertainment company,

EM.TV.

The Mnemonics of Ownership and Value

The Mnemonic Frame of Homecoming

The mnemonic frame of homecoming focusses on the construction of continuity created on similarities. The homecoming frame prompts mnemonic typifications between events, locations and persons. It focusses on groups of “conventional categories in which we tend to mentally lump ‘similar’ historical figures or events together” (Zerubavel, 2003, p. 25). It creates continuity over rupture, as it draws on previous discursive associations, particularly those associated with family structures and traditional places.

The frame stresses continuity by locating the past within the permanency of space. For

example, Zelizer’s (1992) work on the JFK assassination notes the role of Dealey Plaza and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 101

Dallas in various commemorative activities. She also considers how the audience’s location, in front of the TV, watching events offers another form of continuity across commemorations.

Zerubavel (2003) suggests that same place gives a sense of permanence. Spaces facilitate pilgrimages in which mnemonic communities can have physical interactions with the past. This form of continuity in space is used by Lowenthal (1985) to understand the appeal of historical villages, which offer a familiar reference to the past. Thus, the place itself becomes a point of continuity.

The mnemonic frame of homecoming does not just rely on similarity in place, but also on familial relationships. Marriage, family, and other forms of genealogical continuity rely on similar claims of symbolic sameness to present a direct link between the present and the past.

Samuel (1994) notes that homes do not require “pedigree” and can be decked out with “make- believe family heirlooms” (pp. 246-7). Thus, homecoming associates a particular location with the continuity of kinships, involving social convention like marriage and family. These kinship conventions organize the past and future into forms of social continuity. In addition to marriage,

family relationships can be constructed through the idea of common descent, in which

similarities are used to construct a genealogical-like relationship. Le Goff (1992) states that

“customs and artistic tastes of the past” are often associated with the notion of prominent ancestors, which allows both “historical and non-historical chronologies [to] co-exist” (p. 10).

Thus, kinship ties can be constructed and used to connect individuals with similar artistic impact.

The Mnemonic Frame of Legacy

Where homecoming focusses on creating continuity through similarities, the mnemonic frame of legacy stress a genealogical form of continuity related to descent and the responsibility associated with inheritance. Genealogies, as Le Goff (1992) notes, are often adapted and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 102 changed to reflect the needs of current society. Zerubavel (2003) also notes that ancestral forms of continuity can be regenerated to create “intergenerational transitivity” (p. 58). Zerubavel

(2003) suggests descent implies that “the mental linking of past and present generations involves the image of actual ‘lines’ of descent” (p. 56). Consequently, the frame of legacy involved both genealogical continuity and the stewardship or guardianship over the past.

As a frame, legacy creates mnemonic continuity through “historical contact chains,” which create a succession or lineage amongst various people (Zerubavel, 2003, p. 57). These chains can be indirect and based on association. Zerubavel notes that pedigrees can furthermore be constructed. For example, “spiritual pedigrees” connect disparate religious figures based on their similar approach or teachings (Zerubavel, 2003, p. 56). Continuity can be created through method, style or other thematic similarities used to bridge figures.

In addition to a chain of contact, the mnemonic frame of legacy requires that the successors take responsibility for posterity. Irwin-Zarecka (1994) stresses that there are often conflicts over the past, because of the implications it has over the present. As a result, she stresses how “people perceive the consequences” of particular remembrance of the past (Irwin-

Zarecka, 1994, p. 78). The mnemonic frame of legacy includes the desire to protect the past and to preserve it for future generations. As Lowenthal (1985) notes, inheritance is associated with the notion of preservation, suggesting that “every inheritance is alike beneficial and baneful” (p. xx). Each inheritance offers a connection to the past, but requires preservation and materials.

Thus, Lowenthal later emphasizes that each generation is responsible for an inheritance, but through their acts of preservation changes meaning and function of that inheritance. Le Goff

(1992) connects this perseveration to lineage, but notes that preservation is often associated with REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 103 repeating and reproducing past customs and traditions. Through the mnemonic frame of legacy, the past is constructed to create continuity across owners, which assumes future interest.

The Mnemonic Frame of Repatriation

Like the frame of the homecoming, the mnemonic frame of repatriation focussed on a form of continuity associated with place; however, repatriation focusses on the return to a point

of origin or original owners. It builds on a form of memory that emphasizes circular progress or

“recourse to origins” (Le Goff, 1992, p. 25). The frame of repatriation emphasizes the need for institutions to control contemporary presentations of the past through the restoration and preservation of sites. Lowenthal (1985) suggests that moving relics to a new location or back to their place of origin causes the object and its framing to change. The new locations or new

displays change the past to suit the need of the present, both in terms of the new location and

new perceived audience.

As a mnemonic frame, repatriation involves continuity created by return to a previous

owner or location. In legal terms, it is associated with the return, to developing countries, of

antiques that were taken during periods of colonization and conquest (Irwin-Zarecka, 1994;

Lowenthal, 1999; Samuel, 1994). As Lowenthal (1985) notes, the demands for the restitution of antiquities stresses the critical role of “relics and records as symbols of collective identity” (p.

365). Thus, the return to a point of origin implies a return to desired past, which may not be possible to achieve; however, Samuel (1994) comments that the return of origin can also be

constructed by engaging in a style or form associated with the past. Consequently, Samuel highlights the use of brick facades or wooden interiors to return to the past. In this way,

repatriation can be associated with restoration and refurbishment, which involve the fabrication

and recreation of signs of the past. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 104

Through refurbishment, repatriation constructs continuity between a past and present, while recognizing a period of damage. Lowenthal (1985) notes that “things have survived

without damage is a reason for pride in their longevity, for it attests the owner’s ability to protect

things against the tooth of time” (p. 53). If damaged, Lowenthal suggests that this destruction

promotes an even stronger urge to preserve, as scarcity and damage increase the value of the

surviving relics. Thus, reparation connects that past to the present through a return to origin and

repairing harm created by past owners.

The JHP-WDC Merger—Before Henson’s Death (1989-1990)

Background

Between 1954 and 1989, the Muppet franchise was solely owned by Jim Henson. There was no question with regard to the ownership and the legitimacy of Henson’s ownership as the creator of the characters. In August 1989, a merger between Jim Henson company, JHP, WDC was announced. It is celebrated as expanding Disney’s stable of characters and removing

Henson’s administration duties to allow for more creative work. During the press conference, the two families of characters were physically brought together when a life-size “Miss Piggy and

Kermit the Frog danced a jig with Mickey and Minnie Mouse” (Flores, 1989, para. 1).

Over the next 8 months, the legal aspects of the merger were still being completed.

Without a finalized formal agreement, JHP moves into WDC’s facilities and starts on a series of

WDC focussed projects. These actions suggest that there is little question of the merger’s successful completion. Before Henson’s death, the mnemonic frame of homecoming creates continuity between Henson’s ownership and the Muppet franchise’s place within WDC. This continuity is used to legitimize potential ownership claims. The mnemonic frame of homecoming is built on a series of similarities between WDC characters and Henson’s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 105 characters. These similarities include same future value, same status, same location, and same person.

Evergreen Characters

Throughout the merger discussions, the Muppet characters are described as evergreen to

support their future value. Evergreen characters are “properties that can be introduced to new

generations of children every few years” (Stevenson, 1989, p. D1). These characters are

considered valuable because of their flexible nature: “such characters can be recycled”

(Stevenson, 1989, p. D1). Their perceived value to future audience is considered, not just in

terms of new film or television productions, but as a series of licensed merchandise. Evergreen

characters are valuable because of their perpetual interest, which does not fade with the aging of

a generation, but rather provides potential points of intergenerational continuity. Their financial

value is not tied to their current box office sales, ratings, or licensing, but the notion of their

future potential. The value of evergreen characters is discussed as invaluable, not quantifiable,

but rather as an ephemeral quality of certain characters (Biddle, 1989).

During the failed WDC merger, the Muppet characters were compared in value to the

classic WDC characters to emphasize their evergreen status. Finch, author of The Art of Walt

Disney, argues that “Kermit and Miss Piggy are really in the same league as Mickey and Minnie”

(“Disney buys Muppets,” 1989, para. 6). He further suggests this similarity makes them

extremely valuable. Mickey Mouse’s longevity becomes a way to construct the future value of

Kermit and Miss Piggy. Jeffrey Katzenberg, a WDC executive, emphasizes the commonality

between the two sets of characters: “Henson’s library is comprised of evergreen negatives not

unlike our own” (McBride, 1989, p. 1). Katzenberg furthers this comment by arguing that both

sets of characters “last from generation to generation to generation” (Stevenson, 1989, p. D1). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 106

Several generations are familiar with these characters, and are often exposed to the same library of film and television material. By framing the franchise as a lineage of work, the new owners address the rupture cause by changed of ownership.

Shifts in the ownership of the Muppet franchise are considered important by the trade press because evergreen characters are rare. Michael Eisner, WDC CEO, alludes to the scarcity

by stating “there are only a few characters in the world who have this kind of appeal”

(Stevenson, 1989, p. D1). Beyond the Disney’s classic characters, only a few other franchises’

characters are discussed as evergreen. The most commonly mentioned is Winnie the Pooh,

because it was also acquired by WDC. WDC’s ability to accumulate a stable of evergreens is

tied to the company’s value (Biddle, 1989). By labeling the Muppet franchise as evergreen, the

potential owner reflects on the franchise’s past, present, and perceived future success by

constructing temporal continuity.

Merger as Marriage

By framing the merger as a marriage, the merger is discussed in terms of the construction of a family where both partners have the same status. The marriage framing is evoked through the construction of familial relationships between each company’s famous fictional characters. To support the association of the merger with marriage, a long courtship is created from Henson and Eisner’s early interactions to the current merger. The merger is tied back to a pilot of The Muppet Show, which Eisner funded at ABC. However, The Muppet Show

was turned down, based on an assumption that Muppets appeal to child, not adult, interests. This

meeting becomes the starting point of the merger, with comments such as “known each other

since the 1960s” (Flores, 1989, para. 17) or “more than two decades after meeting” (Cox &

Lliles-Morris, 1989, p. A1). The history of the meeting is altered so that Eisner becomes a REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 107 champion of Henson; therefore, the question of adult entertainment is removed. Eisner presents the meeting: “in the dark ages of the 1960s, when I was in charge of children’s programming for

ABC . . . We made the pilot for what became The Muppet Show. We had trouble getting our management to put it on the air” (Cox & Lliles-Morris, 1989, p. A1). The coverage of the merger often draws connections between this meeting and the later merger by suggesting that

Eisner continued to follow Henson’s work (“Henson to sell out,” 1989). The merger becomes the fruit of a long courtship between Henson and Eisner, emphasizing the new familial-like relationship between JHP and WDC characters.

The marriage frame package further constructs continuity by implying an equal status between JHP and WDC. Therefore, the interest in the merger is often presented as reciprocal.

The press cites Henson’s recent failures, creating a need for financial backing. Those involved

with JHP speak about syndication, licensing and producing duties that take Henson away from

creative work (“Jim Henson-Interview,” 1989). Similarly, critics cite WDC’s need for new

creative personnel by highlighting the lack of new evergreen characters (Buchan, 1989). The

press suggests that Mickey, Minnie and Donald are tired. It is noted that WDC’s last set of

evergreen characters, Winnie the Pooh, Eeyore and Piglet, also came through acquisition

(Stevenson, 1989). Henson’s characters are a new stock of evergreen characters to license and

market for generations to come (“Miss Piggy and friends,” 1989). Further, Henson’s future

productions would be Disney’s future options, providing in-house creativity (“Walt Disney Co.

in pact,” 1989). The frame device of equal participation reflects the marriage frame package

used to counter claims that WDC would dominate over JHP.

The most striking framing device for presenting the merger as a marriage or creation of

family occurs through analogies to the fictional characters’ relationships. The characters are REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 108 referred to as family or by other familial terms. Katzenberg states that “this is a perfect marriage for the Walt Disney Company” (Scott, 1989, p. A1). Eisner also says “Mickey Mouse has a new sibling and he’s going to have to get used to it” (Cox & Lliles-Morries, 1989, p. A1) and “move

… over Mickey, watch your back, Dumbo. A new clan is moving into the Walt Disney menageries” (“Business notes,” 1989, p. 59). The press discusses the merger as an adoption, adopting Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy into WDC’s family of characters (Scott, 1989). Other references include Muppet characters wearing mouse ears, to emphasize their new inclusion into

WDC (Zhito, 1989). Both sets of characters are discussed as if they would be interacting within each other: “an expansion of our primary family of characters” (McBridge, 1989, section 6, p. 9) or an expansion of the stable of characters or personalities, invoking a studio era reference to actors and actresses. These frame devices use marriage to reaffirm the merger, while the mnemonic frame of homecoming constructs a continuous past and future for the franchise.

MGM Studios

In addition to the framing of the merger as a marriage in order to construct a sense of the continuity, the merger is also framed as providing the Muppet characters with a physical home, in MGM studios, one of WDC’s theme parks. As a mnemonic frame, the notion of homecoming constructs a sense of permanence by means of a physical place. It creates a sense of belonging to the environment by building on the previous framing of the Muppet franchise as part of the classic Hollywood era. Thus their home, at Disney’s MGM studios, is in fact, a homecoming.

By drawing on a sense of homecoming, continuity is constructed on the idea of same place. MGM studios is a theme park developed around Hollywood and the film industry of the studio era. It features back lots, studios, and rides. At the time of the proposed Disney merger, it was the newest of the three theme parks in Orlando. As the home of the Muppets, it builds on a REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 109 past association between the Muppets to classic Hollywood. This association starts during the

reception of The Muppet Movie (1979) discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The Muppet Movie

focussed on Kermit’s trip to Hollywood to get the standard rich and famous contract. Even

during the WDC merger coverage, the Muppet characters are compared to classic Hollywood

stars: “They’re the Greta Garbo, Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, Jeanette McDonald and Jimmy

Stewart of the 1990s. So what if one’s a frog and one’s a pig who fell off the weight watchers

plan . . . [it is ] a stable of stars that rivals MGM in the 1940s” (Scott, 1989, p. A1). This quote

shows the connection between the Muppet franchise and Hollywood. It suggests that their

location in the MGM theme park is an extension of homecoming, and not a business decision. In

fact, the Muppets are discussed, not as characters, but stars: “Disney’s purchases of the Muppets,

finally truly marks the end of Hollywood star system” (Biddle, 1989, section 3, p. 1). During the

merger, the frame package develops a claim that MGM studios, a classical Hollywood studio, is

a natural home for the Muppet characters

The first major collaboration announced during the merger, before Henson’s death, was about an attraction featuring the Muppet characters for the MGM studios theme park. The 3D film would continue the Muppet franchise’s tradition of playing with Hollywood genre conventions (Fenstemaker, 1990). The planned attraction would include a Muppet tour through

movie history. At MGM studios, life-size costumed Muppet characters would walk about.

Visitors would be able to see Muppet productions being filmed on the MGM lots and in its

studios (Cox & Lliles-Morris, 1989). MGM studios is framed not just as a metaphorical home

for the Muppet franchise, but also a physical one.

The Muppets’ homecoming to MGM studios is recorded in the TV special, The Muppets

Go to Walt Disney World (1989), in which “Henson and his fuzzy Muppet menageries [go] to REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 110 the Magic Kingdom, where they will live happily ever after” (Cox & Lliles-Morris, 1989, p. A1).

As the first TV special co-produced by WDC and JHP during the merger, it documents the settlement of the Muppets into their new home. The special starts with Kermit returning to the swamp he grew up in, just outside of Walt Disney World. The last scene consists of the Muppets regrouping at MGM’s replica of Grumman’s Chinese theatre to leave paw, flipper, and nose prints. The notion of the WDC connection is doubly emphasized in the title, The World of Walt

Disney presents The Muppets Go to Walt Disney World. Many reviewers suggested that this trip was the eventual outcome of the merger; the Muppets were bound to visit WDC, or perhaps stay

(Cox & Lliles-Morris, 1989; Pierce 1990).

Walt Disney and Jim Henson as Same Person

The frame package used to construct continuity during the merger emphasizes the similarities between both Disney and Henson. By describing both as the same type of person,

WDC and JHP share a common origin or home. Henson’s work becomes a continuation of

Disney’s. Both Disney and Henson are positioned as geniuses who create ground breaking children’s programming. In this frame package, there is a distinct break from by Henson’s earlier rejection of Disney as a source of inspiration, and Henson’s past emphasis on the distinctions between the two companies’ business practices. The merger requires revision of

Henson’s lineage, switching from puppeteers to Disney’s child-centered products.

During the merger coverage, Henson no longer dismisses his comparison to Disney, but emphasizes any possible connection. Henson asserts that “Disney is a company I’ve admired for many years” (“Jim Henson-Interview,” 1989, p. 18). Henson presents new biographical material to further extend his interest in Disney. Much of the coverage includes Henson’s desire to be an animator for Disney, when he was young (Lee, 1989). Henson emphasizes Disney’s influence, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 111 over that of early television puppeteers, stating “I’ve loved Disney for many years; I grew up on

its movies” (Flores, 1989, para. 8).

Although he refuted it in the past, Henson’s explanation of the Disney connection

suggests that both companies have a similar goal: “I have always felt my company and Walt

Disney Co. share similar goals for family entertainment and for creating positive attitudes in

children of all ages” (McBride, 1989, p. 7). Similarly, the coverage of the merger frequently

makes comparisons between Henson and Disney. Henson is labeled as “the new Walt Disney”

(Lee, 1989, section 4, p. 1). “Henson is very like Disney, the characters are extremely well

made, extremely well thought out” (Biddle, 1989, section 3, p. 1). One goes so far as to state

“Jim Henson is perhaps the only mind ever to rival that of Walt Disney himself as a wellspring

of characters” (Cox & Llilies-Morries, 1989, p. A1). The press suggests that Henson and Disney

share a remarkable creative gift and produce products of equal quality.

Henson describes his enjoyment of WDC products, particularly its theme parks. In fact,

Henson explicitly ties his enjoyment of the park, with the Muppet characters’ new presence:

“I’m happy to have the Muppets at the parks” (Flores, 1989, para. 8). He draws on personal

connections to the park, suggesting not only that he and children enjoyed them, but he has had a

long desire to design for them: “I feel like a kid in a candy store” in reference to designing theme

park attractions (“Jim Henson-Interview,” 1989, p. 18). Using the parallel between Henson and

Disney to construct new associations, the frame device reflects the frame package of same person. The frame package creates mnemonic connections between Henson’s past work and his future work with WDC. The package constructs a long history for the Muppet franchise, and the idea that its future work under WDC ownership will not change. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 112

By linking Disney and Henson through similar lineage and descent, the franchise is positioned as part of both the past and future. This similarity implies that the Muppets’ new position within the WDC would be a homecoming, as similarities between the two companies,

through their founders, naturalizes the merger. As Henson is presented as the descendant of

Disney, including his company in the WDC would ensure the persistence of the creative

practices. With similar creative gifts, Henson’s desire to work at Disney and to have his

characters at their theme parks is a continuation, rather than break, from his past work.

The Muppets move to WDC ownership is described as a continuation of Henson’s ownership of characters by emphasizing the similarities between the Muppet and Disney characters and the people who created the characters. Kinship metaphors are frequent in the press coverage creating another layer of symbolic sameness. In addition to these similarities, the coverage of the merger further stresses the Muppets’ Hollywood connection with their park location in MGM studios. As a result, the press coverage offers a continuity of ownership

through the mnemonic frame of homecoming in which the permanency of space is combined

with traditional family structures of continuity.

The JHP-Disney Merger—After Henson’s Death (1990-1991)

Background

Jim Henson’s death on May 16, 1990 creates a crisis over the merger deal and the value

of JHP without its key creative figure. The crisis occurs after Henson’s death when the merger is

uncertain. Despite the possibility that the death of Henson could lead to a re-evaluation of the

merger price, Eisner and other WDC executives propose that the merger is likely to be

completed. Eisner states that “none of us have any reason to believe that we won’t proceed as

planned” (“Creator’s death won’t slow,” 1990, para. 6). From the announcement of the initial REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 113 agreement to the end of the unsuccessful negotiations, WDC and JHP continued to work together on joint projects, mainly projects for WDC’s theme parks. WDC continues to use the Muppet characters without a formal licensing agreement

When the merger fails after almost a year of negotiations, Jim Henson’s heirs, his five children, file suit against WDC for its unlawful use of the Muppet characters. The lawsuit creates another crisis over the characters. In the press, WDC argues that Henson’s children,

particularly their greed, are the cause of the merger’s breakdown. In its lawsuit defense, WDC

argues that it was given an implied license. The Henson heirs eventually receive an out-of-court

settlement and WDC formally acknowledges Henson’s copyright over the Muppet characters.

Because the continuity constructed around the JHP-Disney merger involves Jim Henson,

a crisis emerged after his death. Both WDC and Henson’s children claimed ownership over the

Muppet franchise. Both groups use the mnemonic frame of legacy to assert their capabilities to

ensure the Muppet characters’ continuation. In the press coverage of the end of merger negotiations and during the trademark lawsuit, both parties refer to themselves as the rightful inheritors of Henson’s characters and best suited to continue his work. WDC suggests that its ownership over the Muppet franchise would provide continuity between Henson’s stewardship by emphasizing Henson’s involvement in the merger and WDC’s experience with the perpetuation of franchise character. In response, the Henson heirs emphasize the discontinuity

between WDC’s and Henson’s approaches to business. In addition to stressing discontinuity, the

Henson heirs emphasize their pedigree and how it prepares them to protect Henson’s legacy.

This pedigree includes their experience working with their father. Lastly, the Henson heirs use licensing and distribution agreements with WDC to promote the future availability of the Muppet franchise. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 114

WDC’s Claims to Henson’s Legacy

Henson’s final wish. After the death of Henson, WDC frequently refers to itself as the company to continue his legacy. WDC uses Henson’s participation in the merger to build continuity before and after Henson’s death. As a frame package, the merger is used to connect

Henson’s last actions with WDC’s implied responsibility to care for his legacy. Thus, WDC is chosen by Henson to inherit the Muppet characters. Others commentators suggests that WDC’s ability to preserve the Muppets was part of the attraction of the merger for Henson. “He felt the

Muppets—Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy among others . . . would be guaranteed to live on under Disney management. Disney could make good use of the characters in movies, on television, in theme parks and retail merchandise” (Turner, 1990, p. B1). Based on WDC's experience with Walt Disney’s characters, WDC suggests it was Henson’s choice for protecting these characters.

Before the merger negotiation ended, many Henson family members support WDC’s claims to Muppets. Henson’s family members suggest that Disney would best care for their father’s legacy. Jane Henson, his estranged wife, comments “we also want so much for the

characters to live and live and live . . . and this is the right place to do it” (“Creator’s death

won’t,” 1990, para. 3). Similarly, Brian Henson, who would be most vocal during the later

lawsuit, expresses that he “really felt that this is the ideal place for his [father’s] work to end up”

(“Creator’s death won’t,” 1990, para. 5). Much of the trade and popular coverage supports the

wisdom of Henson’s decision to place his characters with WDC: “he put the Muppets in a sort of

Valhalla,” (Masters, 1990, p. C1) or “Henson likely to live on at Disney” (Jouzaitis, 1990,

section 3, p. 1). One reporter goes so far as to suggest that WDC’s ownership of the Muppet

characters created solace for grieving fans: “when the end came suddenly on May 16, adoring REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 115 fans were consoled with the idea that the Muppets and their cousins were nestled safely under the wing of the Walt Disney Co” (Masters, 1990, p. C1). From a business perspective, a Merrill

Lynch analyst comments that the Muppets are secure because of Disney’s future ownership of the characters (Seckard, 1990). The individual frame devices that support WDC’s claims draws on continuity between the franchise’s past and its assured future. By constructing continuity as a form of legitimacy for its ownership, the franchise’s past is highlighted in ways that reflect the franchise’s potential place at WDC.

As WDC and Henson’s children are unable to complete the merger, WDC claims that the children are denying their father’s wish, WDC ownership of the Muppet characters. WDC see the failed merger as the result of greedy Henson heirs. WDC has to “negotiate the contract with the estate and that portion of the price associated with his [Jim Henson’s] creative service would have to be reviewed” (Lev, 1990, p. 2). Many articles in the trade press agree that the merger price would need to change because WDC was getting less in the merger. Rights to all of

Henson’s future projects are stressed as a particularly lucrative aspect of the merger, which could not be fulfilled because of his death. “He was in his own right as important as Walt Disney. It’s very possible the price could be affected” (Jouzaitis, 1990, section 3, p. 1). The lawsuit against

WDC allowed it to emphasize the heirs’ unreasonableness (“Disney bites back,” 1991, p. 3).

“Despite Disney’s efforts, the Henson group refused to cooperate and instead has turned to the

courts” (“Disney calls Muppets lawsuit,” 1991, para. 11).

In its countersuit, WDC claims the Henson heirs are not concerned about their father’s legacy or wishes, but only with their own greed. As one reporter describes WDC claims, the company “painted the Henson heirs as balky children reneging on their famous father’s wishes”

(Rubstien, 1992, p. 42). WDC suggests that the heirs were unreasonable in wanting the original REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 116 price and to have WDC compensate for all the estate fees. The Henson children, according to

WDC, are “less interested in protecting Jim Henson’s legacy than in making money” (“Company

News, Disney,” 1991, p. D4). Another statement comments that the “Henson’s suit represents an enormous distortion of the facts and an unfortunate break with the legacy of a fine relationship with Disney that Jim Henson left behind” (Appleson, 1991, p. 2). In fact, WDC’s defense for using the Muppet characters was based on an unwritten contract and an implied license represented by Jim Henson’s work on a WDC driven project (“Company News: Disney,” 1991).

Disney’s defense and countersuit to the Henson heirs is that it is defending his legacy (“Disney calls Muppets lawsuit,” 1991). Thus the lawsuit is framed by some trade press as an end of Jim

Henson’s legacy. One reporter describes it as the end to a “once hailed … touching epilogue for

Jim Henson, the Muppet father and company founder who died” (Kalish, 1991, p. D1).

Guardians of evergreen characters. During the merger discussion, the similarities between Henson’s and Disney’s characters are promoted, particular their shared evergreen status.

Building on these similarities, the press coverage connects WDC’s ability to protect and carry on

Disney’s characters after death as evidence of WDC’s ability to ensure the continuation of the

Muppet franchise. This experience is used to connect Henson’s and Disney’s legacy through pedigree. “He [Jim Henson] was the key person. This is like Disney dying” (Lev, 1990, p. D1).

The press coverage describes that both well-known characters are left without their father figure

and voice. Many press comments, attributed to members of WDC, assert that Henson’s death is

further support for the finalization of the merger (“Disney continues to work,” 1991). This

support is built on the earlier Disney-Henson comparison. WDC is presented as experienced

with ensuring that characters live on after their creators are dead. “Disney has some experience

in immortalizing the vision of one man” (Turner, 1990, p. B1). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 117

WDC’s ownership appears to create continuity with Henson’s wishes and Disney’s past experience with the franchise management. “The Disney organization has used its creative and marketing talents before to preserve a legacy. Its animated characters have thrived since founder

Walt Disney’s death in 1966” (Jouzaitis, 1990, section 3, p. 2). Several papers note the continuation of Mickey and Minnie long after Disney’s death in the 1960s. By asserting that

Henson’s characters will continue, their value as evergreen is also highlighted. The characters themselves are framed as a permanent presence. Their continuation is not in question, and the value of the franchise is protected. “Kermit has value beyond Henson, just like Mickey Mouse has value without Disney” (Pendleton, 1990, p. B1). These frame devices build a frame package in which WDC’s ownership is legitimized as the company is considered the best guardianship of the Muppet characters, the focal point of Henson’s ongoing legacy.

The children’s decision to sue WDC is used by WDC as an example of their damage to

Henson’s legacy. During the lawsuit that followed the failed merger discussion, WDC suggests that the Henson heirs are denying the public access to Henson’s last work because of their greed.

Because the lawsuit is specifically aimed at stopping the opening of the Muppet 3D ride in MGM

Studios, WDC purports that the children are stopping the public from enjoying Jim Henson’s last work, in fact his last voice work as Kermit the Frog (“Kermit Mickey Mouse settle,” 1991).

WDC continues to draw on Jim Henson’s past wishes to support its claims to the characters. The failed merger is portrayed as “an untoward shift from Jim Henson’s desire, which was to make a deal that made the best long-term sense for the Muppets, to the heirs’ agenda, which was to make the most money for the estate in the short run” (Hays, 1991b, p. D4). WDC’s countersuit presents the company as driven by a sense of responsibility to fulfill Henson’s dream “of having these attractions at Walt Disney World” (Hays, 1991b, p. D4). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 118

Henson Heirs’ Claims to Henson’s Legacy

In response to WDC claims of continuity, the Henson heirs stressed the difference between Jim Henson’s business practices and WDC’s corporate structure. They also emphasized

their own ability to continue the franchise, stressing their apprenticeship in family business as descendants of Henson. The heirs use both their familial connections and experience to imply that the Muppets’ continuity would be best served by their ownership.

Corporate culture clash. Henson’s children argue that WDC was unreasonable in their

negotiations and responsible for the end of the merger. The heirs connect Jim Henson’s past

claims of financial disinterest to the difficulties of the Disney merger, suggesting that WDC took

advantage of Jim Henson, who reportedly “just want[ed] a fair deal” (Reibstein, 1991, p. 42).

They also draw on Jim Henson’s association with hippy or countercultural values. In contrast,

they emphasize WDC’s previous reputation as a profit-driven company, with a long history of

taking legal action, particularly to protect its own copyright. These differences are frequent in

Henson heirs’ description of a corporate culture clash between WDC and Henson employees,

who were integrated before the merger agreement was signed. The Hensons portray their

company as small, family-oriented, and focussed on free creative expression. “The Hensons

speak of a culture clash between their 115-person private company and the giant Disney”

(Rotherman, 1991, p. 75). This claim to a particular corporate culture is echoed by past Henson

employees, who describe the work environment as “like the Grateful Dead” (Gubnick, 1991, p.

41), or “the Henson atelier is informal and respect for the artist is the first rule” (Masters, 1990,

p. C1). WDC also recognized differences between its corporate cultures and Henson’s. WDC

attributes negative associations to Henson’s practices. Disney spokesperson, Okun, called

Henson employees like “moonbeams” (Reibstein, 1991, p. 42). Eisner is attributed with saying REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 119

“get out of the 1960s pal. You’re in Hollywood” (Reibstein, 1991, p. 43) in response to a question from Jim Henson.

In contrast to the hippy counterculture, the Hensons describe WDC as a large corporate organization. Thus, Henson’s Grateful Dead like employees describe it as “going to work for

IBM” (Gubnick, 1991, p. 41). “In Hollywood, Disney’s [WDC] name is synonymous with rigid aggressive corporate control,” suggests an unnamed former Henson employee (Masters, 1990, p.

C1). The press coverage implies that these cultural clashes were present during Henson’s work at WDC: “Henson was upset with some of Disney’s corporate executives” (Turner, 1991, p.

B1). However these conflicts, from WDC’s perspective, are part of any merger; they imply that these clashes would have eventually dissipated (Masters, 1990).

To further stress the corporate-driven nature of WDC, Henson’s children argue that

WDC’s negotiators re-opened the issue of Henson’s rights to the Sesame Street characters.

Coverage of the earlier merger agreement consistently mentioned that these characters were not

part of the deal, and that CTW would continue to control their licensing. The Henson children

argued that WDC wanted the merger to include Henson’s fifty percent stake in the Sesame Street characters in order to limit their use, reducing WDC’s competition. Cheryl Henson is attributed with saying “Disney sought to restrict how the Sesame Street characters were used—even though

Disney knew that Jim had given the non-profit Children’s Television Workshop licensing control for the characters” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 73). She suggests that WDC is not interested in following Jim Henson’s final wishes, but rather in a deal that would provide WDC with the best competitive advantage. The children further assert, as discussed by the trade press, that WDC continued to pressure Jim Henson over this point, a possible reason why Henson had not finished the merger before his death. By suggesting that WDC was seeking control over Henson’s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 120

Sesame Street rights, the Henson heirs describes the failed merger as a conflict between

Henson’s roots in non-profit children’s TV or hippy values and WDC’s solely economic concerns. In addition to asserting the difference in corporate culture, the Henson heirs connect

Henson’s legacy, not just to his characters, but the moral integrity that produced them.

Brian Henson proposes that the Henson heirs are protecting “the integrity of the characters” beloved by children to ensure they reflect “our father’s artistic and moral vision”

(“Henson assoc. sues,” 1991, para. 7). They suggest Henson had little interest in amassing money, but rather was driven by creative work. “You’ve got to remember that Jim Henson was a very trusting individual and it’s hardly surprising that he went on to start projects knowing he was protected by the fact that Disney did not have a license and that his products would not be abused” (Hays, 1991a, p. D29). Other coverage includes how Henson determined the types of licensing he would allow for his Muppet characters. Brian Henson discusses the conflict in terms of a progressive decline in relations: “My father didn’t make a mistake when he first shook hands with Michael Eisner. But then he was misled and mistreated and disillusioned” (Fleming

& Pendleton, 1991, p. 3). This argument aims to dismiss WDC’s claims to Henson’s legacy by proposing it is for profit (Appleson, 1991).

The children’s inheritance and responsibility require them to protect the trademark and copyright of Henson’s characters. The children claim the Muppet characters are part of their legacy, shared with the creative personnel who worked with Henson (Gubnick, 1991). Brian

Henson describes the group’s concern over WDC’s use of the characters: “My family and all of the people who worked with and loved my father and helped to create the Muppet characters are outraged that Disney is wrongfully exploiting them without our control, approval or supervision”

(Appleson, 1991, p. 2). Similarly, Lisa Henson calls WDC’s use of Jim Henson’s name as REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 121 offensive. She continues “this idea that the Henson kids beat up on Disney is so absurd. I’m appalled that people believe that. They played total hardball with us every second” (Turner,

1991a, p. B1).

The lawsuit is framed as a last possible action to protect their father’s legacy (Fleming &

Pendleton, 1991). Brian Henson suggests “we didn’t want to go to court but they have left us no choice” (Fleming and Pendleton, 1991, p. 3). Lisa Henson explains the need to file the lawsuit

as a result of WDC’s treatment of their company: “Disney has treated us as a non-entity” (Frook,

1990, p. B1). Further, the heirs suggest that WDC negotiators failed to wait for the family to

grieve before pursuing merger negotiations. They discuss feeling pressured “within a week of

Jim’s death, Michael Eisner was there talking about the deal” (Fleming & Pendleton, 1991, p. 3).

In their discussion of the lawsuit, the Henson heirs assert that it is necessary to protect their

father’s legacy.

Henson creative dynasty (family). The Henson children’s claim to ownership centers

on continuity of the Muppet characters thereby establishing their legitimacy to run the company.

The Henson children present themselves as the continuation of the dynasty or particular

pedigree, and therefore, natural successors to continue their fathers’ work. In terms of the frame

package, Henson’s children draw on their experiences, particularly those that occurred because

they were Henson’s children, to imply they were trained to continue Henson’s work. It also

highlights their ability to construct a stable business through new production and partnerships.

The children, in continuing the company, often refer to Henson’s guidance. Several long-term

puppeteers felt equal responsibility for Henson’s legacy, further supplemented by Jim Henson’s

role as mentor to both staff and children. As Jim Henson himself was gone, increased REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 122 expectation is placed on the company’s collaborative culture, also part of Henson’s mark on the company.

During the failed merger deal and afterward, the Henson children construct a sense of continuity between the franchise before Henson’s death and their ownership of the company.

These techniques focus on the construction of histories for each child in order to support his/her capability for his/her new responsibilities. These are noted by one trade press reporter: “but since Henson’s death in May 1990, his five grown children seem to need as much credit as they can get. They are running their famous father’s sprawling company—and they are virtually untested. They have to prove to their 115 employees that they have inherited Henson’s ‘creative spark’ . . . the Henson five must also prove that they have more business acumen than their old

man” (Treen, 1991, section Sunday, p. 28). By constructing biographies tied to their childhood

experiences, the Henson heirs are able to suggest experience not typically associated with their

ages.

Though all of the five children are discussed, the youngest two, John and Heather, are

generally mentioned in short and passing references. John is an independent artist/filmmaker

and Heather is in college (Lev, 1990b). Even though John and Heather are not often mentioned,

much is made of the fact that all five children own the company and have been involved in some

way: “Henson Associates is family-owned, and several of Henson’s five children are actively

involved” (Lev, 1990b, p. 2); “Three of Henson’s five children work for the firm” (Pendleton,

1990, p. B1); and “Henson Associates is family owned and several of Henson’s five children

have been actively involved in its various projects” (“Disney deal for Muppets,” 1990, p. C1).

This participation is taken as preparation for their current positions: “although Jim Henson’s

genius will never be replaced, he trained his kids well. He worked constantly, so to be near Jim, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 123 all five children spent most weekends, vacations and summers with him on the set” (Rotherman,

1991, p. 72). The most discussed of all five children is Brian Henson, who heads the company.

Cheryl Henson is also discussed, particularly her new role with the CTW. Lisa Henson, the oldest of the children, is also mentioned; however she continues to work for other studios,

Warner Bros followed by Sony Pictures.

Brian Henson’s presidency of JHP constructs continuity through his experience in the company and his similarities to his father. “Henson literally grew up at the Jim Henson Co. working alongside his father from the time he was 6 years old” (Strother & Vaughan, 1990, p.

B1). Brian describes his earlier experience as “puppetering or doing something in the background” (Rothman, 1991, p. 72), “playing with boxes full of eyeballs and things like that” to eventually building “a couple of puppets that were used on The Muppet Show” at the age of thirteen (Gates, 1995, p. 53). Many of his professional credits are included in descriptions of his background, including his professional debut in The Great Muppet Caper, (Chiu, 1991),

Labyrinth, and the non-Henson project, Little Shop of Horrors (“New president at Muppet,”

1991).

Many comparisons are also made between Brian and his father, Jim. These comparisons

support Brian Henson’s ability to continue his father’s legacy: “he is being spoken of as the

keeper of the flame, the man who, at 26 will carry Jim Henson’s vision into the twenty-first century” (Gritten, 1990, p. C7). Brian Henson compares himself to his father at the same age: “I have the same kind of background that he had by this age, but to a lesser degree” (Gritten, 1990, p. C7). He also suggests that he works the way his father did, respecting the creative input of those around him (Gates, 1995). Brian Henson describes his role as following the path set by his father and that employees are supporting him (Paikert, 1991). One company insider commented REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 124 that “Brian had a hard act to follow . . . the pressures are greater on Brian than they were on Jim when he was 27” (Chiu, 1991, para. 5).

To support Cheryl Henson’s role as Vice President of Creative Affairs, Cheryl’s work on design and scripts is included. Most of her past experience is work with JHP. Descriptions discuss her preference for design: “as a child she spent summers building puppets and making costumes” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 73) or as someone who is running “a puppet design studio”(

Lev, 1990, p. D5). Cheryl’s other creative work is also highlighted “In 1979, she put off college for a year to work on the production of The Dark Crystal, a mythological fantasy film she and

Jim dream up while stranded at an airport” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 73).

The eldest daughter, Lisa Henson, is involved with the company based on her

entertainment business experience. She is described as “a producer at WBS Inc [Warner

Brothers] and not involved in operations. But she plays a key role in making decision about the company’s future” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 72). Though some of her creative involvements in the company are discussed, it is her business acumen that is stressed. The press suggests that she took an early interest in business as a child by attending her father’s meetings (Richardson,

1990). They also discuss her role as the family’s negotiator during the WDC merger. There is

some mention of her critique of scripts, or her proposal for The Storyteller; however, these

creative projects are overpowered by comments such as “Lisa was always intrigued by the

businesses side of the company” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 73).

Henson creative dynasty (corporate). Another extension of the frame of legacy is the

Henson-trained personnel. Like the children’s claims to dynasties and pedigree, the Henson-

trained personnel also provide a chain of continuity through their selection and training by

Henson. These individuals are presented as a second family or group that can carry on Henson’s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 125 work, supporting the Henson heirs’ ability to run the company. Jim Henson is described as a

“harvester of people,” (Stanley, 1991, p. 40) for his ability to surround himself with “extremely talented individuals whom he cast” (Lev, 1990, p. D5). His son describes Henson’s role in the

development of new performers as “a father figure,” as many of the creative personnel join the

company before they are twenty (Gritten, 1990, p. C7). The company retains the pedigree of its

employees, as they are picked by Henson and later trained by him. The employees evoke their

right to preserve and protect their inheritance. After Jim Henson’s death, “everyone was in

emotional turmoil. But that period also hardened their drive and their feelings for what he

wanted. Now they’re probably more motivated to keep the dream alive than ever before”

(Gritten, 1990, p. C7). It is these personnel, who remain with the company, that Brian Henson

suggests supports the heirs’ ownership. Henson proposes these creative people as “how we’re

managing to carry on right now, because everyone’s is so motivated” (Gritten, 1990, p. C7). The

motivation of Jim Henson’s selected and trained staff prove “that the Muppets have a life beyond

Jim” (Rotherman, 1991, p. 72) and assist the Henson heirs in their claims of ownership and in

their effort to perpetuate the Muppets. The claims made by Henson’s children focus on building

a pedigree. They draw on the pedigree of employees. Therefore, the franchise, future and past,

is tied to a continuity of staff.

WDC-JHP Reconciliation

With the lawsuit settled, WDC and Henson heirs announce a distribution deal and

licensing agreement. WDC settles the lawsuit out of court and publically recognizes the Henson

heirs’ copyright over the Muppet characters. WDC also makes a public apology to the Henson

family and company: “A Disney spokesman expressed deep regret for what was described as a

serious misunderstanding and apologized to the Henson family and their company for any harm REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 126 that may have been caused” (Zagor, 1991, p. 6). The trade press dubs the apology as “David won and Goliath apologized for it” (Potts, 1991, p. F1). Along with the acknowledgement of copyright, WDC enters into a licensing agreement, which Brian Henson presents as “protect[ing] the integrity of the Muppet characters and assur[ing] that Jim Henson’s last work will be enjoyed by millions of people”(Blake, 1991, para. 18). Brian Henson goes on to suggest that “now we can get back to work to do what we do best producing original family entertainment inspired by the creative genius of our father” (“Henson and Disney agree,” 1991, para. 4). This statement ties back to claims of legacy emphasizing Henson heirs’ responsibility to protect and preserve the Muppet characters.

The end to any WDC-Henson animosity is confirmed by the announcement of a WDC-

Henson distribution deal. WDC’s Buena Vista video would distribute Henson’s film and television library on VHS. The deal includes conditions on labeling, highlighting WDC’s respect for the Henson’s copyright, as the BV distribution logo would not appear on the VHS (R.

Turner, 1991b). The distribution would feature “a brand new video label comprising the entire

Henson library” (“Jim Henson Productions and Disney,” 1991, para. 7). This partnership was

surprising to much of the trade press: “it isn’t exactly Sonny and Cher getting back together…

[the] reconciliation [is] almost as hard to believe” (Turner, 1991b, p. B1). This reunion,

however, provides another opportunity to reflect on what the merger could have produced. The

press suggests that the distribution deal was a fulfillment of the promise of the merger. “Disney

is perfect for Henson . . . This shows the way things might have been” (Turner 1991b, p. B1)

“The marriage between Henson and Disney made a lot of sense in the first place,” says one

executive familiar with the situation, “that fundamental fact didn’t change” (Turner, 1991b, p. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 127

B1). Despite the bitter end to the merger negotiations, the logic of the companies working together remained.

After Henson’s death, both groups, WDC and the Henson heirs, construct continuity between their ownership of the franchise and Henson’s stewardship of it. Both groups create a genealogical connection between themselves and Henson, whether it is through actual lines of descent or spiritual lineage. As a result of this genealogical connection, each group asserts its responsibility for Henson’s posterity, particular the future accessibility of the Muppet characters.

Overall, these frame packages reflect the mnemonic frame of legacy.

JHC Buy Back (2002)

Background

In 2000, a German media conglomerate, EM.TV purchased the Jim Henson Company (E.

Andrews, 2000). The often described Kidvidder, EM.TV purchased JHC to add to its many children’s media investments (Foreman, 2001). After the 680 million dollar purchase, EM.TV’s stock crashed, leading to bankruptcy. Though it had only recently purchased JHC, EM.TV began to sell its assets to make debt payments. It first sells JHC’s Sesame Street licensing rights

to the CTW for 180 million dollars (Goldfarb, 2002). Then it sold the rest of JHC’s assets,

including the Muppet franchise and Creature Shop. The difficulty in the JHC sale, as many

entertainment analysts argue, is that EM.TV overpaid for the company and thereby was unlikely

to receive even half of the original price.

During the EM.TV sale, many allusions are made to the failed WDC merger and the

press speculates that WDC would be the most likely buyer of JHC. Much of the trade press

coverage suggests that WDC’s interest and purchase are assured: “Disney is easily the deepest

pocketed of the other known bidders, so it’s favored to win the auction” (DiOrio, 2002b, p. 4). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 128

Other reporters comment that “the mouse house had been considered an obvious buyer for the well-known family entertainment producer” (DiOrio, 2002a, p. 4). Similarly, another comments that “clearly the assets fit in with the overall Disney mantra” (DiOrio, 2002a, p. 4). However,

WDC’s interest is also associated with a significantly lower price, as JHC no longer has its

Sesame Street interests, and WDC is not interested in assets other that JHC’s character-driven

franchises (DiOrio, 2002c). Yet many believe, based on the past merger that, “the Muppets may

end up back in Hollywood safely lodged in the mouse house” (Guider, 2003, p. 4).

In a surprising bid, the Henson children purchase JHC, reasserting their responsibility to

protect their father’s legacy through the mnemonic frame of repatriation, as they regain their

inheritance and heritage. “Jim Henson’s heirs made a successful last minute $89 million bid for

their father’s old company—a fraction of the $680 million the family pocketed when they sold it

to EM.TV back in 2000”(Weiner, 2003, p. 11).

The Hensons use three mnemonic frame packages during their repurchase to tie their

management of the company back to the successes of Jim Henson. The first frame package

asserts the Henson heirs’ responsibility for the Muppet franchise, regardless of their ownership

status. The press coverage stresses that their intervention is the Muppet franchise’s lack of

popularity caused by EM.TV’s failure to properly care for the franchise. The coverage implies

that the Henson heirs, by regaining ownership of JHC would increase the franchise’s popularity

and assure its future value. The Henson children frame their purchase as the start of a renewal,

breaking with the current questioning of the Muppets continued popularity. They attribute the

current questioning, not to the characters, but to EM.TV’s poor management.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 129

Regaining Heritage

The legitimacy of the Hensons’ repurchase is constructed through connecting the company and characters with their familial responsibility: “Henson family decided to regain their

heritage” (Henderson, 2003, para. 19); “Muppets move back home”(“Muppets move back

home,” 2003, p. 4); or back in the “Henson family fold” (“Henson Family pull Muppet, 2003, p.

23). These frame devices associate the Henson heirs’ right to the characters as part of their

inheritance. Specifically the notion of a return to origin—family, home or birthright—is used to

connect the ownership with the past (DiOrio & Meza, 2003). The Henson children are

positioned as emotionally tied to the company and characters as part of their heritage. “This is a

group of five very strong-willed individuals who are very deeply, emotionally . . . taped into

running this company” (Bennett & Pryor, 2003, p. 67). The Henson children are prepared to

ensure their family heritage. They suggest that their purchase is a response to concerns about the

company’s past and future treatment.

Rather than an economic reason, the Henson heirs connect their purchase to their

responsibility to care for the franchise. In particular, this emotional connection is used to imply a

greater ability to manage or protect the franchise. Brian Henson argues that “no one cares more

about the future of the Muppets than the family” (Retsinas, 2003, p. C6). In fact, the Henson

heirs’ disappointment in EM.TV is described as “emotional” (DiOrio & Meza, 2003, p. 19).

Brian Henson suggests that “we stepped in because we couldn’t see where the company was going and that made us uncomfortable” (Weiner, 2003, p. 11).

Post Damage

The necessity of the Henson heirs’ purchase of JHC is associated with the deterioration of the company by bad management (Weiner, 2003). This bad management includes the increasing REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 130 use of the Muppet characters in advertising: Long John Silvers (“Muppet sells shrimp,” 2001),

Pizza Hut, and Denny (“Denny’s grand slam,” 2002). The Denny’s advertisement included Miss

Piggy promoting Denny’s pork heavy Grand Slam elicited a particularly negative response. As a result, Lisa Henson admits that “Kermit and the Muppets are widely seen as a bit worn from years of corporate neglect” (Henderson, 2003, para. 12).

The Henson heirs stress why they originally sold the company to EM.TV. The heirs expected that EM.TV would be able to finance the franchise’s expansion. Brian Henson comments that they expected EM.TV to invest in the Muppets: “it was very sad when we watched EM hit financial problems” (Retsinas, 2003, p. C1). Brian Henson states that the family is concerned about the characters ending up in another larger conglomerate that would neglect them. He notes “it was the worst thing that could have happened had the Henson franchise ended up in the hands of people who didn’t value them” (Retsinas, 2003, p. C6).

Repairing Damage

Press coverage implies a more optimistic future under the Henson family’s control. The frame package includes the connection between the Henson heirs’ passion for the franchise and

its potential restoration. Lisa Henson is quoted as saying the siblings are “definitely looking

forward not only to be an investor but an active participant in the company” (DiOrio & Meza,

2003, p. 19). Similarly, Brian Henson notes the “Henson family is enthusiastic about owning the

company and operating the company on a go-forward basis” (Bennett and Pryor, 2003, p. 67).

In addition to the family’s connection to the franchise, the value of the Muppet characters is also used to assert the franchise’s ability to be restored. Lisa Henson suggests that the characters will regain their value, as they are evergreen (Henderson, 2003). She furthers expands this by noting that the characters remain “interesting and strange and weird” (Henderson, 2003, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 131 para. 10). The potential restoration of the characters is linked to their potential future appeal.

Thus the coverage provides an optimistic future for the Muppet franchise: “Hollywood has marveled at the story book ending of the battle for control of the Muppets” (Henderson, 2002, para. 9).

The press coverage of the JHC emphasizes the Henson heirs’ emotional connection to the franchise. The JHC purchase is connected to the franchise’s past under Jim Henson to its new ownership, overlooking EM.TV’s damage. As a result, the Henson heirs are described as the best able to restore the franchise to its past popularity.

WDC Purchase of The Muppet Franchise (2004)

Background

Despite claims by the Henson’s children that they would not sell the company after their repurchase from EM.TV, they sell the Muppet franchise, including licensing rights, to WDC.

This deal reflects WDC’s interest in the franchise during the prior EM.TV sale and it disinterest

JHC’s Creature Shop and other technical projects (DiOrio, 2004). This sale is framed as the

conclusion of the earlier failed merger deal. It reflects a sense of stability for the Muppet

characters and evokes the mnemonic frame of homecoming. The WDC sale reprises many of the

earlier frame packages, including same characters, and same place, and familial ties.

Evergreen Characters

By emphasizing Henson’s legacy, the Muppet franchise is once again positioned as

evergreen. A WDC strategist suggests that “the Muppet characters are evergreen characters that

have a broad family appeal” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 38). The WDC connects the franchise’s past,

present, and future, presenting it through the franchise’s value. WDC explicitly ties the

franchise’s past success to future distribution of franchise content: “Kermit and Miss Piggy are REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 132 well known and beloved around the world and will have an opportunity to be seen and loved by millions more well into the future through WDC’s distribution channel at home and abroad, including home video” (DiOrio & Netherby, 2004, p. 5). Continuing distribution of the Muppet

franchise projects ensures the permanence of the franchise, as well as the continuation of

Henson’s legacy. Thus, Eisner describes the deal, not as ownership, but as “Disney accepting stewardship of these cherished assets” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 38). This frame positions the notion of the Muppet franchise as family heirloom rather than a commercial property.

Permanent Home

As before, the WDC sale is once again framed as offering a permanent home for the

Muppet characters. In the press, the characters are described as finally completing a long

journey, which started with Jim Henson’s death and continued until they were safely housed as a

Disney assets. Thus, the deal creates a discursive timeline of events that starts in the mid 1960s

with Eisner’s first interest in Henson and continues over forty years to the final. The sale

completes “a negotiating dance first started by the late Jim Henson” (DiOrio & Netherby, 2004,

p. 5). Similarly, the journey becomes a metaphor for the years of discussion about Disney’s

possible ownership, or the housing of the Muppet franchise. Thus, “Kermit and his Muppet pals

are finally heading to the Magic Kingdom” (DiOrio & Netherby, 2004, p. 5).

Marriage Complete

The long journey is also discussed in terms of courtship. The sale is still positioned in

terms of marriage; however, more emphasis is placed on the courtship or length of time it took

for the Muppets to become part of WDC. The relationship between WDC and the Muppet

franchise is described as an “on again, off again courtship” (Bennett & Pryor, 2004, p. 52) or “a

long sought deal” (DiOrio & Netherby, 2004, p. 5). Michael Eisner, who was key in the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 133 announcement of the first merger, repeats his earlier connection to Henson and the WDC sale to emphasize the sale as a culmination of his hopes: “since I worked with Jim Henson on the first

Muppets TV special in the 1960s, it was obvious to me that his characters would make a deep imprint on the hearts of families worldwide and this announcement is the culmination of a long- time desire to welcome them into the Walt Disney Co.” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 38). In fact, Eisner’s involvement is considered a decision making factor in the sale; Brian Henson stated that

“Michael Eisner’s long-standing passion and respect for the Muppets give me and my family even more confidence in Disney as a partner” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 38).

The sale of the Muppet franchise to WDC is framed as assuring a future for the franchise.

Similarly, the Henson heirs describe the sale as placing “their father’s legacy in perpetuity at the place where it belongs” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 1). Lisa Henson ties the agreement to a culmination of her father’s wishes because “the deal ensures that the Muppet characters will live, flourish, and continue to delight audiences everywhere, forever” (DiOrio, 2004, p. 38). This new ownership connects to the endurance and perpetuation of the franchise.

Conclusion

Through the changes of ownership of the Muppet franchise, several mnemonic frames emerging from the frame analysis construct continuity between past and future owners of the franchise. To develop this continuity the Muppet franchise becomes both an object tied to the past, but also to the present. Throughout these ownership changes, the Muppets’ past appeal is tied to a sense of future audience interest, particularly as a set of evergreen characters. The mnemonic frames of homecoming, legacy and repatriation construct a particular past for the

Muppet franchise that support their new owners and the future value of the franchise. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 134

During the WDC-JHP merger, the mnemonic frame of homecoming builds on similarities between person and place to present the Muppet franchise as an object of intergenerational interest. Through a shared creative ancestry, both Disney and Henson appear as part of a continuous lineage. By using metaphors for familial relationship, the Henson and Disney characters become family, through a corporate marriage. WDC’s MGM studios is positioned as a home, using the place to evoke a sense of permanence and stability for the Muppet franchise.

The mnemonic frame of homecoming re-emerges during the WDC purchase of the Muppet franchise in 2004. Similar frame packages emerge, such as courtship and marriage. The notion of place, WDC’s parks, is associated with a return to stability. This mnemonic frame also constructs a past for the Muppet franchise, while alluding to a sense of future value. The

Muppets’ past as part of the WDC offer a location and point of origin.

The conflict over ownership after Henson’s death uses the mnemonic frame of legacy.

This legacy is used by both WDC and Henson’s children to claim responsibility for the Muppets continuation for posterity. Both companies claim a pedigree or dynasty to assert their legitimacy as caretakers for the franchise. WDC focusses on Henson’s involvement with merger to imply

WDC’s ownership of the characters as Henson’s dying intention. WDC does this through spiritual pedigree, highlighting their experience in caring for Disney’s creations. The Henson heirs draw on a notion of dynasty, particularly how their childhood experience prepared them for the work. The Henson heirs also use the notion of pedigree referring to personnel, who were trained and chosen by Henson. Both groups use their connection to Henson to assert their responsibility and ability to ensure that the Muppet franchise endures and therefore protects Jim

Henson’s legacy. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 135

As JHC is repurchased by the Henson heirs, the mnemonic frame of repatriation emerges to acknowledge the franchise’s lower value and emphasize the new owner’s ability to repair this damage. The frame describes the negative impact of the last owner, EM.TV. As a result, the

Henson heirs’ motivation for repurchasing the franchise is connected to family responsibility, rather than economic incentive. The enduring appeal of the franchise is used to support its expected restoration under the new owners, who have a responsibility for its endurance.

While elements of the frame packages and frame devices repeat through the ownership changes, each mnemonic frame builds to a different form of continuity. The mnemonic frames of ownership—homecoming, legacy, and repatriation—offer the Muppet franchise as an ongoing creative series, which would appeal to future generations. The franchise is framed as a contemporary creation, but also as a heritage object with a long history of production and popularity. The value and status of the franchise changes to reflect the need of the owners; however, continuity is stressed between the franchise’s past value and its future potential value.

Older interactions, products, and events are contextualized into the present, demonstrating a

usable past focussing on the Muppet characters. The continued availability of the Muppet

franchise provides a foundation for its owners to construct continuity. In the case of the

Muppets, continuity bridges the past success of the franchise to its future value under its new

ownership.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 136

CHAPTER 5—THE MNEMONICS OF COMMEMORATION

It’s not easy being green.

—Bein’ Green (1970)

On May 16th 1990, Jim Henson died at the age of 53, in a New York City hospital. The day before his death, he was taken to the hospital with complications from a cold. Henson died from severe bacterial pneumonia. Without any long-term health problems, his death shocks to those around him and those who reported on his death. His death creates a breach in the continuity of the Muppet franchise, now devoid of its “key artistic figure and creator” (Blau,

1990a, p. A1). Henson’s death is remembered in several venues: newspaper reports, his New

York and London funerals, a TV special entitled The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson (1990), and in various museum exhibits. Henson’s death is presented as a break from the past and this break allows for reflection on his importance. By discussing Henson’s perceived contribution, the press coverage frames Henson as worthy of remembrance, and his creation, Muppets, in need of preservation for future generations.

While the franchise literature does not explicitly address the death of a franchise creator, it does stress the importance of creators as auteur-like figures (Skopal, 2007; Murray, 2004). For example, Star Wars creator George Lucas is associated with his franchise’s continuation. When discussing showrunners, Mann (2009) and Cornea (2009) note the importance of key creative staff in the successful continuation of franchise materials. This discussion suggests that the death of creative figures would create a rupture in a media franchise.

In the memory studies literature, the death of a key figure is considered a catalyst for the periodization of time. For example, Samuel (1994) notes that the death of Queen Victoria sparked a reflection on her reign and the continuity it provided during industrialization. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 137

Similarly, Diana Taylor (2003) examines the remembrance of celebrities, particularly focussing

on the remembrance of Princess Diana. Turner’s (1982) concept of the social drama suggests

that death of a key figure can create a rupture, to which the funeral services act as a redressive

action to facilitate the coming to a new norm. Taylor (2003) applies this idea of redressive action to the spectacle of the state funeral for Diana. Further, she stresses how the remembrance of Diana evoked theatricality and promoted universality. She argues that this theatricality facilitates Diana’s use in other group’s remembrance, particularly Hispanic Americans.

Outline of Chapter

This chapter examines three ways in which Jim Henson is commemorated, directly

following his death and years after. Shortly after Henson’s death, his life and importance are discussed in obituaries. During his funerals in New York and London, the rupture caused by

Henson’s death is acknowledged by the silence of particular Muppet characters. Six months

after his death, Henson is mourned by the Muppet characters in the television special, The

Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson (1990); however, he continues on through the return of a

speaking Kermit. Over the decade that follows Henson’s death, various travelling and

permanent museum exhibits stress how Henson’s creative and technical work influences current

media productions or popular culture.

Using existing memory scholarship, the chapters defines three mnemonic frames that

emerge from frame analysis of press coverage of Henson’s commemoration. These mnemonic

frames are surrogation, resurrection, and veneration. After outlining the mnemonic frames, each

period of commemoration is introduced by a short summary of the context. The majority of the

chapter describes the frame devices and packages used during the commemoration activity.

These frame devices and packages acknowledge the rupture caused by Henson’s death, but also REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 138 stress his ongoing influence on the present. These frame devices and packages build continuity through the commemoration of the past for the needs of the present.

The press coverage of Henson’s obituaries and funerals feature the mnemonic frame of surrogation. This frame stresses continuity by using rituals and traditions to emphasize the past’s ongoing influence on the future. In particular, Henson is represented through his characters, which serve as effigies that embody both the rupture created by his death and the ongoing impact of his work. By the airing of The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson, the press coverage shifts, and continuity is now built by having the Muppets completely replace Henson. The Muppet characters are no longer unspeaking effigies for Henson, but a way to resurrect him. In

particular, the return of a speaking Kermit is a signal of Henson’s ongoing presence, despite his

death. As Henson’s work becomes presented in museums and the focus of travelling exhibits,

the Muppet characters are framed as relics for veneration. The franchise is interpreted through

an evolutionary perspective, in which Henson’s work becomes the point of origin for the present.

The Mnemonics of Commemoration

The Mnemonic Frame of Surrogation

The mnemonic frame of surrogation focusses on the continuation of the past as a need of

the present, and it uses effigies to embody what has been lost. Effigies serve as surrogates in a

series of rituals and practices that denote the passing of time or rupture. In particular, they are

prominent in funeral rites, noting the deceased’s continual influence on the present. Joseph

Roach (1996) notes that effigies are used in funerary practices to create a liminal state where

both mortality and immortality are present. The effigies both denote a lost individual and the

future impact of that individual. The mnemonic frame of surrogation, in Roach’s interpretation,

builds continuity through replacement and recognition of what is lost. It is a practice of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 139 substitution to deal with “the vacancies [that] occur in the network of relations that constitutes the social fabric” (Roach, 1996, p. 2). As Roach highlights, surrogation is about replenishing, rather than forgetting.

Surrogation attempts to demonstrate the influences of the past on the present through performance. The performance of effigies does not replace the original, but creates a surplus or a deficit. Roach (1996) notes that surrogation is associated with anxiety of remembering and forgetting; therefore, there is a sense of reflexivity during the practice. In particular, Roach posits that performers are likely sources of effigies, as their characters can be evoked after their death. When surrogation occurs after Henson’s death, his Muppet characters—primarily

Kermit—are used to note both his presences and absence.

The Mnemonic Frame of Resurrection

The mnemonic frame of resurrection is a different kind of surrogation as it focusses on

the reproduction of the past rather than a substitution for the past. It is an attempt to replace what

was lost, hiding rather than emphasizing change. Roach (1996) describes resurrection as a form

of performance that attempts to stand in for the past, that “both to embody and to replace” what

has gone (p. 3). Similarly, Lowenthal (1985) notes, “resurrection demand[s] not simply the

rebirth but the replacement of the past” (p. 85). Yet, this replacement can be symbolic, as long

as it allows for reconciliation with the past. Thus, Samuel (1994) stresses that “resurrection

domesticates the past” (p. 164). For example, Samuel notes that resurrection can occur through

the refurbishment or restoration of a historical building. Resurrection, as a type of continuity,

emphasizes form and appearance, a stylization of the past.

Resurrection as a form of replacement for the past is described by other memory scholars

as a depolarized past. Both Taylor (2003) and Irwin-Zarecka (1994) emphasize resurrection as a REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 140 malleable form of continuity. Taylor ties the notion of resurrection with citationality, in which the repetition of the past accumulates and creates new meanings. Similarly, Irwin-Zarecka

(1994) notes that resurrection, or a return to the past, is often a sign of shifting tastes in remembrance. She notes that the returning to a previous name for location is not return to an original, but a “reference to the alternative historical narrative” (Irwin-Zarecka, 1994, p. 127). In this way, the mnemonic frame of resurrection offers access to a past that is “imaginary or sentimentalized . . . nice to return to” (Irwin-Zarecka, 1994, p. 88). The mnemonic frame of resurrection builds continuity by appearing to recreate the past; however, the past returns to serve the present and becomes contemporary symbolic cues and associations. Resurrection involves cues, based on referential knowledge, to resemble the past (Küchler, 2012). When resurrection

occurs after Henson’s death, his Muppet characters become a replacement for him, including his

voice.

The Mnemonic Frame of Veneration

The mnemonic frame of veneration is the last frame address in this chapter and is

associated with the remembrance of Jim Henson in museum venues. As a mnemonic frame,

veneration invokes the origins of the present through ancestors. These ancestors are used to

explain the progression of the past to the present. As a result, these ancestors are touch points or

artifacts that offer a sense of stability despite change. The mnemonic of veneration emphasizes

how the past is selected to explain the present. A venerated ancestor serves as a shared origin, or

as a point of familiarity, that facilitates intergenerational continuity.

Veneration acknowledges change, like surrogation, while stressing periodization or

evolution. The persons selected for veneration are typically figures associated with sacrifice,

discoveries, and dynasties (Zerubavel, 2003). The contributions of these figures are perpetuated REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 141 through “imitation and emulation” (Lowenthal, 1985, p. 80). While the individuals and their works remain the same over time, their importance is continually reconstructed, using appearance or style, to denote past remembrance practices. These figures are used as a shared

memory resource. Henson, as a venerated individual, becomes part of the normalization of

history, in which it is ritualized (Samuel, 1994). This framing of Henson and the Muppet

franchise facilitates nostalgia, particularly on the part of adult attendants to these museum

exhibits.

Henson’s Death and Funerals (May-July 1990)

Background

Because of its unexpected nature, Henson’s death sparks speculation about the underlying

nature of his disease. The family was quick to dismiss any AIDS infections or complications

(Nordheimer, 1990). The quick nature of his death was presented, by a hospital administrator, as

part of his commitment to his work (Blau, 1990a). His work took precedence over his self-care.

This lack of care was often commented on as part of the confusion over Henson’s death: “it is

inconceivable that Henson died from lack of caring for himself. He took such good care of those

most precious to us” (Rainie, 1990, p. 12). Frequently, reporters juxtapose Henson’s

commitment to quality work with a failure to ensure his own health: “Henson’s humility, his

desire never to bother anyone . . . became genuinely tragic flaws in the end” (Schindehett, 1990a, para 3). Many authors reference Henson’s lack of self-care. His death from “a severe but treatable disease from the group streptococcus pneumonia . . . became genuinely tragic flaws”

(Schindehett, 1990a, p. 88). The key tragedy underlying these discussions of death is its possible prevention. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 142

As a closing to the ritual drama sparked by Henson’s death, his funerals end the liminality of his death and construct the Muppet characters as surrogates for Henson. The funerals focus on a commemoration of the past and an assertion of continuation. The first funeral, in New York’s John the Divine Cathedral, took place shortly after Henson’s death in late

May (“Black banned,” 1990). In July, another funeral took place in London at St. Paul’s

Cathedral (“England honors Jim Henson,” 1990). This funeral was smaller than the first and was

attended mainly by Creature Shop staff, as the workshop is located in London.

Where the earlier press coverage of Henson’s death emphasizes loss, Henson’s funeral

emphasizes a celebration of life and joyfulness. Both of Henson’s funerals aimed to celebrate

life. The celebration is discussed as an illustration of Henson’s approach to life and his impact

on the world. Most notices about the funerals include instructions that no one should wear black

(“Muppets join cathedral,” 1990). The New York funeral coverage includes comments on the

colorfulness of the funeral, including the bright outfits of those in attendance (Armstrong,

1990b). The New York funeral features colorful butterflies, which mourners move during a

musical tribute. One reporter paralleled this colourfulness with Henson’s work: “a genius who made the world bright with his colorful cast of hundreds” (“Henson fans make funeral,” 1990, p.

3). The St. Paul’s Cathedral celebration is described as more understated. The decoration of St.

Paul’s Cathedral is inspired by London parklands, which Henson appreciated. The small service

includes 1,400 people (Wolf, 1990). “The mourners packed the aisle with creatures and

portraits of their ‘American’ creator” (Wolf, 1990, para. 2). Both funerals attempted, as one reporter describes, “to capture the playful spirit of Mr. Henson” (Blau, 1990b, p. B11).

Throughout the coverage of Henson’s death and the two funerals, the Muppet characters are used both to create continuity by representing Henson’s ongoing influence on popular culture REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 143 and to mark his absence. The press coverage of Henson’s death emphasizes contradictions between Henson’s mortality and the immortality of his characters. As effigies of Henson, the

Muppet characters both assert Henson’s continuity and absence. In particular, the press coverage describe the characters are performers, representing Henson’s continual presence; yet, the same characters are mourners, representing the loss of Henson. A similar juxtaposition focusses on

Kermit the Frog, who is Henson’s main legacy, but is silenced by Henson’s death.

Henson Mortality and Muppet Immortality

In obituaries, commentators present Henson’s death as break in continuity, suggesting a potential periodization before and after Henson’s death. Many obituaries included self-reflection from the authors or the general public about the surreal nature of Henson’s death. Reporters included their own surprise: “Jim Henson’s dead . . . I can hardly believe that. He was such a part of my growing up, I think of him living forever” (Grossman & Ogintz, 1990, section 5, p. 5)

or “if anyone was immortal, it was Jim” (Prady, 1990, p. 36). Many reporters allude that

Henson’s death is a personal loss for the public, particularly for “the two generations who

watched Henson’s programming as children” (“Henson taught kids,” 1990, p. 31). Frequently

articles reference to the disconnection between the immortality of the Muppets and the morality

of their creator: “the man who created characters of timeless appeal had suddenly proved to be

frighteningly mortal” (Schindehett, 1990a, p. 88). Similarly, one reporter reflects that he did not

think that he felt any loss over Henson’s death; however, a “sense of loss that slowly began to

overtake me as the thought sunk in. It was not grief, just an unnerving pain” (Harrigan, 1990, p.

94). The shock of Henson’s death is tied to the vitality and life associated with the Muppet

characters: “it’s hard to imagine that creative energy stilled” (Karkabi, 1990, section 2, p. 1).

This juxtaposition between Henson’s death and Henson’s creative energy sets up the future REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 144 framing of Henson as both dead and alive. As a frame package, this discussion links the mortality of Henson to the immortality of his characters as effigies.

The press coverage questions the immortality of the Muppets in response to the sudden mortality of Henson. In particular, one article notes that the death of Muppets was not contemplated before Henson’s death: “no one had apparently given much thought to the idea that the Muppets might in any sense be mortal. Henson’s death made this curious notion available”

(Harrigan, 1990, p. 94). The Muppets are suddenly tied to the unexpected mortality of their creator. Without Henson, questions rose about the Muppets mortality; can Muppets die? Many articles assumed that the Muppets would continue because Muppet characters are considered people: “with the passing of the creator, the Muppets may have an unaccustomed moment of silence. But thank goodness, they are immortal” (Ostrow, 1990, p. A2). Thus, Henson’s mortality is juxtaposed with the notion that his creations, the Muppets, would continue.

The liveliness and reality of the characters Henson created allowed them to become a substitute for him. Henson “left behind was a dynasty of remarkable foam-and-wire creations—

Kermit the Frog, Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy and Big Bird among them—that live on with a beguiling independent reality of their own” (Heffley, 1990b, p. F1). The Muppets’ humanity is used to suggests their independence from Henson, and therefore, their immortality: “you cannot retire a living breathing spirit” (Ostrow, 1990, p. A2). “There was an air of exponential loss,

Henson was dead and his many characters were held in some kind of eerie suspension. No one was certain if they could ever truly spring to life again” (Harrigan, 1990, p. 94). The characters’ silence evokes the sense of loss cause by Henson’s death. Though Henson is the origin of the characters, they are not tied to his mortality. In fact, the discussion of Muppet mortality contrasts earlier discussions of the characters as evergreen or their continuity value. However, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 145 the focus on the possible death of fictional characters demonstrates the extent of the social

rupture caused by Henson’s death.

The idea that the Muppet characters can continue without Henson is associated with the appeal of Henson’s work. Articles describe the appeal of the characters, not in terms of technological innovation, but in terms of the human qualities they projected: “without their endearing humor, an all-too-human a characteristic . . . the Muppets would have been just another technological surprise, to be exclaimed over and then dismissed. Henson gave them more than technical life; he gave them souls” (Heffley, 1990a, p. F9). Therefore, the Muppets offer unique insights into humanity. As one reporter expressed “they talk in terms of human need, Kermit could make you laugh but he could make you cry too” (Grossman & Ogintz, 1990, section 5, p. 5). It is this humanity that allows the immortality of the characters to be questioned, but also secure the characters’ potential as surrogates for Henson.

Muppets as Surrogates for Henson

The press coverage connects Henson’s position behind, or beneath, the Muppets, with the characters’ ability to publically represent him. When Henson was alive, the press coverage presents him as a shy and unnoticed figure. This conflicts with the world wide coverage of his death. The contrast between his death’s coverage and his reportedly shy personality supports the

Muppet characters as his surrogate. Henson’s death brought attention, whereas “Henson preferred to stay out of the limelight[,] deny[ing] that his award-winning creations spoke for him”(Heffley, 1990a, p. F.9). In fact, the nature of the puppeteer as unseen is tied to his absence from the stage. “His art consisted of hiding behind the other personality. They were camouflage for him as the green leaves and foliage were for Kermit” (Osgood, 1990, p. 3). Henson receives more attention for his death than he had sought during his lifetime. Henson is described as “the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 146 shy, bearded man who sometimes showed up with Kermit and his other Muppet creations” (“Jim

Henson creator,” 1990, p. 51). Henson’s presence is mediated through these characters. Another

reporter describes Henson’s shyness as that he “let his Muppets do the talking” (Arar, 1990, p.

L21).

Through these framing devices, Henson is presented as both connected to his Muppet

characters and different from them. Reporters juxtapose the Muppet characters’ fame with

Henson’s disinterest in the entertainment industry: “Henson always seemed to me a bit bemused

by success. He seemed out of place in the glitzy, hard-sell side of show business. He certainly

neither looked nor played the role of star” (Hodges, 1990, section 2, p. 6). Yet his voice,

Kermit’s voice, is famous. There are comments about the Henson’s voice, rather than his face,

being his most recognizable feature. Henson as “Kermit’s bemused voice of reason is familiar to

audiences worldwide through television, film, records, books, toys, computer software, clothing

and other Muppet merchandise” (Heffley, 1990b, p. F1). Henson’s anonymity and his

character’s fame conflict and reflect the liminality of his death. His puppets are potential effigies

for Henson. As effigies, the Muppet characters continue to take Henson’s place in the spotlight,

while also offer continuity.

Muppets as Mourners

Like Henson’s children and collaborators, the Muppet characters are described as

mourners, despite their fabric and foam. Just as the Muppets represent Henson’s ongoing

influence, the Muppet characters are also used to express grief. In particular, the Muppets are

presented, both in the obituaries and funerals, as mourners of Henson. The press coverage

continually notes Henson’s characters supersede their materiality as puppets. The coverage

suggests it is easy to forget what they are: “that they are illusions concocted of foam rubber and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 147 bits of flannel and wool” (J. Y. Smith, 1990, p. A23). Another article states that these “funny folk of felt or fur, gazing at you with ping pong ball eyes . . . they are the Muppets—one of the

most worthwhile creations of popular culture” (Culhane, 1990, p. 125). Commentators assert

“the characters are as beloved, perhaps more beloved than any flesh and blood celebrities”

(Schindette, 1990b, p. 119). Particularly, children are highlighted as interacting with Henson’s creations as real people: “kids see the Muppets as real . . . they have no reason to think these puppets aren’t alive” (Grossman & Ogintz, 1990, section 5, p. 1). The Henson heirs also comment on this reality, noting the letters they receive from children. One example is a picture that states “god must have needed Muppets in heaven” (Harrigan, 1990, p. 94). Henson’s characters are treated as real people involved in Henson’s life. As real people, the Muppets are able to become Henson’s continuation after death because they are framed as a part of Henson, yet independent of him.

Since the Muppets are treated as real, the press coverage of Henson’s death discussing the Muppet characters as mourners. Like Henson’s children and JHP staff, “all those Muppets

… they were going to cry” (Johnston, 1990, p. A1). The Muppets becomes mourners, as reporters portray the loss felt by fictional characters imbued with humanity. The Muppets are survivors left behind after Henson’s death: “The Muppets’ father and his unexpected death have left hundreds of survivors behind” (Westbrook, 1990, section 2, p. 1) or “he is also survived by

Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy . . . along with many others” (Z. Smith, 1990a, p. 1). The characters’ ability to mourn suggests their continuance: “although the characters will survive, the sorrow is that their future will lack the guiding hand of their gentle creator” (Heffley, 1990a, p.

F1). While the Muppet characters will continue, they are an embodiment of both Henson’s absence and presence. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 148

In addition to being mourners, the characters are described as in a state of limbo or unusually silent: “with the death of puppeteer Jim Henson, creator and alter ego of Kermit the

Frog and scores of other Muppet characters, it is like a room crowded with old friends has fallen suddenly silent” (Williams, 1990, para. 1). Reporters frequently draw attention to the Muppet characters presence at the funerals; both characters’ voices and bodies are present. While the

Muppet characters move and speak, the puppeteers are visible (Armstrong, 1990b). Their grief is expressed mostly through their puppets, though some key personnel spoke, including Richard

Hunt, and Frank Oz. One particular puppet mourner receives the most press attention, Big Bird, enacted by Carol Spinney. “Big Bird wearing a green bow, sings it’s not easy being green, a song associated with Kermit. At the end of the number, Big Bird looked heavenward, said . . . thank you Kermit . . . then slowly walked away head hung low (Armstrong, 1990, para. 13). As described in other words: “a large yellow bird wearing a green bow and singing a song that his friend, a famous frog, used to perform” (G. B. Smith, 1990, section 2, p. 3). Rather than the silent and still, the Muppet characters, performed by other puppeteers, are describe in terms of movement. As an observer comments that the “2 ½ hour service closed with muppeteer—in street clothes but in character, [singing] a medley of children’s songs and then waving two dozen

Muppets” (Armstrong, 1990b, para. 20). In addition to the Muppeteers, commentators noted audiences featured “waving hand held Muppets in the air” (Blau, 1990b, p. B11). Both the muppeteers and characters, through their performances, become surrogates of Henson, continuing the style and values of his Muppet production. The performance highlights assurance of characters’ continuation. The Muppeteers comment that this service is the basis of future productions. Their performance emphasizes both continuity of Henson’s character and mark of the rupture caused by Henson’s death. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 149

Kermit as Surrogate for Henson

While characters voiced by other puppeteers perform, Kermit and other characters voiced by Henson are silent marking Henson’s absence. The relationship between Jim Henson and

Kermit is prominent in many of the articles. “Through it all, Kermit would cope, or try to, where others would give up. And Henson, even while presiding over a multimillion dollar Muppet empire, stayed with the frog” (Williams, 1990, para. 9). These articles frequently describe

Kermit as an extension of Henson; therefore, Kermit’s silence marks Henson’s death. The qualities of Kermit become attributed to Henson, equating the loss of Henson with the loss of the iconic frog. “Henson was a big bearded bear of a man, but his manner was so gentle and unassuming and his voice so light and unthreatening that he could provide the voice of dear little

Kermit with only a slight change of register. Kermit was the straight man and island of sanity in the often crazy Muppet world”(Holston, 1990, p. E1). Kermit is considered a voice for Henson, rather than Henson as the puppeteer voicing the frog. “Henson only became voluble when he spoke as Kermit” (Heffley, 1990a, p. F9). Discussed as an expression of Henson’s own thoughts, Kermit is an alter ego. “Henson was unseen on screen but very much heard as the voice of Kermit the Frog, one of his first Muppets and one he felt the most kinship with” (Arar,

1990, p. L21). Based on this association, Kermit’s silence becomes a representation of Henson’s death.

Kermit becomes a marker for the loss of Henson. The press coverage asserts that those who knew and appreciated Kermit also appreciated Henson. There are frequent comparisons between Henson’s and Kermit’s personalities. One reported comment states, “who is going to talk us through Jim Henson’s death? It cannot be Kermit, whose sweet nature was largely the self-effacing Henson’s own” (Rainie, 1990, p. 12). This association is taken to the extreme when REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 150 one author notes that when Henson was sometimes spotted by small children, they would pay little mind to the gulf between real life and fantasy: “oh look they would laugh, there is Kermit”

(Schindehett, 1990b, p. 121). In fact, Kermit was more familiar than Henson. “To a little green frog, the spotlight was a warm and wonderful place to be,” (Heffly, 1990b, p. F9), which it was not for Henson. Reporters describe the character’s lost voice as a sign of Henson’s death.

Kermit is presented as both embodiment of Henson and marker of his absence. As one mourner phrases it, “he left a legacy (that) will last forever . . . so Jim’s not gone he’s still there” (Z.

Smith, 1990b, p. 7).

Henson’s absence is reinforced by Kermit’s absence at the funeral services. The character is not present at either funeral, but he is rather alluded to in several ways. There is an abstract representation of Kermit in the foyer of the New York cathedral: “an old green coat emblazoned with a frog-shaped piece of scarlet cloth greeted mourners as they entered the

Episcopal cathedral and symbolized the coat of Henson’s mother, from which he was said to have cut the original material to make Kermit” (“Big Bird at Henson,” 1990, p. A1). This coat alludes to Kermit, by outlining where his presence was, and also Henson’s absence. In addition

Kermit’s presence is discussed in relation to the use of green. Reports noted the color and relate it to the character. As one reporter notes, “Kermit’s presence was everywhere, from the green ribbons on every chair to puppeteer Richard Hunt’s Kermit green shirt”(G. B. Smith, 1990, section 2, p. 3).

In the press coverage of Jim Henson’s death and funerals, the Muppet characters are frequently used to mark Henson’s absence and his legacy. Therefore, the mnemonic frame of surrogation occurs by depicting the Muppet characters as effigies of Henson. Henson’s unexpected death sparks a comparison between Henson’s mortality and the immortality of his REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 151

Muppet creations. The coverage of Henson’s death juxtaposes Henson’s reticence for publicity with the Muppet characters exuberance to stress that the characters publically represent Henson prior and after his death. Further the press coverage includes frequent comments about the life-

like nature of the Muppet, which allows the characters to be considered as mourners. While the

majority of Henson’s characters are performed at his two funerals, Kermit is silent. Kermit,

whose voice was also Henson’s, becomes a symbolic marker for Henson’s death.

The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson (November 1990)

Background

The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson aired on CBS in mid-November of 1990, November

21 in most American markets. The tribute was a joint Henson and WDC production. The

special both introduces the audience to Jim Henson and commemorates him. It argues for the

continued remembrance of Henson; moreover, it discusses Henson as an inventor, educator,

humanitarian and mentor—each impact changing practices around entertainment, education, and

colleagues. The tribute is the first production featuring the Muppets since Henson’s death. More

importantly, it is the first time Kermit speaks since Henson’s death. JHP staff and trade press

reporters offer conflicting explanations for the TV special. The trade press notes the commercial

stake in the Muppet characters’ continuation, while JHP staff describes the TV special as a

continuation of Henson's legacy.

The plot for the tribute is based on the premise that Kermit, while away, asks the

Muppets to prepare a tribute for Jim Henson; however, the Muppets are unfamiliar with Henson

and have to figure out who he is. The tribute begins with Fozzie gathering the Muppets to read a

note left by Kermit the Frog. The postcard notes Kermit is travelling and “will be back with you

soon” (Shales, 1990, p. D1). The tribute is framed as a typical Muppet production, and therefore REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 152 a reflection of Henson’s style. Critics note that the tribute is not sentimental or sappy, rather it continues Muppet practice: they “avoid and often undercut any overly sentimental gestures in its tribute to the founder of the Muppet empire” (Bianculli, 1990, para. 2). There are also comments that the tribute reflects the personality of Henson: “warm, gently funny, irreverent, and on rare occasions, sappy” (Bierbaum, 1990, p. 84). In the New York Times, the tribute was noted as “a rare instance in which exaggeration was a virtual impossibility” (O’Connor, 1990a, section 2, p.

0).

The Muppet tribute to Jim Henson marked the end of the break caused by Henson’s death. It offered the final reintegration, where past, present, and future continuation of the characters is assured, as there is no discussion of their mortality. This reintegration reflects the mnemonics of resurrection. JHP staff comment on their relationship with Henson and his practices. The Muppet characters are embodiment of Henson’s influence. Kermit returns as a reincarnation of Henson. Rather than a voiceless effigy, Kermit speaks. Kermit tells the troupe to end the tribute with something silly, a return to typical Muppet fare. The characters have ended their mourning and return to their previous humors.

Staff as Henson’s Replacement

Some critics suggest that this tribute was not for Henson, but for WDC, “who has a heavy financial stake in the company” (“The Muppet celebrate,” 1990, p. 84). Shales (1990) suggests that Kermit’s voice had not returned, rather “what we are perhaps really hearing out of Kermit’s flannel mouth is the cold hard voice of commerce” (p. D1). Many reviewers discuss the

Muppets’ return as economically driven. Variety reports propose that “someone’s got a heavy financial stake in the future exploitation of all the Muppet characters” (“The Muppets celebrate,”

1990, p. 84). The trade press coverage includes the economic incentives in deciding that REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 153

Muppets cannot die. These claims of commercial interest are countered by JHP staff involved in the production.

The puppeteers present themselves as ensuring Henson’s influence on popular culture.

The performers undercut the criticism that the characters’ continuation as financially driven, but emphasize their duty to keep Henson’s tradition. They stress Henson’s training and selection of the performers. “Even though Jim’s not here . . . these are the same people that Jim trusted and choose” (Roush, 1990, p. D8 ). They argue that the characters allow Henson to live on. Kevin

Clash describes the puppeteers’ roles in the continuation of the Muppets as “Jim has given us all the magic, you know, and we’ll keep going” (“Kermit leapfrogs,” 1990, p. D8). Jerry Juhl,

Henson’s head writer, considers the Muppets’ tribute is considered as an extension of the earlier memorial services. Juhl notes that “as we gathered in New York for the memorial service, it was a unanimous feeling that the Muppets had to go on, the work had to continue” (Carlson, 1990, p.

20). Similarly, Henson’s children comment “we’ll be back with more Muppets because that’s

the way Jim would’ve want it” (O’Connor, 1990b, p. C20). The tribute is described as an answer, as it were, to the uncertain future of the Muppets. The tribute becomes “something of a

bridge from the past to the future” use of the Muppets (O’Connor, 1990a, section 2, p. 10).

At the beginning of the tribute, Henson is described as the “man down there” referring to

Henson’s presence behind the scenes. Robin the frog, after seeing a picture of Henson,

comments that he was always hanging around, down there, pointing underneath: “hey who are

those guys? Always watching us and having a great time.” The Muppets begin to recognize

Henson’s role in their creation. Henson is framed as a father figure who creates a family of

characters. Carol Burnett ties the offstage world to the on-camera antics of the Muppets. She

suggests that Muppets frustrate each other like family, as well as support each other like family. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 154

Later in the special, the Muppets watch a biography on Henson, which focusses on how Henson used the traditional art of puppetry and transformed it through TV technology. This act is expressed through the word “Muppet” which highlights their distinction from other puppet forms because “inside a Muppet was the hand of Jim Henson.”

In the TV special, Frank Oz describes his 27 years collaboration with Henson. As Oz talks, there are images of Jim Henson at work: reading scripts, making mistakes, and laughing.

Oz reaffirms the tie between Henson and his characters, particularly Kermit. Oz suggests that there is a little part of Jim in every character, as a series of Henson characters are shown on screen: Dr. Teeth, Rowlf, Ernie, and Kermit. Oz implies that keeping the Muppets on screen is a way keeping Henson’s creativity alive.

Kermit’s Return

The characters learn about the Henson’s death approximately half way through special.

The Muppet characters read a series of actual letters written to Kermit about Henson’s death, emphasizing Kermit’s association with Henson. Cheryl Henson recalls the importance of these letters in their decision to continue the Muppets. She suggests that the letters made them aware that “we found the kids really want to keep Kermit going” (Carlson, 1990, p. 19). She further describes the contents of these letters: “it was a very touchy thing. They were sorry Jim had died and wanted to know if the Muppets could die. We thought that the Muppets were characters, not people and that it was much better to say that they don’t die” (Carlson, 1990, p. 20). Fozzie reads a letter to Kermit in which a child writes “I’m sorry that your best friend Jim died.” Each letter is followed by the name of the writer and his/her hometown. Another letter to Kermit states “I hope you feel better. I miss Jim Henson too. I love you.” A parent writes “while falling asleep that night my five year old daughter Blair said, it’s a good thing that people can do REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 155

Jim Henson’s job because he’ll be with us every time we watch the Muppets.” By the end of the letters segment, the Muppets are planning to cancel their tribute.

This section of the tribute is frequently commented in reviews of the program. The

reviews suggest that this segment reflects the audience’s response to Henson’s death. TV Guide

describes the “segment near the end drives home what it’s all about. The Muppets hold and read

actual letters—many of them with crayoned drawings, obviously bursting with care and love—

saying goodbye and thank you, to Henson and to Kermit” (Bianculli, 1990, para. 2). Another

reviewer, Shales (1990) of The Washington Post, argues that the difficulties faced by the

Muppets are the same difficulties for Henson’s fans. In reference to the letters, he writes “it isn’t

going to be easy for them [the Muppets] . . . it isn’t going to be easy for any of us” (Shales, 1990,

p. D14).

By repeating the connection between Kermit and Henson, Kermit’s belief in the

Muppets’ ability to present the tribute inspires them to continue working on the tribute. Thus,

Kermit’s return emphasizes Henson’s ability to live on through these characters. Jane Henson,

Henson’s estranged wife, proposes the continuation of Kermit is what Henson wanted. She, in

fact, argues the Jim would have preferred a shorter absence for Kermit. Jim noted that “Kermit

must go on right away” (Johnson, 1990, p. D1). She suggests that the puppeteer, who performed

Kermit in the tribute, was chosen by Henson. “Because of Kermit’s significant place, Jim had

essentially chosen who he thought could do it” (Johnson, 1990, p. D1). Thus continuing the

character, Kermit, follows Henson’s wishes.

In the tribute, Kermit’s nephew, Robyn, reminds the Muppet troupe that Kermit thought

the Muppets could create the tribute. Robyn continues by saying that “Kermit would fly with it;

maybe he learnt it from Jim Henson. Jim Henson may be gone, but maybe he is still here inside REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 156 us, believing in us.” This small frog voices Henson’s presence in the characters and in the puppeteers performing out of view. The characters are framed as a continuation of Henson. JHP staff argue that Kermit’s role in the Muppet troupe paralleled Henson’s role. Richard Hunt, a puppeteer, notes that “Kermit played a part in all the characters’ lives much the same way the people here related to Jim Henson” (“Kermit leapfrogs,” 1990 p. D8). Just as the characters are unsure what do without Kermit, the puppeteers were similarly lost. Just as the characters ask what Kermit would do, the puppeteers consider what Henson would do in their situation.

Through Kermit’s tie to Henson, Kermit’s belief sparks the Muppets to continue, also eluding that Henson’s belief in the muppeteers sustains them. The characters then break into the song, “If Just One Person Believes in You,” during which Kermit enters. The person believing in them is both Henson and Kermit. Robyn’s dialogue ties Kermit and Jim Henson together in an act of resurrection. If Kermit can believe the Muppets could put on the tribute, then Henson believes that the characters should continue. The continuation of the characters becomes a

continuation of Henson’s legacy. The song sets up a community as one person becomes two,

three and more, till all the Muppets are singing. Though Kermit is on screen, he is not a

participant, but a watching bystander. Kermit continues to be a replacement for Henson,

watching his troupe as Henson could be watching the muppeteers.

Kermit’s entrance during the song is followed by Kermit’s quiet appreciate of the scene.

When the Muppets finish the song, Kermit comments “I knew you guys could do the tribute to

Jim.” Kermit also calls for them to do something silly to end the tribute. Kermit then looks at

the camera and notes that “will be back with more Muppet stuff because that’s the way the boss

would want it.” Reviewers of the program frequently comment on Kermit’s presence at the end

of the production. In the review of the tribute, TV Guide posits that “warmth—nostalgic and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 157 global—is this week’s hot item” (Droesch, 1990, para. 1). One critic describes it as “a tentative appearance at the close” (O’Connor, 1990b, p. C20). He suggests Kermit’s future is still in question, despite the appearance. Other reviewers of the tribute present the continuation of the

Kermit as an ongoing memorial. A New York Post columnist notes that “Jim Henson is dead, long live Kermit the Frog,” (Bianculli, 1990, para. 1) asserting the replacement of the mortal

Henson with his immortal character, Kermit. “Kermit will carry on in the spirit of his creator”

(Shales, 1990b, p. D1).

Through the TV special and its press coverage, Henson’s death is undone, by recreating a

Muppet production. The special and press coverage highlights how the Muppets remain the same, despite Henson’s death, supporting the mnemonic frame of resurrection in which the past is reproduced. The past is reproduced through the JHP staff’s connection to Jim Henson and his practices, which his staff employs to create the production. His characters, particularly their anarchic comedy, return to embody Henson’s creativity. In particular, Henson is resurrected by having Kermit, with voice, return to the screen. With his voice, Kermit is no longer an effigy for

Henson, but a complete replacement. Thus, the special and its coverage masks any rupture caused by Henson and emphasizing a return to Muppet production that occurred before his death.

Muppet Museum Exhibits (1990-2007)

Background

After Henson’s death, Henson is present in popular culture, from movie theatres and television productions to the museum exhibits—both permanent and travelling. In particular, a series of travelling exhibits tour the United States. In addition, the press coverage of the exhibits demonstrates how Henson is used to created continuity between the past and the present through the mnemonic frame of veneration. In particular, Henson is the focus of three permanent REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 158 exhibits: The Center for Puppetry Arts, Leland Museum, and The Paley Center (formerly the

Museum of Television and Radio). In addition to these permanent exhibits, several travelling exhibits tour the United States: The Vision of Jim Henson (“Maryland’s Muppet,” 1997), The

World of Jim Henson: Muppets Monster and Magic, and Jim Henson’s Fantastic World (Hogan,

2007).

Henson’s legacy is legitimized by the authority of the institutions which house the

permanent and travelling exhibits. For example, The Vision of Jim Henson is presented at the

Minnesota Children’s Museum (“Museums,” 2001), the Dallas Science Place (Churmin, 1998)

and the South Florida Science Museum (Hayes, 1998). The World of Jim Henson was presented in both science-oriented institutions and children’s museums. These locations included the

Omaha Children’s Museum (MacMillian, 1992), Dallas Science Place (“Muppets come to town,”

1991), Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (“Muppets come to town,” 1991) , and the Las

Vegas Discovery Children’s Museum (White, 1998). These locations reflect the different aims of these institutions, which tend to be more open to interactive, informal exhibits of popular subject matter. These locations frame Henson’s works in a new seriousness, suggesting its validity for remembrance.

Henson’s work is also part of two exhibits organized by the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s

Fantastic Journey (to celebrate its hundred and fiftieth birthday) and Jim Henson’s Fantastic

World. The latter was a joint project between the Smithsonian Travelling Exhibition Service and the Jim Henson Legacy foundation (Zeman, 2007). Because of the involvement of the

Smithsonian, these exhibits have a wider range of partnering institutions: Arizona’s Museum for

Youth (Hogan, 2007), Louisiana Art and Science Museum in Baton Rouge, the Smithsonian’s

International Gallery in Washington D.C., the Atlanta History Centre, the Oregon County REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 159

Regional History Centre, the Speed Art Museum, the James A. Michener Art Museum, the

Mississippi Museum of Art, the National Heritage Museum, the Museum of Science and

Industry (Zeman, 2007; White, 1998).

The three permanent exhibits involve the Jim Henson Legacy foundation, Jim Henson

Co. and Henson’s children (Goodman, 2007). Similarly, each travelling exhibit involves the Jim

Henson Legacy foundation, which partially curates the exhibits. The legacy is a charitable

organization whose aim is to ensure the continuing availability of Henson’s work, often through

public events. The objects in these exhibitions are frequently attributed to a variety of

organization. For example “pieces are on loan from the Henson family, the Jim Henson Co., the

Muppet Studio and Sesame Workshop, along with the Jim Henson Legacy and Smithsonian”

(Zeman, 2007, para. 7).

While the remembrance activities closer to Henson’s death involved the mnemonic

frames of surrogation and resurrection, Henson’s remembrance in museum contexts, features the

mnemonic frame of veneration. This framing of Henson’s remembrance emerges through the

press coverage of various museum exhibits—both permeant and traveling. In this coverage, the

Muppet characters become relics, where their meaning is tied to the interpretations offered by curators. The Muppet characters are no longer life-like, but are preserved puppet shells. The press coverage discusses Henson as an ancestor, whose veneration explains the origins of the present. This remembrance is tied to the audience’s existing awareness of Henson’s work, particularly its past popularity. Henson’s artistic or technological contributions are offered as an

argument for his ongoing remembrance. The intergenerational audience of the exhibits

demonstrates that Henson and his Muppet relics are part of shared cultural heritage, particularly

expressed by individual remembrances sparked by Muppet relics about their childhoods. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 160

Pre-Existing Recognition of Henson’s Work

Throughout the coverage of the exhibits, reporters refer to the audience’s pre-awareness of Henson’s work: “everyone seems to know the work of Jim Henson and it just appeals to them

… most people are charmed by it” (Hanrahan, 2007, p. C5). Often the existing awareness with

Henson’s work is used to prompt other interactions. The Center for Puppetry Arts uses this awareness to drive interest in puppetry, particularly framing Henson’s artistry as an origin for contemporary American puppetry. The Leland museum incorporates visitors’ personal connections to Muppet material by offering a pilgrimage. The museum asserts itself as Kermit’s origin, drawing visitors from around the world. The Paley Center draws on visitor’s awareness as they need to request programs from the catalogue. The center frames Henson’s inclusion into the archives based on his role in the origin of contemporary TV programming.

This pre-awareness of Henson’s work is particularly prominent in the press coverage of the travelling exhibit, The Smithsonian’s Fantastic Journey. The Smithsonian officials argue

that this popularity legitimizes Kermit’s inclusion in the eclectic exhibit that celebrates the

museum’s centennial. Kermit is both a relic within the exhibit and a promoter for the exhibit

(Shales, 1996). For example, “from the smile on the face for everyone’s favorite fuzzy green

puppet, Kermit the Frog, it is easy being loved by kids and adults alike” (Walsh, 1997, para. 5).

While Kermit would eventually go on permanent display at the Smithsonian museum, he

is almost always mentioned in the reviews of the travelling exhibit. One story is often used to

explain Kermit’s inclusion. The official tells that after Henson’s death, the workers at the

American History Museum decided to pay tribute to Henson by going to Kermit’s display case.

Even though no security issues of any kind had occurred, Kermit was found lying at the bottom

of the case (Walsh, 1997). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 161

In addition to the Kermit on display in the exhibit, the character participates in TV special

about the museum’s centennial. Kermit the Frog introduces the hour segment on the teddy bear

(“How did they know,” 1995). As part of the centennial of the Smithsonian, Kermit is framed as

an important aspect of American cultural heritage, travelling with other historical artifacts (S.

Johnson, 1996). The historical importance of the Muppet and related artifacts is asserted in press coverage of later exhibits, but the emphasis of these later exhibits tends to emphasis either

Henson as key artistic figure or key technological innovator.

Henson as a Venerated Artistic Figure

In both the press coverage of the permanent and travelling exhibits, the artifacts in the collection are described as representations of the Henson’s creativity and artistic ability, through various framing devices. For example, one curator notes that the photographs featured in the exhibit: “include framed photos that take museumgoers behind the scenes back to the beginning of Henson’s career” (White, 1998, para. 3). Rather than focus on full size puppets, officials stress smaller artifacts, like the proposal for The Muppet Show. It is described as “a simple [,] with the drawings, doddles, puppets and storyboards that show the creative process of Jim

Henson” (Zeman, 2007, para. 2). In the press coverage, curators describe the artifacts as rare, delicate objects, which offer a sense of the decay or marked by time passing. For example, one curator notes that the fragile nature of works on paper means that “they can’t stay on the road”

(Zeman, 2007, para. 10). Though officials emphasize the smaller artifacts’ rich insights into

Henson’s creative process, the characters and puppets are also included in descriptions of events.

In the traveling exhibit which visited Georgia, the “Mahna Mahna” characters are showcased

(Zeman, 2007). In this case, the construction of the puppets is important. “The exhibition also showcases Muppets, typically made of fleece or fur fabric and with polyurethane foam” (Zeman, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 162

2007, para. 4). As relics, the construction or design of the puppets are emphasized over any iconic appeal.

As a frame package, the press coverage emphasizes the important for Henson’s remembrance based on his impact as an artist. Jim Henson’s prolific body of work is considered a fitting tribute to his creative process: “The artifacts are visual milestones from an amazing career” (McCoy, 1995, p. 2). The various travelling exhibits focus on the Henson’s creative process as the origins of his characters and their cultural impact. As one reviewer describes, the exhibits demonstrates “how things happen rather than just seeing the finished product” (McCoy,

1995, p. 2). As a process, each aspect of the characters’ design and use is presented as part of the development of “cultural icons” (White, 1998, para. 11).

The importance of Henson’s artistic contribution is emphasized by members of the Jim

Henson Legacy. Karen Falk (archivist for JHC) states that “the part of his legacy that continues to thrive is his sense of innovation; no boundaries and creating really quality entertainment . . . his characters are still alive” (Hogan, 2007, para. 20). She ties the various travelling exhibits to the continuation of Henson’s legacy, by focussing on the characters. This artistic framing focusses more on the popularity or appeal of the characters. As one reviewer of the exhibits noted “close-up views of a favorite character from the mind of the late Jim Henson” (White,

1998, para. 2). For example, exhibit organizers use the frame of artistry to interpret the importance of paper sketches. The casual nature of Henson’s work illustrates the spontaneity and imagination of his process: “it’s amazing to see his early work. His sketches are all on lined paper or on the back of menus, these ideas would just come to him and he would grab whatever he could find to get the ideas written down” (Hogan, 2007, para. 12). Henson’s sketches are given significance as both starting points of his ideas, and as artifacts. When presented in an art REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 163 museum, the historical pencil sketches of Muppets and character are presented as complementing the institution’s other art (Zeman, 2007). As art, the material presented is given a new frame of importance. The relics are rare signs of the process of creation, forming an origin story for the characters.

The Center for Puppetry Arts. The Centre for Puppetry Arts in Atlanta focusses on

Henson’s veneration based on his impact on the puppetry as an art form. This exhibit stresses

Henson’s contribution to puppetry, particularly to its popularity in America (Goodman, 2007).

The Center holds an ongoing exhibit of Henson’s work, which began in 1978 (Hersh, 1991).

The Jim Henson Legacy and Cheryl Henson financially contributed to the expansion of the puppetry center, as well as donating 500-700 puppets “including some of the first Muppets built, props, scenic elements, posters, sketches and drawings that Mr. Henson created” for the new space (Goodman, 2007, p. EI). Henson’s work becomes a point of origin for contemporary puppetry. The exhibit ensures continued access to Henson’s work and materials to inspire emerging puppeteers. According to Henson’s children, the Center recognizes the Legacy foundation’s continuing non-profit work to support puppetry, with included grants to puppeteers like Julie Taymor. In other words, it focusses on the presentation of Henson as an artist that

“encouraged Americans to get into puppetry as an art form for adults” (Hersh, 1991, p. 3).

Within the Center, Henson’s work spans past and present as part of a “living tradition”

(Goodman, 2007, p. E7). Henson commemoration is legitimized by his artistry “that reached across generations and continues to touch everyone” (Turner, 2007, para. 8) and it continues inspiring contemporary puppeteers.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 164

Henson as a Venerated Technological Innovator

While in some museum contexts Henson is venerated for his advancement of puppetry, other venues emphasize Henson’s technological innovation and contribution to television and film. In this context, the artistry of his puppets is overshadowed by animatronic figures. As an official at one institution notes “when we first started, we worried that seeing too much behind the scenes would take away from the characters, but we found that wasn’t true at all. Nothing was diminished. The experience was actually heightened” (McCoy, 1995, p. 2). Similarly, “the exhibit uncovered the mysteries behind the Muppets without taking away the magic. You can glimpse what goes on behind the science of Muppet films . . . with props and studio equipment and look at design sketches on Creature Shop work table” (Ward, 1998, para 3).

When located in children’s museums, the technical aspect that is most commented on is the hands on puppet studio. “Children are able to move puppets while watching them in a TV monitor (like Henson’s staff did). Jim Henson was a wonderful artist who worked in many, many media and kind of changed our world, and that’s why we’re excited about this show”

(Zeman, 2007, para. 6). The museum officials assert this experiential exhibit has a pedagogical purpose, associating puppetry with technology. “A video studio where children can see how difficult puppeteering actually is . . . as well as the Jim Henson Workshop and Creature Shop in which the materials used to make the Muppets are shown” (White, 1998, para. 8). Exhibit organizers posit that children could be inspired to make similar creative innovations, as a response to the exhibit. As one reviewer notes “the touring show encourages that kind of creativity” (Churmin, 1998, p. C1).

Overall, the technological innovation frame package presents Henson’s contribution to contemporary film and TV productions as removing barriers for animated objects. “Henson REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 165 pioneered the use of film and television to push the boundaries of what puppets could be and do, creating unforgettable original creatures and dazzling effects” (McCoy, 1995, p. 2). Thus,

Henson is presented as an important television pioneer, like in this review, by “liberating them

[Muppets] from the confinement of a puppet stage . . . [to] equality [with] their human guests”

(Churmin, 1998, p. C1). Henson is presented an innovator of engineering, whose innovations

created characters as by-products. In this frame package, the technology used in the Muppet

franchise that is legitimized and presented to the audience as historically significant. As one

institution’s representative describes “the scientific part is in the development of the technology

to make all the film and television shows in the past 25 years” (Hayes, 1998, p. C9). Thus the

representative concludes that it is “a celebration of wonder” (Hayes, 1998, p. C9).

Paley Center, formerly the Museum of Television and Radio. Like the various

traveling exhibits that focus on the technology behind Henson’s creations, the Paley Center

emphasizes Henson’s work as contributing to the medium of television (Museum of Television

and Radio, 1993). It differs from several other exhibits of Henson’s work because it does not

physically display objects, rather it offers personal viewing of a curated collection of Henson’s

work. The series is entitled “Muppets Forever! The Legacy of Jim Henson—a sampling of the

great puppeteer’s television work” (“72 hours,” 2001, para. 6). The programs are organized by historical development or by medium. When first presented in 1993 and again in 2001, the programs were screened in their theatres (“Muppet forever,” 2001a; “Muppets forever,” 2001b).

These programs were later available to individual screenings.

By preserving Henson’s work, the Paley Center asserts the importance of his

remembrance. Jane Henson notes that “it’s a particular honor to [have] a significant portion of

his work placed permanently in an institution whose purpose is to preserve the medium that Jim REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 166 believed in so strongly ensuring that Jim’s creation will be enjoyed well into the future” (The

Museum of Television and Radio, 1993, p. 4). The donation of material, Jane Henson notes, is not only to an explanation or origins, but of value for future audiences. Preservation and access to Muppet material is important because of Henson’s impact on contemporary TV.

Intergeneration Audience for Henson’s Remembrance

Across all the travelling and permanent exhibits for Henson’s work, the press coverage features a discussion of the intergenerational appeal of the exhibits, and by association, Henson’s work. Key framing devices across the press coverage of these exhibits are individual recollections of their past Muppet associations. “Everybody can see themselves in one of the

Muppet characters” (MacMillian, 1992, para. 7). Reporters argue that both children and adults would enjoy the exhibit. In particular, commentators imply that adult interest would result in their children’s attendance. They allude that adult nostalgia is part of the drive that places the

Muppets with a shared cultural heritage. “Some of those on the old end of the curve may have kids who are watching Kermit and company and that gives this exhibition double appeal. There is more meaning to it when you share something that you feel that attached to. I think that’s quite special” (McCoy, 1995, p. 2). Thus, the exhibit attracts an intergenerational audience through the appeal of the characters: “Kermit may attract fans of all ages” (Cook, 1994, p. C3).

The significance of children’s experience reflects the Henson’s framing as either an important artist or innovator. Children’s interest in the exhibit is attributed to its representation of artistry and the creative process, both of which are associated with the perceived innate appeal of Henson’s work to children (MacMillian, 1992). “Kids will have to resist the urge to touch the

exhibit . . . but cardboard cutout of Big Bird . . . [offers] that hands-on experience” (White, 1998, para. 2). The children’s interaction with puppets and monitors responses to the exhibit's goals: REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 167

“the exhibit is to inspire children to go out and create just like Jim Henson” (Hogan, 2007, para.

23). This dual audience repeats the frame device used to suggest the uniqueness of Muppet productions. “He [Jim] managed the almost impossible feat of creating works that reach children on one level, while being sophisticated enough to engage adults” (White, 1998, para. 13). This appeal is particularly important because of the characters’ longevity, more than three decades

(McCoy, 1995).

Leland Museum. The City of Leland houses a small exhibit in a municipal building, commemorating Henson, which emphasizes individuals’ recollections of Henson (Hanrahan,

2007). Henson lived in Leland for the first 12 years of his life and the museums notes this association in various ways (Cox, 1991). The creek behind the exhibit is discussed as the birthplace of Kermit (McIntrire, 1997). “Mr. Henson played as a boy among the frogs and minnows that were to give him the background for his world of Muppet characters among them

Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, and the Swedish chef” (Mifflin, 1991, section 1, p. 2). Henson’s childhood friend from Leland is discussed as the frog’s name sake, also named Kermit

(“Lifeline,” 1997). At the creek, Henson was “playing with friends like Kermit Scott” (Mifflin,

1991, section 1, p. 2).

While the small museum features various loaned puppets from the JHC, including the

Swedish Chef, Dr. Teeth and a photograph model of Kermit which is exhibited with a backdrop of a creek, the most commented aspect of the museum is the Muppet memorabilia room

(Hanrahan, 2007). The Muppet memorabilia room is often discussed as presenting the appeal of the Muppets. Lunch boxes, dolls, and Happy Meal toys are featured. These items are donations from visitors to the museum (Cox, 1991). “Visitors often send items by mail after stopping by”

(Hanrahan, 2007, p. C5). The Leland museum features the international appeal of Henson’s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 168 work noting that 10,000 visitors come to the museum from countries like Germany, France, and

Italy (Hanrahan, 2007). One of the visitors describes the appeal of the museum: “we both liked the Muppets growing up” (Hanrahan, 2007, p. C5). The collection of the Muppet memorabilia at the Leland museum ties into the childhood nostalgia for the adult audience (Okamott, 1998). As

one museum official offers “if you loved him [Jim], come see what we have” (Cox, 1991, p.

L27). The museum reflects the popularity of Henson’s characters by including samples of the

wide range of merchandise. It also allows visitors to contribute to the site, by donating their collectibles. The museum focusses on individuals’ connections to the material, rather than offering a more formal setting. Visitors reflect on the experience as a pilgrimage to the origins of a venerated figure to whom they have a personal connection.

As Henson becomes the subject of various museum exhibits, the press coverage of the exhibits evoke the mnemonic frame of veneration, by positioning Henson as an artistic or technological origin of the present. Henson is framed as a venerated ancestor, whose work

provides an explanation for the present. In both cases, Henson’s Muppet characters are treated

as relics, whose meaning is contingent on the interpretation provided by curators. Further, the

exhibits highlight Henson’s appeal to interactional audience, particular as the press coverage

includes individual attendees’ recollections of Henson’s work.

Conclusion

The death of Jim Henson sparks a series of commemorative events, both shortly after the

event and in the following decades. The first responses to Henson’s death underscore it as a

rupture of social continuity. The press coverage reflects this rupture by emphasizing liminality,

particularly the conflict between Henson’s mortality and the assumed immortality of his

characters. This conflict is the starting point of the ongoing surrogation of Henson by his REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 169 characters during his funerals. During Henson’s death and funerals, the Muppet characters become effigies denoting Henson’s absence and continuing influence. The Muppets are describes as mourners, like Henson’s children and staff, proposing that they continue Henson’s legacy while marking his death. Particularly, Kermit is absent and silence; however, reporters note the use of green and other abstract representations of the character. As a mnemonic frame, surrogation stresses the liminality resulting from social rupture. The Muppet effigies offer continuity, but also indicate deficits caused by Henson’s death. Henson’s surrogation indicates

Henson’s presence and absence, constructing a tied between the past (Henson’s death) and his present influence (his characters).

Returning to social norms after the breach of Henson’s death, the press coverage promotes the creation of a new Muppet production. In The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson and its press coverage, the mnemonic frame of resurrection emerges, by treating the special as a return to past Muppet productions. The program amplifies association between Kermit and

Henson. Both shared a similar role within their creative families. Kermit’s faith in his troupe inspires them to continue, a similar analogy is presented between the Muppeteers and Henson’s influence. By reanimating Kermit, the social drama is closed and the Muppet characters are

Henson’s future influence, no longer representing an absence. Through JHP staff and the return of Kermit, the Muppet franchise continues as if Henson were still alive.

In the decades following Henson’s death, his remembrance occurs within traditional spaces of memory, museums. A series of exhibits featuring Kermit or Henson’s work travels throughout the United States. Henson’s creative process is also used to argue for his remembrance, focussing on Henson’s creativity and artistry. In addition, Henson’s ongoing remembrance is also tied to his technological innovations and how they continue to influence REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 170 film and television production. All of these exhibits feature Henson’s work as an explanation for the present—particularly current puppetry and TV productions. As a result, these museum exhibits draw on the mnemonic frame of veneration, asserting the relevance of Henson (the past) to contemporary culture (the present). As relics, the Muppet characters are exemplars of

Henson’s techniques and creativity. As an ancestor, Henson’s veneration reveals how the past informs the present. In addition to his framing as a venerated ancestor, the press coverage of the exhibits includes the intergenerational appeal of these exhibits to both adults and children.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 171

CHAPTER 6—THE MNEMONICS OF RESTORATION

Cause the show’s not dead as long as I believe in it.

—The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)

The press coverage of key Muppet franchise productions stresses the interconnections between new and previous productions. Considering the context of their release, new productions offer continuity through their framing as a reconstruction, revival or renaissance of the franchise. Building on the qualities associated with The Muppet Movie (1979), The Muppet

Christmas Carol (1992) and its press coverage constructs continuity with past productions through the mnemonic frame of reconstruction. A similar comparison occurs with Muppet

Treasure Island (1996), which sparks an increase in Muppet popularity and including a short- lived television program Muppets Tonight (1996-1998). The press coverage alludes to a Muppet revival because it takes elements of successful Muppet production and uses them to create contemporary productions. Lastly, Kermit’s fiftieth birthday celebration is framed as a Muppet renaissance by releasing past content, and celebrating the longevity of the franchise. Tying past and present productions, the press coverage of all these films and television programs, describe the franchise as continuous. This implies that the franchise is a structural force that bridges the past, through the press coverage use of mnemonics associated with restoration.

This chapter begins by defining the three mnemonic frames—reconstruction, revival, renaissance—discussed in this chapter through reference to the memory studies literature. These definitions are followed by an analysis of the press coverage of several Muppet productions.

First, The Muppet Movie’s press coverage is addressed for how the coverage connects to the film to the past, particularly Classical Hollywood films. It also outlines the key features of a successful Muppet film, which remerge in the coverage of later films. After The Muppet Movie, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 172

The Muppet Christmas Carol’s press coverage features comments that evoke the mnemonic frame of reconstruction, acknowledging the damage caused by Henson’s death, while maintaining the appeal of the Muppet characters and a Muppet mentality. The press coverage of

Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight, the mnemonic frame of revival emerges as the press coverage discusses similarities between current and past productions, including rebounding audience popularity. The last Muppet production discussed in this chapter is The Muppets’

Wizard of Oz (2005) and the surrounding celebration of Kermit’s fiftieth birthday. The press coverage of both connects past and present Muppet productions to suggest an increase in the availability of Muppet merchandise.

The Mnemonic Frames of Restoration

The Mnemonic Frame of Reconstruction

Three similar mnemonic frames are used to construct between continuity between different periods of Muppet production: reconstruction, revival, and renaissance. The mnemonic frame of reconstruction builds continuity through the imitation of earlier forms. Reconstruction is associated with an imitation of the past because it is unable to completely retrieve the past.

This inability to fully recreate the past is associated with the influence of the present, according to Samuel (1994). In describing the inability of the historians to fully reconstruct past, he notes

“our work is always an imaginative reconstruction of the past, never . . . mimesis” (Samuel,

1994, p. 114). Similarly, Lowenthal (1985) emphasizes that reconstructions of the past involve an attempt to imitate that which existed before. He argues that the limits of any act of reconstruction will be “the sheer pastness of the past [, which] precludes its total reconstruction”

(Lowenthal, 1985, p. 215). Both scholars connect reconstruction with an attempt to return to the past, but one that will always, in some way, fail because of the influence of the present. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 173

A key aspect of reconstruction, regardless of its inability to completely recreated the past, is that reconstruction aims to create an understandable or readily digestible past. Both

Lowenthal (1985) and Zerubavel (2003) argue that reconstruction, as an organizing structure, provides a form of the past that can be assimilated into the daily life of the present. As

Lowenthal (1985) notes, imitation maintains the relevance of the past by hiding or assimilating it into the present. Reconstruction focusses on repetition or developing copies; so that the reconstruction does not aim to “rival antiquity but to confirm or relive it” (Lowenthal, 1985, p.

373). In other words, reconstructions make the past “comprehensible” (Lowenthal, 1985, p. 282) through acts of imitation. Similarly, Zerubavel (2003) stresses the importance of reconstruction—particularly imitation—as a key way to come “to terms with it [the past]” (p.

80). The mnemonic frame of reconstruction forms continuity between the past and present by recreating the past; however, its ability to do so stress the role of the present and how the present determines what past is recreated.

The Mnemonic Frame of Revival

The mnemonic frame of revival is used to connect Muppet Treasure Island, and a new

Muppet television show, Muppets Tonight to Muppet success in 1970s and 1980s. Revival is an act of creation, beyond the imitation of reconstruction. When discussing period of revival,

Lowenthal (1985) distinguishes revival from recreation. As Lowenthal notes, revival starts with ideas from the past, but it is reborn into something not possible in the past. He argues that revival focusses on new creations or innovations inspired by the past without repeating it. In this way, the mnemonic frame of revival would connect the past to the present by using it as a resource for new innovations. Le Goff (1992) suggests that this act of creation is way of engaging with the past. Le Goff proposes that revival offers a narrative or process to engage REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 174 with what is gone. He proposes that revival, rather than reconstruction allows for a break from the past without disrupting the present. Its recreation acknowledges the loss of the original.

Revival builds a chronology from past to present, aiming to offer enjoyment of the present.

Revival moves past the urge to display the past, rather it seeks to create a living engagement with

the past.

The Mnemonics of Renaissance

Lastly, the mnemonic frame of renaissance is used to construct continuity between the

Muppet franchise’s past and present by advancing on past innovations. As a mnemonic frame,

renaissance focusses the rebuilding and relearning of past knowledge. Le Goff (1992) describes

the notion of a renaissance as both connection to the past and a celebration of the advancement

of the present. While the past is evoked, it is secondary to the present. For Le Goff , this

emphasis on the present in periods of renaissance is clearly in its associations with evolution,

novelty, and transformation.

Building on the notion of the evolution or novelty during periods of renaissance,

Zerubavel (2003) and J. Assmann (2002) articulate the role of technology. Periods of

renaissance provide modern constructions of the past that concentrate on improvement or

progress. Renaissance restores and augments customs from the past, with priority on technology.

For example, Assmann associates the Renaissance, referring to the time period, with a new

model of memory, based on the external sources, made available by writing. Similarly,

technology can be used to build connections to the past through the re-adoption of the past

traditions. Zerubavel describes how new traditions are created through the association between dates or anniversary, a form of what he refers to as calendric coincidence. Calendric coincidence

supports a discursive continuity by the linking of events through time. The key aspect of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 175 calendar coincidence is the arbitrary selection of dates and anniversaries, which are based in social tradition or sentiment (Zerbavual, 2004). This framing device, in conjunction with mnemonic frame of renaissance, offers a presentist view on past events. Lowenthal (1985) also

acknowledges how the past can be treated as “stockpile of traditions to draw upon at will” (p.

81). The mnemonic frame of renaissance creates continuity by using the past as a starting point

for new creations, like revival. However, renaissance emphasizes the present and its ability to

expand and advance the past in a way that was not before possible.

Resurrection, revival, and renaissance engage in a reverence for the past. Underlying

these mnemonic frames is a shared pattern of cyclical borrowing. These three mnemonic frames

are used to articulate a common Muppet style (past) for a current audience (present). Key to these mnemonic frames is reoccurring frame devices of Muppet characters’ appeal and their style of humor. This frame device builds a connection between current and past production through comparison. These key Muppet qualities are first presented during the release of The Muppet

Movie, the height of the Muppets’ popularity.

The Muppet Movie (1979)

Background

The Muppet Movie marks a high point of Muppet popularity and it remains the highest grossing of all Muppet films. At the time of its release, The Muppet Movie is a shift from the characters’ first run television shows to feature film. The Muppet Movie is the origin for later framing devices that reoccur to construct continuity for future productions. These devices included innovation in puppetry, the appeal of the Muppet characters, and a Muppet mentality of humor. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 176

At the time of the release of The Muppet Movie, the characters were the stars of an

internationally popular television program, The Muppet Show (which is discussed in more detail in the following chapter). The premise of the film is that Kermit leaves his home in the swamp to find fame as a performer. The film provides a history for the characters by telling how they meet and become the Muppet troupe. In addition to telling the creation story of the Muppet troupe, a subplot involves the owner of a chain of fried frog legs restaurants, who attempt to capture Kermit and use him to promote the company. Stylistically, the film frequently breaks down the fourth wall and comments on its status as a film, revealing the stage and set at the end of the film.

Muppets’ Connection to Classical Hollywood Films

Commentators of the film foreground the film’s references to conventions from the

Hollywood film era. The characters, the film’s style, and its material are frequently compared to classic Hollywood films. This frame packages places the Muppets on a continuum of

Hollywood performers. The Muppets are treated like personalities or stars, not as puppets. One reviewer suggests that the film is more about “movies than Muppets” (Blake, 1979, p. 6). This comparison provides as mnemonic continuity between the Muppets’ film and the generic convention of the medium. For example, one critic indicates that “survivors of modes of film communication 101 will be fascinated and delighted by the skillful use and parody of Hollywood conventions" (Blake, 1979, p. 36). In several reviews, Miss Piggy is compared to several past movie stars: Anne Bancroft, Judy Garland, Greta Garbo, and Mae West (Darratt, 1979; Frawley,

1979).

In addition to elements of the film’s mise-en-scene, critics refer to specific parodies of classic films. For example, the film's parody of High Noon (1952) is often commented upon. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 177

Several reviewers refer to the sequence in which “Kermit and the villain have a showdown in a desert ghost town” (Coleman, 1979, p. 839). Others compare the story to the Crosby-Hope series of road pictures, paralleling the adventures of Kermit and Fozzie (Arlow, 1979; Hartl,

1979). Kermit and Miss Piggy are compared to Bergman-Bogart in Casablanca (1942), both famous on-screen romances. There are re-occurring references to the Muppet signing “the standard rich and famous contract” as part of the films’ spoof of the typical backstage musical genre (Arlow, 1979, p. 46). These citations are described as adding “a touch of class" to the

Muppet film (Pollock, 1979, p. 16).

The Muppets are not discussed as ridiculing Hollywood, but embracing of it (Colker and

Viertel, 1979). One reviewer notes that the film “has many things [from] Hollywood in it that are close to my heart. It has a bar that’s the bar from every Casablanca movie ever made and a lot of other things that are little tributes to the movies” (Colker and Viertel, 1979, p. 19).

Another reviewer identifies the film as the culmination of famous Hollywood tropes: it “results

[in] a kind of That’s Entertainment with a plot attached. Its charm and success lies primarily in its loving pokes at Hollywood convention and in the lovable characters who do the poking”

(Ames, 1979, p. 67). The film’s tie to Hollywood conventions supports the characters as stars and their continuing importance. “Jolson sang, Barrymore spoke, Garbo laughed, and now

Kermit the Frog rides a bicycle” providing a sense that the film is a continuation of the key moments in film history (Ebert, 1979, para. 1).

Puppetry Innovation

The Henson puppets are discussed as an innovation on traditional puppetry. “It is Jim

Henson’s historical distinction to be the first to adapt the ancient art of puppetry to the twentieth century medium” (Culhane, 1979, p. 58). Many articles refer to the origin of the term “Muppet,” REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 178 stating that it stands for a combination of marionette and puppet. The press provides a lineage between Henson and earlier TV puppeteers, which relates Henson’s characters to older popular

animated objects. Henson’s puppets are presented as unique for their world wide appeal.

Several articles mention Burr Tilltrom and Bill and Cora Baird (Siskel, 1979). “Puppet shows are found in almost every place. Where Punch and Judy, Kula, Ollie and Fran, Kasper and even

Charlie McCarthy are unknown, Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy are easily recognized”

(Culhane, 1979, p. 54). The coverage of The Muppet Movie particularly connects Henson and

Edgar Bergen, because Bergen and Charlie McCarthy make their final public appearance in the film (Siskel, 1979). This is unique because it emphasizes the characters over form (dummy vs. puppet). Kermit and McCarthy are the main focus, who happened to be paired with a creative person. When puppeteers are discussed, their characters names are mentioned less often.

Though puppetry has been a popular art form, the popularity or appeal of Henson’s creatures is considered a particular high point for the art, distinct from other puppets. The Muppets are presented as universally familiar cultural objects.

Puppetry as a traditional art form gives a historical background to the contemporary

Muppet characters. Concurrently, the Muppets are considered challenging and innovative. The swamp scene in the film's opening is discussed in terms of its technical difficulty. The difficulty in the sequence is described by one reviewer as “we can’t for the life of us figure out where they hid the muppeteer . . . This is magic” (Ebert, 1979, para. 2). Kermit surrounded by water, or bicycling is tied to Henson’s passion for innovation and puppetry comments writer Jerry Juhl:

“Jim’s passion is to push the art form [puppetry] as far as he can,” (Culhane, 1979, p. 70).

Coverage of Kermit’s swamp serenade and bicycle ride draws attention to Henson’s innovative form of puppetry because these are sequences where characters go beyond the typical limits REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 179 associated with puppets: “Kermit peddl[es] merrily along on a bike” (Arnold, 1979, p. E4) or

“The Muppet are seen driving a variety of cars” (“The Muppet Movie,” 1979, p. 6). As one reviewer notes, these innovations “make it possible to introduce the Muppets into any conceivable setting. Their charm isn’t confined to a small scale image” (Arnold, 1979, p. E4).

The shift of medium becomes a reflection of the particular artistic values tied to the Muppet

characters. “The artistry and full cooperation of Jim Henson and the other muppeteers

accomplished this difficult transition with style and great success” (Mankofsky, 1979, p. 668).

The frame package links the Muppets with both a historical lineage of puppetry and with technical innovation.

The Appeal of the Muppet Characters

Both the crew and the reviewers address the Muppet characters as real people. The puppets are treated like stars whose on screen life is a reflection of their off screen time. The film’s director notes that despite being aware of the puppetry techniques that he considers the

Muppets as real people, “who just happen to be made largely of felt” (Canby, 1979, p. C19).

The ability of these puppets to seem like living creatures is frequently presented as the success of

Henson. One critic explains that “the entire Muppet Movie never has a problem convincing us that the Muppets are real people” (Hartl, 1979, para. 10). This idea of reality that would become a re-occurring framing device in discussions the Muppets’ success.

One of the key features of the press coverage of the film is the characters’ ability to appear real in the human setting of the film (“The Muppet Movie Review,” 1979). “Jim Henson and his Muppets have rediscovered the ability to turn frogs, pigs, bears and chickens into creatures so human that they stop being children’s toys and become a national obsession” (Hartl,

1979, para. 10). The Muppets are presented as classic: “like all children’s classics, the film REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 180 works on several levels, embraceable by all ages” (Ames, 1979, p. 67). The Muppet film, in press coverage, demonstrates the intergenerational appeal of definitive children’s characters.

One reviewer notes that the small scale of the film reflects the characters’ reality and appeal

(Kauffman, 1979). He asserts that “the Muppets are my favorite non-people people” (Kauffman,

1979, p. 27). In another example, a reviewer offers that even “if you dislike the Muppets’ material . . . it’s difficult to resist the creatures themselves” (Arlow, 1979, p. 101). The reviewer goes on to discuss the characters’ appeal as “an exquisite gentleness,” in which “their emotions and aspirations are always valid and recognizable” (Arlow, 1979, p. 101).

This notion of the puppets’ reality is particularly apparent in the discussions of Miss

Piggy. Write-in campaign by fans asked Miss Piggy to be nominated for an Oscar, in the

Campaign to Award Miss Piggy the Oscar (CAMPO) project. Over 20, 000 fan letters were written for her to garner the best actress statue (“The Muppets make it big,” 1979). As one reviewer indicates, “they are classic scenes and make Miss Piggy a formidable contender for best actress honors” (Perchaluk, 1979, p. 10). The appeal of Miss Piggy is reflected in the press coverage positing “she has become a small superstar in the last year” (Guarino, 1979, p. 49).

The Muppets are presented by the press coverage as driven by Henson’s creative experience rather than a profitable series of characters. Henson describes that the Muppets “are there . . . to entertain people” rather than make money (Culhane, 1979, p. 70). Henson reportedly keeps tight control over the way the characters are licensed: “a first class operation” (Arlow,

1979, p. 100). This framing device ties Henson’s careful licensing of the characters to a respect for fans and the fans’ relationship with the characters. The characters are framed as real and

Henson protects these stars: “Kermit and Miss Piggy have a personal quality and because the audience comes to think of them as real characters, he [Henson] will always protect them and be REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 181 selective with how they are used for endorsements and promotion” (Ames, 1979, p. 67). As a frame package, coverage of Muppet merchandise created for The Muppet Movie integrates the reality of the characters, while asserting Henson as creative, rather than corporate, focussed.

Muppet Mentality of Humour

In an attempt to identify the style of humor in the film, the press coverage features the

Muppets’ association with parody and chaos. For example, Canby (1979) celebrates the film because “there’s always room in movies for unbridled anarchy when it’s governed by intelligence and wit” (p. 196). Similarly, Blake (1979) suggests that the Muppets’ humor involves their willingness to cross the fourth wall. He notes that “the Muppets with tongue in cheek celebrate show business. The characters often cross the fourth wall and talk to the audience, ask for lines and scripts, the projector breaks down, and the Muppets are seen in a private screening room” (Blake, 1979, p. 36). As a result, the film’s focus on characters aids the tradition from vaudeville format of the television show to a feature-length motion picture.

Because The Muppet Movie marks the peak in Muppet popularity, key qualities associated with its success become part of the mnemonic framing of future projects. The Muppet

Movie’s success is associated with an innovative puppetry, the Muppet characters’ appeal and their style of humor. In addition to the elements featured in the coverage of future films, the press coverage also linked the Muppets to the stylistic elements feature in Classical Hollywood film-making, providing a connection to the past.

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

Background

The Muppet Christmas Carol marks the return of the Muppets to theatres after Henson’s death. It is also the first Muppet film to hit theatres in over ten years. In addition to Henson’s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 182 absence, the film is the first time the Muppet characters are treated as actors, rather than personalities. In this adaption of the classic Dickens’ tale, Kermit as an actor portrays the character of Bob Crachit. The main character, Scrooge, is played by Michael Caine. While the cast is mainly Muppets, Scrooge’s family and love interest are also played by human actors. In

Jim Henson’s Muppets films, the Muppet characters were placed in a human world; in this film, it is the human characters that seem out of place in a Victorian Muppet city. The film is a new iteration of several Christmas specials done while Henson was alive, in particular the Muppet version of a Christmas Carol presented on The Ed Sullivan Show.

The press coverage frequently refers to the film as an attempt to continue the franchise without its key creative figure. The reviewers of the film judge the appeal of the film based on their evaluation of how well the film reconstructs the Muppet franchise. Critics describe the various ways in which the film attempts to emphasize Henson’s role in the production, by attempting to duplicate both Henson’s decision-making process and his performance of Kermit.

In addition to the various imitations, the press coverage also determine how the film either

successfully or unsuccessfully compares to past Muppet successes, by evaluating the film’s

ability to continue a tradition of innovation, to restore character appeal, and to recreate a Muppet

style of humour. Through these various frame packages of imitation and repetition, the press

coverage builds the mnemonic frame of reconstruction, in which the film attempts to recreate the

past. This recreation of the past is only partially successful as it provides an interpretation of

past Muppet success.

Imitation of Henson’s Style

As discussed in the earlier chapter on the mnemonic of ownership, the children and staff

of the JHP supported their claim to the company through the construction of a mnemonic lineage REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 183 with Jim Henson. Similarly, connections to Henson are presented in the promotional material for

The Muppet Christmas Carol; however, the connections to Henson in this coverage stress how the staff attempted to recreate Henson’s creative process; whereas, previously the connection to

Henson was used to assert their rights to Henson’s company in terms of a creative lineage.

JHP situates the film as the end point of the grieving process, in which the creative

process is driven by the departed founder’s influence on staff. As Brian Henson, director of the

film and head of the JHP, notes “we went through a very emotional time when my father died.

But we all regrouped and found the strength to carry on” (“Friday profile Brian Henson,” 1992, p. I4). He furthers that “I’m sure I don’t do things exactly like my father did, but I try to carry on in a way that would please him . . . so we’re taking some fresh directions, we’re trying out new

ideas, we’re experimenting—and that is what he always did” (“Friday profile Brian Henson,”

1992, p. I4). Frank Oz, long time puppeteer, portrays the return to production as a sense of healing, or “getting over the hump” (Boyar, 1992, p. D14). Rather than depicting Henson’s loss as disruptive to the production, JHP staff present the film as a healing process. “Surely the spirit of Jim Henson the late creative genius behind the beloved puppet troupe, is alive in this sly and gentle little holiday treat” (King, 1992, p. E2).

Both JHP staff and film reviews suggest that the film represents a continuation of

Henson’s influence. Henson’s death is no longer an absence but a source of inspiration and innovation. In particular, the work of Jerry Juhl emphasizes as a connection to Henson’s creative process and the origins of a Muppet style of humour. Juhl was a writer for The Muppet Show,

The Muppet Movie, and The Great Muppet Caper. Reporters frequently mention these credits

(Kempley, 1992; Will, 1992). In one article, Jerry Juhl is quoted saying “this project may also be appropriate for the muppeteers at this particular moment in their history because their feelings REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 184 of loss are reflected in the story’s regretful tone” (Boyar, 1992, p. D14). In particular, Juhl explains why the Muppets play Dickens’ characters rather than their traditional personas. Since

Henson’s death, the characters have faced pain, Juhl alludes. The characters are prepared to play these roles, reflecting the emotional state of the muppeteers (Boyar, 1992). Thus Henson’s death provides the Muppet character’s a form of depth that did not exist previously. Juhl implies that the Muppet characters and muppeteers are healed through bring Henson's ideas back to life.

Similarly, reviewer proposes that “I’m sure we shall never forget Tiny Tim, the film pays touching tribute to Kermit’s creator and the blithe, antic puppet world he devised” (“Tiny Tim,”

1992, p. 25). The staff found solace in their attempts to imitate Henson’s creative process.

Imitation of Henson’s Performance of Kermit

A reoccurring feature of the press coverage of The Muppet Christmas Carol is Steve

Whitmore’s performance of Henson’s trademark character, Kermit the Frog. In the previous

chapter about the mnemonics of death, the extensive connection between Kermit and Henson is

illustrated. The Muppet Christmas Carol is the first project in which Whitmore is credited with

Kermit’s voice. Kermit’s return to the screen in a major role is both imitation of the character

and Henson’s creative influence. The press coverage stresses how Whitmore’s career was

similar to Henson’s. Like Henson who started in puppetry as a teenager, the press coverage notes that Whitmore started working with Henson at 18 (34 at the time of the Muppet Christmas

Carol) (Verniere, 1992). The press coverage also notes how both Henson and Whitmore had childhoods in the Southern United States.

Imitation is prominent in the Whitmore’s own description of learning to perform Kermit, as reported in the press. Whitmore remarks that his performance of Kermit required him to observe Henson’s performances. Whitmore alludes that his Kermit is an imitation rooted in REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 185

Henson’s movements and choices. For two years, Whitmore practiced Kermit: “I . . . looked at some home movies I had of Jim’s face when he was doing Kermit . . . the expressions he made, his body language, the way he stood” (Howe, 1992, p. N49). While the press found Whitmore's

success as Kermit mixed, they note the overall attempt to reconstruct both Kermit’s voice and his

personality. As one positive review notes “Being green may not be easy but Whitmore captures

Kermit’s humble pie persona so precisely that you would never know he isn’t Jim” (Boyar, 1992,

p. D14).

Reconstructing Elements of a Successful Muppet Film

Innovation in puppetry. A point of continuity between The Muppet Christmas Carol

and past Muppet productions is the innovative filming of puppets. Both staff and reviewers

frame the use of optical effects as part of previous Muppet productions. The film’s use of

technology to advance the Muppets moving through the space is compared to earlier Muppet

films where characters were able to swim or bike. However, JHP staff make a distinction

between technologies role in previous films and their new project. For example, Frank Oz notes

that in earlier films, “the Muppets always entered the real world” (Strauss, 1992, p. 9). In The

Muppet Christmas Carol, this Muppet world is also the result of the innovative filming and

staging. Brian Henson is praised, by some critics, for creating a Victorian Muppet city in a

studio.

Character appeal. Critics increasingly mention Jim Henson’s failures to minimize the

impact of Henson’s death on the success of the new film. Critics note that there had been no hit

productions for the last decade (Lessem, 1992). By describing the gap in successful Muppet

productions, critics acknowledge that re-introducing the character to the public would be

important for the ongoing success of the franchise. As expressed in the press coverage, the film REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 186 was chosen as part of a “slow re-education . . . to the Muppet characters, because they hadn’t seen them for a while” (Boyar, 1992, p. D14). When the film is discussed as successful, the

Muppet characters and the programs are a continuation of the appeal of previous decades: “Have no fear; the famous Muppet is alive and well” (Carlton, 1992, p. E6). The notion of re-education implies that the character were previous familiar. Thus, the reconstruction of the franchise involves invoking the franchise’s past popularity while making the character’s accessible to current audiences. As one reviewer notes, being a Muppet fan is a prerequisite for adult attendance: “Adults who have enjoyed the Muppets in the past will find the movie a light-hearted break” (Will, 1992, p. 6). For the audience to enjoy the film, they must be familiar with the

Muppet characters.

The Muppet mentality is used to discuss the role of the characters as part of the past appeal. Kronke (1992) posits that the film failed to include the Muppet personas: “as a result, they don’t bother to juice the proceedings with the usually clever, squirrelly bits of business that have made the Muppets so beloved” (p. L10). The strongest form of continuity, from reviewers, is the Muppets’ personalities, which most reviewers found remained charming. Variety suggests, despite the ten year gap and the loss of Henson that the characters are still touching, concluding that “nothing can really diminish the late Jim Henson’s irresistibly appealing characters” (Levy,

1992, p. 44). Some reviewers note that it is the treatment of the Muppet characters, particularly as actors, that diminishes the appeal of the Muppets. Thus, the film allows “Caine [to be] . . . first rate, the Muppets fare less well. The problem maybe that, for the first time in their movie careers, they are playing characters, and the Muppets have always been sui generis” (Rainer,

1992, p. F12). By casting the Muppets as characters in the tale, many commentators feel disconnected from their recollection of the Muppet characters. One reviewer expresses a REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 187 disconnection between his Muppet memory and the current film. Stack (1992) reveals “you almost feel ashamed to acknowledge it if you’re a Muppet fan, a believer in Kermit, his eternal sincerity and things like rainbow connection. There are too many to take in” (p. C1). By referring to the title song of The Muppet Movie, Stack alludes that The Muppet Christmas Carol tarnishes his memories of the past films.

It is the strong personalities associated with the Muppet characters that undermine the film’s premise; they are acting as Dickens’ characters. One reviewer describes is the conflict as

“a tribute to the Muppet magic that we would even think of Miss Piggy as an entity that can be miscast” (Strickler, 1992, p. E6). The appeal of the characters as people is strongly associated with the franchise, so that casting them as actors reduces the sense of Muppet mentality. Thus, the imitation of Henson’s style is weaker when it fails to match expectations set by previous productions, and points out the discontinuity between past and present.

Muppet approach to humor. By presenting a Muppet world, the press coverage notes that the human actor, most notably Michael Caine, as the outsider: the “actors are slightly out of place” (Seligman, 1992, p. 24). Strauss’ (1992) review of the film ties this notion of out of place to the style of humor prominent in various Muppet films. She observes that the film follows

“The Muppet Movie (1979), The Great Muppet Caper (1981) and The Muppets Take Manhattan

(1984), [it] is as wacky and irreverent as anything out of the puppet’s long running television show” (Strauss, 1992, p. 9). Similarly, Carr finds the film humor is like a rerun of The Muppet

Show, “pretty much business as usual” (Carr, 1992, p. 53). This reviewer’s comments suggest, through the repetition of the older production, that the reconstruction of a Muppet sensibility is successful. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 188

Another way in which the critics describe the Muppet mentality for humor is by differentiating the Muppet version of the Dickens’ tale from those that came before it. For example, the Muppet mentality transforms “Dickens’ scary London into a . . . fantasy” (Schaefer,

1992, p. O25). Novak (1992) includes Rizzo’s on screen comment that the film might be

“getting a bit scary for the children in the audience” and Gonzo’s response: “that’s all right. This is culture” (Novak, 1992, p. 19). One reporter summarizes this change as that the Dickens’ tale has been “muppettiz[ed]” (Orne, 1992, p. B3). The Muppets’ alterations and changes to the classic holiday tale are important to the film’s perceived appeal (Strickler, 1992). Carr (1992) asserts that “this film, I would say, is for Muppet fans rather than Dickens’ fans” (p. 53).

Another reviewers commented that “die-hard Muppet fans may get a boost from the film, but

Dickens’ lovers will fare less well” (Rainer, 1992, p. F12). As one commentary sums up the situation: “It’s unlikely that the kids are going to be asking their parents afterward to read them the Dickens’ story” (Rainer, 1992, p. F12). The Muppet mentality becomes a way to reconstruct previous Muppets productions while producing a new film.

Some reviewers felt that the film was not successful in its attempt to recreate a Muppet form of humor. As Howe (1992) mentions, “the dullness is surprising . . . [compared to] the usually bright material we’ve come to expect from the Muppet corner” (p. N49). Comments on the deficiencies of the film are about its failure to continue the style associated with previous works. Critics note that there “is a lack of comic detail, wit and the balance of sentiment, and anarchy, and humor” (Neman, 1992, p. B9). Muppets, for Novak (1992), are filled with “hipness and irony” (p. 19). The film is lacking the Muppets’ “wacky and irreverent” style, (Strauss,

1992, p. 9) and “their trademark spirit of mischievous fun, honest sentiment and sly wit” (King,

1992, p. E2). In other words, the Muppet mentality is gone because Henson is gone (Neman, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 189

1992). The Muppet mentality refers to unexpected, innovative, and challenging productions.

This film fails because it offers “safe stuff and most un-Muppet like. So much for great expectations” (Kempley, 1992, p. B7).

In framing the new film as imitation of past work, The Muppet Christmas Carol is discussed through the mnemonic frame of reconstruction; the press coverage describes how the film attempts to reconstruct the franchise’s past success. The press notes how the film imitates

Henson’s creative influence and performance of Kermit. Despite the clear changes behind the scenes, the mnemonic frame of reconstruction constructs a relationship between past and current productions. The success of the reconstruction is evaluated through the film’s ability to repeat the qualities associated with a successful Muppet film: innovation in puppetry, appealing characters, and a Muppet mentality. Reviewers find elements of the reconstruction successful; however, reviewers assert the need of their current audience, whether they are nostalgic adults or newly introduced children.

Muppet Treasure Island (1996) and Muppets Tonight (1996-1998)10

Background

Muppet Treasure Island was released in the summer of 1996. It was planned as the

second of three films produced and distributed by WDC. Each film was to be the Muppets’

interpretation of classic children’s literature; however, a third film was not produced. Muppet

Treasure Island follows the basic plot of the Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel. Like the Muppet

Christmas Carol, the Muppet characters play a variety of supporting characters, while the main

10 Because the press coverage for both productions started prior to their release, some newspaper and trade press articles were published in 1995. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 190 characters of Long John Silver (Tim Curry), Billy Bones (Billy Connolly), and Jim Hawkins

(Kevin Bishop) are played by human actors. Beyond the premise of pirates and a treasure map, little of the book’s narrative remains, as the majority of the film is a Muppet spoofs of adventure

films.

Muppet Treasure Island’s release corresponds with the revival of The Muppet Show

under the title, Muppets Tonight. Launched in the fall of 1996, the Muppets Tonight follows the

variety show format of The Muppet Show. Rather than focus on a stage production, it replaces

the on-stage and backstage antics in a late night television variety show. Replacing Kermit as

the program host is a new puppet Clifford. Muppets Tonight builds on the perceived

“international awareness of Muppets [which] seems to be at an all-time high” (Ostrow, 1996, p.

F1). This increased popularity sparked ABC’s interest in new JHP productions. “In the winter of

1996, the Muppets return to the television in a regular series, “Muppets Tonight” (Ostrow, 1996, p. F1). Unlike the six seasons of The Muppet Shows, Muppets Tonight has 22 episodes, which air in different timeslots over a two year period. Despite the optimism expressed by JHP and many reviewers, Muppets Tonight had an average rating of 14 million during its Friday night slot, lower than expected (Bash, 1996).

Both productions spark a period of increased Muppet popularity, in which the franchise is increasingly profitable. Muppets’ presence on television, in licensing and promotional agreements, and in newspaper coverage is at its highest since the death of Henson. “Now the company is pursuing projects with all the major TV networks, and has more ready money than it has seen in its 40 years, through multi-year television and film deals with Capital Cities/ABC

and Sony pictures” (Warren, 1996, p. E8). In other words: “Muppets seem to be everywhere” REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 191

(Warren, 1996, p. E8). For the first time since the early 80s, the Muppets have wide array of public exposure.

The release of Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight sparks a potential Muppet revival. As a mnemonic frame, the notion of revival describes continuity between past and present that is constructed by recovering aspects of the past that are lost. It focusses on both the restoration and the alteration of past success to create something new. Muppet Treasure Island’s press coverage emphasizes the film’s ability to draw on the qualities that made past Muppet productions successful. In particular, the press coverage notes the continuing appeal of the

Muppet characters and the film’s use of a Muppet mentality. This Muppet mentality is slightly different than in the past, as the Muppets parody their past productions rather than only relying on outside material. In addition, the current context of the franchise—particularly increased competition in family entertainment—shifts how the press describes the uniqueness of the franchise and how JHP describes the franchise’s marketing. The press coverage notes these changes by describing how the film aims to attract a new generation of Muppet fans through appealing to parents and increasingly relies on cross-promotion partnerships with food companies. Thus, this approach creates a rise in popularity of the franchise and involves the creation of new Muppet style of productions, rather than solely recreating what has been successful in the past.

Similarly to Muppet Treasure Island press coverage, the press coverage of Muppets

Tonight also highlights the connections between the new television show and its 1970s predecessor. While noting the similarities to the original show, the press coverage also acknowledges how JHP attempts to respond to the needs of contemporary audiences. Reporters frequently refer to production elements that could reflect the current production context—the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 192 new setting of the production and the introduction of a new host. The attempted revival emphasizes the ongoing awareness of the Muppet characters despite their absence.

Appeal of Muppet Characters

Muppet Treasure Island. Critics describe Muppet Treasure Island as a successful revival when it matches the reviewer’s memories of the Muppet characters, particularly their personas. “Not only the best Muppet movie ever but the best Muppet anything ever . . . opportunities abound for favorite Muppets new and old” (Williamson, 1996, p. 117). The appeal of the movie is tied to the characters and if the film provides sufficient opportunities for the

Muppet characters to show their typical personalities regardless of the characters they are portraying. This continuing appeal is used to discuss both past viewers’ interest in the characters and the possible interest of new child viewers. “This fifth Muppet opus may lack the charm and bravura of the character’s premier outing, The Muppet Movie, but the troupe shows no signs of

becoming stale or self-satisfied” (Gagne, 1996, p. 108). Similarly, Muppet Treasure Island is

described as “this pleasant, cuddly addition to the world of Muppet fantasy” (Gilbert, 1996, p.

108). “Muppet Treasure Island, a live-action comedy-adventure directed by Brian Henson,

marks the welcome return of those lovable bizarre, puppet-like characters to the big screen”

(Verniere, 1996, p. S3). Part of the success of Muppet Treasure Island is that the Muppet characters are poor actors and the original traits and characteristics of the Muppet characters overshadow those of the Stevenson story. While The Muppet Christmas Carol was referred to as miscasting in the press coverage, Muppet Treasure Island receives positive reviews because the familiar personalities shine through. “The Muppets really are performers with their own unique personalities and style, who can tackle a range of projects without wearing out their welcome . . . REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 193 in fact, the more they make films like Muppet Treasure Island, the more welcome they’ll be”

(Gagne, 1996, p. 108).

The Muppet characters are described as people or stars, a repetition of earlier framing

devices in The Muppet Movie press coverage. “To plunge into the world of Muppet Treasure

Island is to land in a place where the loquacious puppets from Jim Henson’s creature shop often

seem more real than their human companions” (Holden, 1996, p. C3). The characters continue to seem real, allowing humans and puppets “to interact as a single species . . . the overall effect is a wonderful sense of fantastical” (Stack, 1996, p. D3). Part of the pleasure of the Muppet characters, described in the press coverage, is that they surprise, “anything is liable to pop out”

(Holden, 1996, p. C3). The framing of the Muppets as a representation of humanity reoccurs in

Muppet Treasure Island's coverage: “the Muppets are all about bringing eccentric characters together that have very different needs and very different goals . . . but watching them sort it out in a wonderfully absurd but ultimately loving way, where they learn to love and respect each other for their differences and not for their similarities” (Warren, 1996, p. E8). The reality of the characters and their ability to present their personalities in the film supports the frame of revival.

The coverage discusses the film as restoring the characters and their beloved qualities, while

using a new format of the adapted tale and altering the Muppet mentality to address increased

competition. Therefore, the film creates a new production which is both distinct from and a continuation of older practices.

Muppets Tonight. The framing of Muppets Tonight suggests that the characters have remained part of American popular culture and memory despite any lapse in Muppet productions. This frame device constructs continuity between past and present audiences because of their shared interest. When describing Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 194 the past two Muppet movies and the upcoming show, Brian Henson argues that “the Muppets are back into America’s collective heart” (Weeks, 1996, p. 16). Despite a gap between productions, this framing device implies that the Muppets’ appeal never waned. “The Muppets are their own circle of life, one that deserves to be unbroken” (Ostrow, 1996, p. F1). Press coverage explains that the continuing appeal of the Muppets results from their innocence and simplicity of their underlying humor: “they come from a very basic comedic level, that hopefully transcends fashion and trends” (Ostrow, 1996, p. F1). Reviewers ponder if the characters’ nostalgic appeal can build an audience for contemporary productions: “For years the Muppets have given chaos a good name. Which is why it’s a pleasure welcoming back television’s dysfunctional family of fuzzy weirdoes” (Rosenberg, 1996, p. F39). The revival frame presents the renewed public interest in the characters as a reoccurring pattern. A cyclical continuity asserts that the Muppets renewed popularity is also a continuation of the past.

Muppet Approach to Humor

Muppet Treasure Island. Like the earlier Muppet movies, Muppet Treasure Island plays with genre conventions to create a Muppet style of humor. Particularly, the film plays on conventions associated with the story’s pirate subject matter. The writers play with “the conventions of old-time pirate movies” (Millar, 1996, section 2, p. 5). Reviewers often comment

that the Stevenson’s tale is not adapted by the Muppets, but used to inspire a new film: the

Muppets “tell the Robert Louis Stevenson classic their way” (Reid, 1996, p. 17). Thus the pirate tale becomes muppetized according to reviewers, as the original tale is overtaken by Muppet characters. The pirate tale does not face the same criticism as The Muppet Christmas Carol, where the Muppet characters were seen as poor actors. Instead, many reviewers tie Muppet

Treasure Island to The Muppet Show: “here the filmmakers quite easily can and do deflect the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 195 film away from Stevenson into a pirate-movie skit that we might have seen on an old Muppet show on television” (Millar, 1996, section 2, p. 5) or “this pirate farce is a throwback to the clever comedy that once was the Muppets’ domain” (Strickler, 1996, p. E1). The lack of the

Stevenson text is noted, but often as compliment. “Robert [’s] . . . classic tale hardly had room to breathe in the handsome and amusing but gimmicky Muppet Treasure Island” (Stack, 1996, p.

D3). The tale is discussed as “muppettiz[ed]” as the characters direct the story: “With the

Muppets on board . . . we veered right of the story!”(Lerman, 1995, p. 60).

In the press coverage of Muppet Treasure Island, commentators also stress references to other genres in the film, particularly the musical. Previous Muppet productions, particularly The

Muppets Take Manhattan, parody older genres, particularly musical. The press coverage notes

that Muppet Treasure Island “does have a handful of spirited though far from satisfying musical

numbers presented in old-fashioned musical production style” (Stack, 1996, p. D3). Amongst

these parodies of genre convention, one reviewer comments that there are “so many conventions

to be played on some of them are bound to come off” (James, 1996, p. 48). The variety of conventions and formats featured in Muppet Treasure Island are also used to tie the current feature film to The Muppet Show: “[i]t’s a fairly sophisticated affair, allowing the vivid charm of the original to work on its own level as well as providing fodder for parody, slapstick, and the vaudeville revue formula of the Muppets’ television show” (James, 1996, pp. 47-48).

Parody of Past Muppet Films. Part of the Muppet mentality that several reviewers note is references to past and present popular culture. These references include On the Waterfront

(1954), Evita, Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy and The Home Shopping Network (Holden, 1996;

Millar, 1996; Verniere, 1996). These references are considered a part of the Muppet mentality, or as their “trademark barbs” (Weeks, 1996, p. 16). Along with these references, there is a new REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 196 stress on past Muppet productions. Reviewers note when knowledge of past Muppets productions is alluded to in the film. “[The] movie is full of references to The Muppet Show,

which ran on TV from 1976 to 1981. Most of these gags will be missed by the youngsters in the

audience, but their parents will get a charge out of them” (Strickler, 1996, p. E1). As such, the

press coverage highlights how this film increasingly parodies the franchise itself and draws on

references to past franchise productions to create humour. For example, one critic comments

that “as anyone who grew up watching The Muppet Show knows, Sweetumes has a heart of

gold” (Strickler, 1996, p. E1). Similarly, another review suggests that “young kids may find . . .

[the film] a little complex and formidable . . . because . . . [of] self-conscious flab clearly aimed

at adults” (Stack, 1996, p. D3). The reporters refer to the past behaviors of characters: “adults

may have to restrain themselves when they hear how Miss Piggy greets Long John” (Horwitz,

1996, p. C7). As a result of these references, adult Muppet fans are considered a key audience

for the film: “Muppet fans will find plenty of buried treasure in Muppet Treasure Island”

(Horwitz, 1996, p. C7) or “enough wisecracks grown-up jokes and cameos by Muppet regulars

to keep older viewers amused” (Roberts, 1996, section 1, p. 25 ). Some reviewers, however,

suggest that the film’s appeal to the adults may make it challenging for children to understand, as

they lack familiarity with the franchise and the personas of the characters.

Legal Implications of Muppet Mentality. Another new challenge that emerges during

the Muppet Treasure Island is the increased protection in trademarks and intellectual property.

Prior to Muppet Treasure Island’s release, JHP was faced with a lawsuit from Hormel Corp,

which claimed that JHP’s character Spa’am violated its trademark for the product SPAM. The

Hormel lawsuit is covered in the business sections of the popular press papers. Hormel argued

that Spa’am damaged its product’s reputation by associating it with a dirty wild pig (McKinley, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 197

1996a). Despite the serious nature of the lawsuit, reporters found it humorous and commented that “Muppet meat makes the grade,” (“Muppet meat makes,” 1996, p. A14) or “[i]t’s easy to laugh at SPAM that veritable stalwart of canned meat” (McKinley, 1995b, section 4, p. 2).

JHP’s staff respond to the lawsuit by suggests that SPAM has been the subject of too many jokes over the years: “We are sorry that Hormel apparently does not share the Muppet sense of humor, and we certainly meant no offense” (McKinley, 1995a, p. B2). Part of JHP’s defense is that this

form of parody is a reoccurring and important part of Muppet productions. A JHP statement

asserts that: “poking fun at things has always been an essential part of the Muppets’ particular

brand of comedy . . . that’s what we do” (McKinley, 1995b, section 4, p. 2). When discussed by

the press, the case is identified as a “another in a long line of Muppet lampoons” (“Muppet meat

makes,” 1996, p. A14). While the case ended JHP’s favour, the lawsuit stresses a shift in the

protection of cultural property, where previously the Muppets were able to parody without legal

intervention.

Muppets Tonight. While Muppet Treasure Island continues the Muppet practices of

parodying classical film genres, Muppets Tonight focusses on parodying popular television

shows, particularly new incarnations of popular 1960s and 1970s programs. Therefore the press

coverage notes the show’s sketch Deep Dish Nine, which is the sequel to Pigs in Space—The

Muppet Show spoof of Star Trek (Fretts, 1996). Similarly, The Muppet Show’s soap opera spoof,

Veterinarian’s Hospital, is replaced with a spoof of ER entitled EIEIO. Other parodies include

Bay of Pigs, a parody of Baywatch (Fretts, 1996) and Tales from the Vet Keeper, a parody of The

Tales from the Crypt Keeper (Ostrow, 1996). These parodies continue the tradition that the

“Muppets have always avoided topical humor in favor of character comedy” (Ostrow, 1996, p.

F1). By describing the original backstage format and parodies of popular programming, REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 198

Muppets Tonight is framed as a new program that arises from the restoration and alteration of the older program.

Adapting to Current Audiences

Muppet Treasure Island. While Muppet Treasure Island is tied to earlier Muppet productions that appeal to a family audience, the film’s press coverage highlights how the characters face increasing competition in this area. Originally, the Muppets were one of a few productions to attempt to appeal to adults and children; by Muppet Treasure Island’s release, they have competition from various sectors. “It’s enjoyable to see the Henson puppet theatre back Muppet Treasure Island, . . . [but a] few innovations have appeared in the interim, and it remains to be seen what kind of a creative challenge they pose for the Henson apparatus”

(Arnold, 1996, p. C17). Reporters refer to the increasing number of films, like Babe (1995) and

ANTZ (1998), that both have a child audience and humor that appeals to adults. Some critics question whether the original talking pig, Miss Piggy, will be able to challenge the new pig,

Babe (Zimmerman, 1995). Reviewers note this shift in market share: “for the Muppets . . . had a playful monopoly on this whimsical approach for about a generation. A livelier competitive and creative landscape greets the Muppets as they return” (Arnold, 1996, p. C17). To help support the film’s uniqueness, JHP promotes the difference between their Muppets actors and the growing field of digital animation: “The [Muppet] characters are very flexible in all different media, much like animated characters are, but at the same time they’re three dimensional”

(Zimmerman, 1995, p. 58).

When members of JHP staff are quoted in the press, they stress that the film is a not a repetition of what they had done in the past, but as a new form of family entertainment: “[o]ur challenge is to create this new breed of family entertainment . . . that’s basically what we’re REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 199 doing” (Cox, 1995, p. 60). Brian Henson suggests that the current context, despite other competition, is ideal for the re-emergence and redefinition of the Muppet franchise: “I guess we’re rebounding from the [19]80s a little bit. I would say the [19]80s was not a Muppet

friendly decade. It was about being very cool and competitive and there was very little soul”

(Warren, 1996, p. E8). Brian Henson associates the increased interest in the Muppets with a

cultural shift back to family values. In other words, one reporter notes that “as is usual in any

Muppet production, much of the humor will tickle parents as well as kids” (Horwitz, 1996, p.

E8).

Cross-promotion. Unlike the Muppet Christmas Carol that lacked marketing and merchandizing, Muppet Treasure Island includes a larger number of corporate cross-promotions, specifically aimed at children. The trade press notes that there were promotions with

McDonald’s, General Mills (GM), Hershey, and Dole (“Activision and Sears,” 1996; “Activision plans,” 1996). The Dole promotion is the most discussed because it is the first promotional campaign to involved produce, “Dole bananas and pre-made salads” (Lenius, 1996, p. B2).

Further, there are cross-promotional discounts between Dole’s bananas, and GM’s Cheerios

(“Activision and Sears,” 1996). The movie tie-ins involve four sets of glitter tattoos in cereal boxes and four different types of stickers on bananas (“Activision and Sears,” 1996). With

WDC as the producer and distributer, the film is incorporated into WDC’s Happy Meal contract:

“what do Kermit the Frog, Walt Disney Pictures, Miss Piggy, McDonalds and Happy Meal equal when you put them together . . . a multimedia treat trove” (“Activison plans 1 million,” 1996, p.

2). This shift to cross-promotional campaigns reflects the need for the Muppet franchise to attract a new generation of fans. While previous films had connections with merchandise (toys REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 200 and clothing), this is the first film where the press coverage emphasize the impact of these promotions on the profitability of the production.

Muppets Tonight. The press coverage of Muppets Tonight often features articles about

what JHP staff intend to do with the program. JHP staff members comment that they were not

attempting to recreate The Muppet Show, but to evolve the original idea into a unique production.

For example, Brian Henson explains, “we hope that it has the classic flavor but with some new kinds of action behind the scenes with the show within the show” (Mitchard, 1996, p. 32). The two key differences that are discussed in the press coverage are the change of setting and the introduction of a new host character. These distinctions are presented by JHP staff as key changes to the original Muppet Show format that will help the new production to reflect the present. Unlike The Muppet Show, which Jim Henson emphasized was for an adult audience,

Muppets Tonight focusses on a cross-demographic audience, much like the family audience of the last two films. “The new TV show is more of the any audience variety of the Muppets’

[19]70s venture. They are aimed as much at adults as children . . . we hope for a college audience, senior, everyone” (Weeks, 1996, p. 16). Reviewers emphasize the show's audience as a continuation of the Muppets’ intergenerational appeal, suggesting the Muppets are “easy to like and easy for adult as well as kid to laugh at” (Rosenberg, 1996, p. F39). Like the previous show,

Muppets Tonight includes a series of contemporary parodies that would appeal “more for grown- ups than kids” (Hodges, 1996, section 2, p. 1). Very young viewers “may not get it” (Fink, 1996, p. 61). However, the show’s potential popularity is tied to young viewers who will be introduced through older viewers’ nostalgia. “The baby boom generation has embraced the Muppets again through their children” (Ostrow, 1996, p. F1). Like Muppet Treasure Island, reviewers REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 201 emphasize the show as a moment of intergeneration connection, offering continuity between generations through sharing a common interest in the Muppet characters.

Change of location. The original show was set within a theatre; however, the new show

is set up as a live TV late-night variety show. This change adapts the program to the current

context, while mirroring the nostalgic older setting. Where vaudeville and the musical hall were

nostalgic formations in the 1970s, the live television show is a nostalgic setting for contemporary

Muppets Tonight adult viewers. The Muppet theatre’s backstage and dressing rooms are

replaced with the control rooms and green rooms as the Muppets run a TV station (Ostrow,

1996). Backstage action no longer takes place in-between numbers; it occurs during commercial

breaks. Despite these changes, the press coverage notes key elements from the old show remain.

The two crabby codgers are watching and heckling the program, just from their retirement home,

rather than the balcony (Mitchard, 1996).

Change of host. Classic characters, like Kermit and Miss Piggy, are no longer the stars

of the programs, as a new character, Clifford, is the show’s host. The character of Clifford,

voiced by Kevin Clash, receives press attention because of the character’s ethnicity. Many

reviewers discuss the character as a new African American host, drawing on the ethnicity of the

muppeteer, and the character’s patois and dreadlocks (Clark, 1995). In response, JHP and Clash

are vehement that Muppets are without race, unless purple is considered a race. This JHP

response plays on Kermit’s “it’s not easy being green,” by trying to suggesting the Muppets have

a colour rather than race (Graham, 1996).

The press coverage of both Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight highlights how

these new production increase awareness of the Muppet franchise. The coverage further evokes

the mnemonic frame of revival by noting how qualities of older productions are changed to suit REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 202 contemporary tastes. For example, Muppet Treasure Island continues the tradition of parody, but expands it to include the Muppet franchise itself. As Muppet Treasure Island offers

continuity by returning the Muppet mentality, it also improves on previous profits through

promotion and licensing of merchandise. Its pirate focus and introduction of new characters

address the context of the present. Muppets Tonight also continues The Muppet Show’s tradition

of parody but moves the program to television station and includes a new host. The press

coverage of both productions builds a discursive frame of revival, in which the past Muppet

styles and formats are restored and altered for the new context, creating new products. However, the revival ends when Muppets Tonight is unable to match the popularity of the original.

Kermit’s Fiftieth Birthday Celebration (2005-2006)

Background

Like the attempted Muppet revival’s use of past success to build a sense of lineage between projects, Kermit’s fiftieth birthday press coverage support the mnemonic frame of renaissance by emphasizing anniversary through the release of material. By re-releasing five

Muppet films and the first season of The Muppet Show on DVD, the birthday celebration draws on the appeal of Kermit, not to younger audiences (often the first market associated with the last

Muppet films), but to an nostalgic adult population. The fiftieth birthday campaign is described by WDC as “str[iking] a chord of nostalgia with our target audience 18-34 who remember the

Muppet very well”(Marlowe, 2005, para. 4). Key features of the celebration include the Muppet characters increased media presence as guest stars. In addition to this increased presence the

Muppet franchise past is celebrated through the release of various Muppet merchandise, including the release of past Muppet production. The celebration ends with a new TV special,

The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz (2005). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 203

In addition to the release of DVDs and a television special, Kermit's fiftieth birthday includes a wide variety of promotional events in which Muppet characters are guest stars on

Disney/ABC programming or are featured in television commercials. Kermit’s fiftieth birthday uses calendaric coincidence to develop a 15 month Muppet awareness campaign. For Kermit’s fiftieth birthday, contemporary technology (which restored the films) and the character's un-aged appearance and accessibility, allow for enjoyment. The mnemonic frame of renaissance builds continuity by both triggering past familiarity with the Muppet franchise and using new technology to increase the franchise’s availability.

Increase Muppet Media Presence

The press coverage of Kermit’s birthday notes two commercials that were circulated at this time: a car commercial, and a Pizza Hut spot. Both commercials first aired during the

Superbowl. Kermit pitches for the Ford Escape SUV and Miss Piggy dances with Jessica

Simpson in the Pizza Hut ad. The Los Angeles Times coverage of the commercials argues WDC

“hope[s] the spot will spark a revival of the franchise which faded after the 1990 death of Jim

Henson” (Collins, 2006, p. E1). Trade professional, Hampton notes that these two commercials should “put the characters before a larger audience again” (Collins, 2006, p. E24). In addition to the TV commercials, the Muppets are featured guests stars on the adult-oriented Extreme Home

Makeover (Llyod, 2005). Thus the TV commercials and guest star roles are part of the public re- education to the characters.

The increasing media presence of the Muppets prompts a backlash directed at the

Muppets new owners, WDC. Some reporters note that this current commercialization of the characters differs from Jim Henson’s careful licensing. As one reporter observes, the 15 month celebration aligned with the end of Disney’s fiscal year, implying that the increased promotion of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 204 the Muppet characters had more to do with the value of the franchise and revenue than with fiftieth anniversary of the character (“Muppet holdings integrated,” 2005, p. 29). To support their claims, they emphasize the arbitrary nature of the start and end of the anniversary.

The birthday celebration corresponds with the Muppets move into web-content. The use of this technology aims to facilitate fans connection to the Muppets between film productions.

Web content featuring the Muppets begins on Movies.com, owned by WDC (Frit, 2005). The website features Stadtler and Waldorf, famous for the deriding comments from the balcony of the Muppet theatre, now reviewing new movies on their “Snooze-o-meter” (Marlowe, 2005).

The aim is to “reconnect these characters with twenty and thirty somethings that grew up with them and are now heartily online, as well as introduce them to new fans. Webisodes will also feature . . . classic and new Muppets in need of a shot of publicity” (Frit, 2005, p. 7). Along with the Movies.com tie in, WDC launches a new website featuring the Muppets. The most noteworthy aspect of the website for reviewers is that it features bios of the characters (like real stars), screensaver downloads, and news of upcoming projects (Gentile, 2004). Thus, the characters are marketed as real, using their personas to provide a connection to periods of past popularity. One reporter comments on the lack of puppeteers on the website. “The actors’ biographies on the ‘Oz’ website at ABC.com are of Kermit, Gonzo, and Miss Piggy, not of those who make them go or speak” (Llyod, 2005, p. E2). In fact, puppeteers would not be a featured on any of the marketing of any WDC Muppet products. Thus, the appeal of the Muppet characters, as noted by the press, becomes a marketing strategy for the newly release merchandise.

In addition to increasing the Muppets’ media presences, the birthday celebration includes the release of other Muppet-related products and memorabilia, geared to the original Muppet REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 205 fans (now adults), include collector stamps and books. This merchandise commemorates the past success of the franchise and offers fans new insights into the characters’ creation and origin.

As part of the fiftieth birthday of the frog, the USPS releases a new series of collector stamps

featuring the Muppet characters (“Lights! Camera! Action!,” 2004). These stamps

predominantly feature Jim Henson and his connection to the characters. These stamps are an example of calendric coincidence, where a memory trace is used to link Henson and fans’ current

affinity for the characters. Using calendric coincidence, Lisa Henson also releases two new books focussing on the Muppets. The first book entitled It’s Not Easy Being Green (2005)

focusses on sayings of characters, performers and particularly of Jim Henson. The second book,

Jim Henson’s Designs and Doodles (2005) features a collection of artwork for the development

of the Muppet characters and other Henson projects, over which JHC had maintained copyright.

In particular, the second book features original sketches and proposals that were not available

before. The books aim to celebrate the past and its remaining impact on the present. These

commemorative activities support the mnemonic framing of the renaissance by renewing

awareness of the Muppets and reusing the Muppets’ past to create new objects for current

consumption.

New Muppet Productions

Coverage of the fiftieth birthday celebration often features discussion of the anticipated

new Muppet productions. There is renewed talk about a new Muppet focussed television show,

building on the reality show genre. “America’s Next Muppet was to be a reality TV parody in

which viewers would get a chance to pick Kermit and Miss Piggy’s latest colleague” (Scheider,

2005, para. 2). While the TV show is never produced, a new television special, The Muppets’

Wizard of Oz is aired and quickly released on DVD. The first airing of the film attracts 7.8 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 206 million viewers (Schneider, 2005). While the viewership of the film was not stellar, it did receive generally strong reviews as the first WDC Muppet feature. Reviews of the feature note how the project continues aspects of the Muppet mentality. “Showbiz jokes are a Muppet staple”

(Kelleher, 2005, p. 39) or “something the Muppets have done really well[,] . . . breaking that fourth wall” (Andreeva, 2004, para. 8).

Renewing Character Appeal

While WDC’s event emphasized new productions, the popular press coverage focusses on the new release of older content and the viability of the aging franchise. Much of the coverage questions the relevance of the characters to contemporary audiences. Despite the forward looking WDC campaign, the press’ discussion of Kermit’s popularity is centered on the past: “[a] quarter-century ago, Kermit the Frog was one of the most beloved characters in family entertainment” (Collins, 2006, p. E1). Similarly, one commentator highlights “the big challenge

— making the 50 year old frog relevant to today’s audiences” (Marr, 2005a, p. B1). Others suggest that the humor of the Muppets is no longer appealing, describing: “The Muppets’ gentle unassuming humor as hopelessly out of step with the times” (Collins, 2006, p. E24 ). Similarly, the description of Kermit feature this notion of aging, recounting the frog as an aging star “the iconic Muppet has struggled in recent years to find a role for himself, only to be relegated to ancient reruns and B- list movies” (Collins, 2006, p. E24). As Kermit is treated as a middle-aged

celebrity past his prime, reporters ponder Kermit’s possible return. “With many Hollywood

comebacks, the saga of how Kermit is trying to leap back on top is a story of changing taste and

the eternal quest for green” (Collins, 2006, p. E24). In fact, Collins (2006) suggests that the franchise, and Kermit, have been “resting on his reputation from the TV show of the late

[19]70s” (p. E1). Thus, “Kermit’s fate shows how relatively quickly even a world famous brand REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 207 can ebb without constant upkeep” (Collins, 2006, p. E24). These comments repeat the frame

devices of the Muppet characters as real people or stars. However, the press coverage compare

does not compare the Muppet characters to the genre conventions of classical Hollywood

movies, but to the conventions of the business: aging stars, comeback, and nostalgia for past

success. These associations also question enduring, or future-oriented remembrance of the

characters, promoted by WDC.

Some reporters wonder if the Muppets are beyond Disney’s resources. “Some skeptics wonder whether . . . vast and deep-pocketed . . . Disney can rekindle the Muppet magic”

(Collins, 2006, p. E1). The continuity and remembrance of the Muppets is no longer focussed on the characters themselves, but their future productions and use by WDC. With the relevance of the characters questioned, the future and present of the franchise emphasize over the past. WDC has a strong reputation for the upkeep of franchise or evergreen characters: “Done right Disney thinks Kermit’s troupe could become a classic like Mickey Mouse” (Marr, 2005, p. B1). In fact,

WDC reports that “every division at the company is contributing ideas to the renewal process”

(Collins, 2006, p. E24). The central aspect of this renewal process, for WDC, is to “reinject the characters into the culture with high quality content that people relate to” (Collins, 2006, p. E24).

The press coverage of Kermit’s fiftieth birthday celebration evaluates the viability of the franchise while highlighting the use of technology to increase the available of franchise content.

Reporters note how WDC is rebuilding the franchise by increasing the characters’ media presence. Continuity is also built through emphasizing the character’s histories over the puppeteers. As a result, WDC prompt adult fans to re-engaged with the franchise through the consumption of merchandise.

Conclusion REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 208

Several mnemonic frames build continuity between the past and present during the release of The Muppet Christmas Carol, Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight, as well as Kermit’s fiftieth birthday. The ways in which continuity is constructed vary; however, they all share an interest in a return to past period of franchise popularity. The Muppet Movie’s press coverage connects the movie to the past through reference to Classical Hollywood film-making.

In addition, The Muppet Movie’s framing devices return in the coverage of later productions,

facilitating a form of continuity by connecting elements of both productions: use of technology,

Muppet character appeal, and a Muppet style of humor. The purpose of these frame devices is to

explain the appeal and popularity of the characters in terms of the franchise’s past success.

With The Muppet Christmas Carol, the mnemonic frame of reconstruction is used to build a sense of continuity between this production and past Jim Henson’s productions. This

framing occurs in comments made by JHP staff and reviewers. The Muppet Christmas Carol’s

presents Henson’s death as an inspiration or guidance, allowing JHP staff to build continuity

through imitation. Similarly, Whitmore closely imitates Henson’s performance of Kermit. The

press coverage alludes to the gap in productions as the setting for re-education. This Muppet

reconstruction determines the success of The Muppet Christmas Carol by its ability to match key

qualities of past productions. Reviewers, who found the film’s style differed from earlier

productions and the character’s personas hidden, note a discontinuity between Henson and post-

Henson productions. Other reporters found the reconstruction successful by noting the

characters’ personas and the film’s congruency with their previous Muppet experiences.

As a revival rather than a reconstruction, Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight

reviewers discuss these productions as both a continuation of the Muppet mentality and a new

creation. Muppet Treasure Island is framed as a continuation of earlier Muppet productions REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 209 because it focusses on Muppet personas rather than Stevenson’s characters. Similarly, Muppets

Tonight’s press coverage is framed as a revival of earlier success. The framing builds continuity between characters and formats, which are changed to adapt to the needs of contemporary audiences. The revival frame constructs continuity by linking the past popularity of the characters to their renewed interest in the 1990s.

Lastly, Kermit’s fiftieth birthday is framed as a Muppet renaissance by WDC staff and reporters stress the increased Muppet media presence. The mnemonic frame of renaissance focusses on remembrance through calendric coincidence. Throughout the celebration, WDC and reviewers ponder the future of the Muppet franchise as the accessibility of the Muppets increases with digital technology, such as web programming and DVD releases. The commemorative activities focus on the remembrance of adults, who watched the program as children. Kermit’s fiftieth birthday builds on the previous framing of the Muppet characters’ appeal. However, renaissance framing is increasing driven by corporate marketing of WDC. All three mnemonic frames, resurrection, revival and renaissance, focus on the restoration of the Muppet franchise in relation to their past production. The framing is based on reviewers’ expectation and association with the franchise. The frames are a culmination of rituals and expectations that inform the reviewers’ perceptions of the production.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 210

CHAPTER 7—THE MNEMONICS OF RECIRCULATION

I’ve heard it too many times to ignore it.

—The Rainbow Connection (1979)

The Muppet franchise can be discussed as a potential site of memory because there is

continual access to Muppet productions and merchandise. This recirculation is addressed by the press coverage when discussing the recirculation of The Muppet Show as reruns and home videos, as well as, the Muppets’ ongoing series of Christmas themed productions. In these cases, availability frames the franchise as a form of continuity between past and present. Three mnemonic frames emerge from reporters’ and reviewers’ descriptions of the franchise as a resource for remembrance: ritual, memento and tradition.

This chapter describes the framing of the franchise as a connection between the past and present through the recirculation of Muppet productions. The chapter starts by defining the

mnemonic frames used in this chapter—ritual, memento, and ritual—as they are described in the memory studies literature. After defining the mnemonic frames, the chapter briefly summarizes

the press coverage of The Muppet Show during its first-run syndication, highlighting key frame

packages. This discussion sets up the following discussion of the show’s recirculation through

second-run syndication and home video. During the press coverage of The Muppet Show’s

various syndication partnerships, the press coverage emphasizes the habitual viewing of the

program, culminating in the mnemonic frame of ritual. Once available for purchase, the press

coverage shifts from habitual viewing of the program to emphasize the materiality of the VHS or

DVD of the program. This emphasis on materiality builds the mnemonic frame of memento.

The latter half of the chapter shifts from the recirculation of The Muppet Show, to examine the

relationships between the various Muppet Christmas specials and their recirculation. Through REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 211 the press coverage of the Christmas specials, reporters note how the Muppet franchise, through its breadth of Christmas productions, becomes part of the family celebration. Thus, the press

coverage of Christmas specials evokes the mnemonic frame of tradition.

The Mnemonic Frames of Recirculation

The Mnemonic Frame of Ritual

Various memory and media scholars have connected the notion of ritual with

recirculation of media. For example, Derek Kompare (2004) suggests that the continual circulation of television programs is used to construct a sense of the past, at least in the way it is

discussed by heritage institutions. He notes that these institutions are increasing tying older

programming to cultural heritage. Thus, Kompare posits that reruns could be a form of habitual

remembrance, in which the recirculation of material builds an ongoing connection between past

and present. Similarly, Van Dijck (2008) argues that technology mediates remembrance

through the repetition and sequencing of shared experiences. Like Kompare, Van Dijck

emphasizes remembrance that occurs from repeated exposure. While her work focusses on

home-movies, Van Dijck suggests that repeated viewings created a shared intergeneration

experience, through which generations can developed a shared interpretation of an event’s

relevance.

The mnemonic frame of ritual stresses an ongoing interaction with the past, rather than

the more sporadic remember association with commemorative celebration. Ritual is distinct

from other forms of remembrance, because rituals involve repeated interactions with past that are

built on habit. Rituals emphasize the implicit daily use of the past. Schudson (1997) argues that

habitual memory offers a series of temporary anchors between past and present, which offer

implicit remembrance experiences. Lowenthal (1985) articulates that habits create a mental REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 212 residue of the past. The remembrance involved with ritual is not consciously chosen, by the culmination of re-occurring habits. Thus, ritual is a form of cyclical memory created through repetition.

The Mnemonic Frame of Memento

The mnemonic frame of memento shares ritual’s emphasis on ongoing interactions with

the past; however the form of the integration foregrounds a material connection with the past.

Brockmeier’s (2010) work on digital memory acknowledges materiality’s role in cultural

memory. She argues that digital memories are bound to mediating objects, which offer an

interpretation of the past’s value to the future, much like the packaging of the DVD releases.

Mementoes reflect modernity’s increasing exteriorization of memory (Schwartz, 1997, as cited by Olick and Robbins 1998). Schwartz argues that remembrance is becoming less demanding as

memory is warehoused outside the body. Therefore as a physical object, The Muppet Show is

offered as collectible to nostalgic adults. These mementoes embody cherished recollections

because mementoes place memory in the hands of the individual (Lowenthal, 1985). In other words, mementos become mediators between the society’s memory that constructs them and the individual memories ascribed to them by their owners

As a result of the stress of the material form of the past, the mnemonic frame of memento incorporates elements of commemorative memory distinguishing it from the mnemonic frame of ritual. The value of the material connection to the past is built on its collectability and its patina

(a visible sign of age). Often the collectability of the material form of the past is constructed through calendric coincidence, such as celebrations or anniversaries. Like signs, monuments, or

souvenirs, mementoes are material objects that draw attention to the periodization of the past.

LeGoff (1992) suggest that this periodization is the way we understand significant change. (p. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 213

128). Rather than part of daily life, mementoes function like an archive, providing a stable and accessible base of remembrances (Irwin-Zarecka, 1994).

The Mnemonic Frame of Tradition

While the previous mnemonic frame stress recirculation and access to past through

repetition of form and content, tradition focusses on continuity provided by cyclical patterns of

recreation. The frame of tradition emphasizes aspects of the present because it focusses on the

needs of the present while recycling aspects of the past. Lowenthal (1985) argues that tradition

uses the past to validate current practices. Traditions offer changes or replacements; however,

the replacements remain tied to the original. Like consumer goods, Lowenthal (1985) suggests

that traditions are “nostalgically attached to the articles they replace” (p. 399). Each tradition

involves the remembrance of those before and attempts to re-enact an idealized version of the

past.

Traditions repeat particular events and their associated activities based on a chronology,

often a calendar year. The calendar, while measuring time, also turns an “eternal” cycle into a

linear progression. Therefore, Le Goff (1992) posits that tradition “establishes a particular kind

of relation between past and present” which overcome the linearity of calendar (p. 7). He

suggests that tradition is not separated from, but an enactment of, the past to create continuity,

which is done by asserting the past as an aspect of the present. Holidays are common examples of traditions with embodied commemorative practices and are cyclically re-created.

The Muppet Show (1976-1981)

Background

The first airing of The Muppet Show offers a sense of the framing devices used by the press to discuss the importance of the program in the late 1970s. These frame devices are REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 214 referred to in the later coverage of the program’s recirculation, through second-run syndication and home video. During the first run of the program, the framing devices refer to the novelty of

the program and its reception. During the later syndication of the program, the framing devices

are used to argue the uniqueness of the program and its continuing appeal.

First-run syndication. The term first-run syndication is used to describe the first airing

of The Muppet Show because the program was not produced by a particular network. Shows,

such as Mary Tyler Moore, or MASH, were produced by ABC, NBC or CBS, and then

distributed only to affiliate stations. Though a pilot was produced for ABC, The Muppet Show

was produced by the UK backer, Lord Grade. As a result, the show was produced in London and

sold to individual stations in the UK, USA, and internationally. In 1977, the show was described

as “premiering this fall in 163 US cities and 104 countries throughout the world” (“On the

Muppet,” 1997, p. 1). This type of distribution was uncommon in the USA, particularly for new

programming: “the concept of selling market by market in syndication seemed foreign to them.

It took months to get Henson to finally say ‘yes’” (Mandell, 1979, p. 196). Network affiliates

purchased the syndication rights for programming in their area and ran the program in the hours

outside network programming. As a result the times, locations, and stations that aired The

Muppet Show were highly variable.

Program Appeal

International. The Muppet Show quickly had both a large and international audience.

The press coverage frequently referred to the variety of countries that the program aired to

highlight the notion of the universal appeal of the Muppet characters. “Outside the U.S. the

Muppets are sold in virtually every market of South America, Europe and the Far East, along REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 215 with such African countries as Kenya, Liberia, Zambia, Nigeria” (Laurent, 1978, p. 7). The

Muppet Show became one of the first internationally aired programs during its first run.

Despite the shows international appeal and UK production, most US reporters tied the success of the program to Henson and his interpretation of American culture. Many of the reviewers frame the program in terms of the American appeal or values of the show. “Henson’s talent is a national asset, one to be cherished by Americans of every age for years to come”

(“Impostor in the ranks,” 1976, p. L9 ). Other reviewers note the Muppets are a crossover hit in

both the UK and the USA suggesting the international possibilities for The Muppet Show and

other programs. “It is a solid hit in both places. Indeed, playing as it does in nearly 100 other

countries in many languages, Jim Henson’s puppet variety show is possibly the most popular

contemporary television program” (Brown, 1978b, section 2, p. 12). Henson is presented as both

an American asset, but also one that has international impact.

The press coverage also associates The Muppet Show with nostalgia for previously

success American cultural products. For example, Sirkin (1978) comments that “Jim Henson’s

puppet colony represents a loftier tradition. Like Keaton and Astaire, or Merman or Martin, they

are popular artists who erase the line between high and low culture” (p. 13). The Muppet Show,

during its first run, is discussed as bridging old genres and new forms, regardless of their

incongruence. “Usually anarchy reigns—but the humour of the Muppet does have a surrealistic

quality at times” (Flander, 1978, p. D2). Often vaudeville, the musical hall tradition, and burlesque are discussed as older genres, integrated into the television variety format. Reviewers describe the shows a “classy vaudeville” (McNally, 1976, p. 25), “vaudevillian exchange”(Shales, 1976, p. 137 ), and “trading old burlesque jokes” (“Newsmakers, 1977, para.

1). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 216

Intergeneration appeal. Along with the international success of The Muppet Show, several reporters comment on the appeal of the program to family audiences. Flander questions the impact of the program by asking “What does it say about television that a puppet show

(remember Kukla, Fran and Ollie?) continues to be among the most adult television offerings”

(Flander, 1977, para. 10). The Muppet Show is presented as an ideal type of family entertainment, with a distinctive appeal to children and adults. The Muppet Show is described as

“family time” (Brown, 1978a, p. D29). The adult appeal of the program is linked to both the guest stars and the Muppets’ previous popularity on night time network shows (Mandell, 1979).

Other reviewers suggest that the Muppet puppets on Sesame Street already had an adult appeal; thus The Muppet Show appeals to “[the] millions of us, Sesame Street junkies who have been loitering around public television” (Marvel, 1977, p. 1). Another critic suggests the cross generational appeal of the program is tied to the characters themselves: “One of the great secrets of the Muppets’ irresistibility—to adults as well as to children—is that they are so innately courteous and gentle. The humor is far from children-like” (Flander, 1977, para. 13). The show’s appeal to children is also tied to its first-run syndication because its competition is older programming. “Kids pick up the nuances in the Muppets. They enjoy the Muppets because everything else is a rerun. This is fresh, with universal appeal” (“Man behind the frog,” 1978, p.

74).

Program Success

The key factor commented on in the press coverage to demonstrate the program’s success is numbers, particularly of stations and views. The ratings and level of popularity of The Muppet

Show are often mentioned by both trade and popular press. The number of stations on which the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 217 show aired is highlighted: “but I can tell you that The Muppet Show is more popular than ever, set to sing and clown next month on 156 stations nationwide” (Perry, 1978, p. 6).

Others discuss the ratings in terms of particular demographics. “The Muppet Show also averages a 21 rating among children, more than double that of any other first turn access series”

(“Muppet show tops,” 1977, p. 37). Still others describe how The Muppet Show attracted large audiences in a typically lacklustre time slot: “within two seasons, the show has touched off a

Muppet mania, not only attracting an unparalleled early evening TV audience” (“Muppet show tops,” 1977, p. 37). Most often the popularity of the Muppets is expressed in terms of the number of viewers worldwide. The series is often reported to “pull more than 235,000,000 viewers each week, around the globe to watch” (Mandell, 1979, p. 196).

Second-run Syndication of The Muppet Show (1981-1999)

Background

After the end of The Muppet Show in 1981, there is little coverage about The Muppet

Show in the trade press and in the American popular press. Rather, the series of the Muppet films and specials are discussed; however, during the next seven years, the show is in syndication for a second run in 146 U.S. markets (Loewy, 1988). By 1988, the early syndication contract had ended. In 1988, a major syndication deal attracts trade press coverage. Turner

Broadcasting acquires the syndication of The Muppet Show for its TBS cable station. In 1994,

another major syndication deal is signed with Nickelodeon. The press coverage of both

agreements stresses the past success of the program, the daily viewing of the program and the

established family audience for the program. These three elements suggest that The Muppet

Show will become a form of habitual remembrance by building the mnemonic frame of ritual.

Past Success of The Muppet Show REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 218

The Turner broadcasting syndication deal offers Turner the exclusive U.S. syndication rights to The Muppet Show and the press coverage of the deal frequently refers to the past popularity of the program. The Turner syndication deal emphasizes the show’s initial popularity as supporting its re-airing because of its appeal during its first airing. “The Muppet Show enjoyed consistently successful ratings between 1976-1981” (“Muppets turn super,” 1988, p. 18).

The coverage repeats the 100 countries and 235 million viewers statistics that were frequently

features in the show’s earlier press coverage to reinforce the claim that it is “the most popular

first-run syndicated series in TV history” (“Kermit the Frog,” 1989, p. 58). The current value of

The Muppet Show is framed in terms of its past international success and implies that show remains familiar to current audiences.

The syndication deal also reasserts the value of The Muppet Show, even 10 years after its

first airing. “The four-year agreement gives TBS exclusive U.S. telecast rights to the Emmy

award-winning series, which consists of 120 half-hour episodes conceived and produced by

Muppet creator Henson” (“Muppets turn super,” 1988, p. 18). In fact, Schindler (1998) notes that The Muppet Show is still an expensive program “Henson’s work does not come in at bargain rates” (para. 4). For the long-term syndication of The Muppet Show and Fraggle Rock over a four year period, Turner paid over 20 million dollars (Schindler, 1988).

Daily Viewing

Shortly before Henson’s death, The Muppet Show is scheduled as a daily feature of

Turner’s TNT station (“Turner Broadcasting System,” 1998). Similarly in 1994, The Muppet

Show is purchased as part of the cable channel daily Nickelodeon’s daily line-up (Mendoza,

1994). Over ten years since its first run, the syndication of The Muppet Show demonstrates the continued availability of the program and its perceived continuing appeal to new family REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 219 audiences. The press coverage suggest that the daily airing will continue to appeal to new audiences noting that “Muppets take Nickelodeon . . . the syndicated series, now available on cable, is as fresh and funny now as when it produced in [19]70s and [19]80s” (Rosenberg, 1994, para. 1).

Family Audience

The press coverage highlights that Turner’s decision to acquire the exclusive rights to

The Muppet Show is part of the station’s aims to gather “quality family entertainment to lure viewers from the other network” (Schindler, 1988, para. 4). The value of The Muppet Show as a family product is considered as important to Turner’s network’s goals: “this is the kind of TV show you can watch with your kids and not feel like a goofball . . . it’s extremely important because kids have tremendous influence over how people watch TV” (“Henson and Turner,”

1988, p. 19). The tie between family programming and Henson’s work is used to assert the value of the program and the larger value of the Turner-Henson relationship. Henson is quoted as saying he is looking forward to working with Turner because “Ted has some great ideas for family programming” (“TBS acquires rights,” 1988, para. 6).

While there is limited press coverage on the second-run syndication of The Muppet Show,

the existing coverage brings together elements of the mnemonic frame of ritual by noting the

continual availability of The Muppet Show for approximately two decades after its first-run. The

press coverage also includes comments on the regularity of the airing of The Muppet Show and

its assumed ongoing appeal to family audiences.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 220

Twenty-fifth Anniversary DVD/VHS Release of The Best of The Muppet Show (2001-2002)

Background

In the early 2000s, The Muppet Show became available for purchase on VHS and DVD.

Under the EM.TV ownership of the franchise, a twenty-fifth anniversary event was organized

along with the release of The Best of The Muppet Show. The key demographic of the twenty-

fifth anniversary promotion was nostalgic adults. Prior to The Best of release, the shows were only available through a Time-Life TV campaign (Olson, 2002). Both the twenty-fifth anniversary release and the Time-Life offering involved Columbia Pictures, who purchased the distribution rights to the Henson Library in 1997 (Olson, 2002). Both distributed collections compilations, focussing on particular guest stars with the addition of other memorable sketches.

To launch the release of the collections, EM.TV planned a fan event, Muppetfest, to correspond with Jim Henson’s birthday on September 26, 2001(Hood, 2002). The event was rescheduled in the wake of 9/11, and occurred two months later (King, 2001). Muppetfest was a scheduled two day comic-con-like event, featuring memorabilia, fans, and puppeteers. It was advertised in the Los Angeles area as “the whole Muppet gang will be in town for the festivities”

(King, 2001, p. F39). The key event for the two day festival was a live performance of The

Muppet Show, a fundraiser for a children’s hospital.

In the press coverage of the collection’s release and Muppetfest, the press coverage highlights the past popularity of the program and particular guest stars. Similarly, the press coverage calls attention to the program’s appeal to children and how the current events and releases are now targeted at nostalgic, now adult, fans. The press coverage also includes how the twenty-fifth anniversary corresponds with the increased visibility of the Muppet characters in commercials and the release of new collectible merchandise. The anniversary events are also REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 221 used to assert the ongoing impact of the franchise through commemorative activities, such as

Kermit’s Hollywood Star ceremony and the unveiling of a new gate to JHC lot.

Past Popularity

The Muppet Show. Because of EM.TV’s focus on children’s programming, The Muppet

Show—discussed in the 1970s coverage and by Henson as adult oriented or family programming) is now discussed as classic children’s programming. The show is described as

“one of the best loved children’s shows of the 1970[s]” (“Updated Muppets,” 2002, para. 2).

Like previous coverage of the series, the same countries and audience numbers are repeated: “it was a show ABC didn’t think would work. So naturally, it went on to be seen in more than 1000 countries, by an estimated 235 million people” (Kronke, 2001, section L.A. life, p. 3).

Guest stars. The Best of the Muppet Show collection includes episodes based on the featured guest star whose popularity had been maintained or grown in the passing years. The guest stars, and therefore the episodes, were selected on the ongoing popularity of the guest stars.

Famous sketches that appears on less popular guest star episodes were included as extras on the discs. “The Muppet Show was first aired on ITV in 1976 and ran for five years, with 120 episodes that feature some of the world’s more famous faces” (“Updated Muppets,” 2002, para.

8). Therefore, The Best of the Muppet Show VHS tapes and DVDs are identified by their guest stars. As volumes were added to the series, the featured guest stars that are discussed. For example, reviewers comment on “Steve Martin, Carol Burnett and Glida Radner—rendering the spectacle all the more muppettastic” (“DVD and video,” 2003, p. 64).

When promoting Muppetfest, as similar emphasis was placed on the guest stars to the event and the live show. The live show featured two guest stars, Jon Voight and Brooke Shields

(Hood, 2002). Many reporters note that these guest walked on a green carpet rather than the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 222 traditional red carpet (“Celebrate 25 years,” 2001). Brian Henson suggests that this live show was the embodiment of his father’s humour and vision; “My father (Jim Henson) was about celebrating life and goofing around . . . and the live show did just that—with plenty of improvising by the puppeteers” (Swanson, 2001, p. 16).

Increasing Muppet Awareness

Anniversary. The trade press coverage of Muppetfest included various interviews with

EM.TV personnel, who highlighted how the event attempts to tie into nostalgia for the television show. In fact, EM.TV staff were also clear that they used the twenty-fifth anniversary as an opportunity to revive Muppet awareness. As one EM.TV planner notes, “[w]hen the team realised the company was coming up on the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Muppet Show, it proved to be too good an opportunity to let pass by. The plan was to use this benchmark . . . to leverage the twenty-fifth anniversary of the show” (Hood, 2002, p. 19). Thus, EM.TV aimed to use the nostalgia for the characters and Henson to capitalize on their investment in the purchase of the company. “People feel an affinity to the Muppets and Jim Henson’s legacy, but that did necessarily translate into dollars . . . the goal was to strengthen it into a number-one media powerhouse for family entertainment” (Hood, 2002, p. 19). The Muppetfest was organized to tap into the long running awareness of the Muppet franchise, in an attempt to translate this awareness into capital, “grounding the video and audience . . . is the tremendous fan awareness the Muppets have maintained throughout the years . . . but there are so many different programs running now that will enhance the brand even more”(Olson, 2002, p. 44).

Commercial events. Beyond the two day fan event, EM.TV licenced Muppets characters for a series of commercials, including Denny’s, Virgin Atlantic Airlines, Long John

Silver’s, General Mills, and NASCAR. The Muppets are featured in a series of the MasterCard REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 223

“priceless” themed commercials (“Kermit the frog is America’s,” 2001). Miss Piggy’s promotion of Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast received criticism, particularly by those who recalled Kermit’s Muppet movie fight against a chain of fried frog’s legs restaurants: “Say it isn’t so. Miss Piggy . . . beloved Muppet, has been hawking the sausage and bacon combo for

Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast” (“Sizzling debate,” 2002, p. 17). Similarly, some reviewers find a contradiction between their Muppet Show nostalgia and the contemporary Muppets commercialization. “Though they’ve become a bunch of googly eye Pizza Hut shills, the

Muppets were once exceedingly cool, as attested by today’s DVD release of The Best of the

Muppet Show” (“6,” 2004, para. 1).

Weezer video and guest appearances. The most commented of new Muppet features that corresponds with the anniversary event is their participation in Weezer’s “Keep Fishing” video (Patakey, 1997). The Weezer video is most often discussed to emphasize the relevance of the Muppets to a younger audience, who are the band’s fan base (Olson, 2002). Weezer had previously used retro elements in past video and songs, such as referring to Buddy Holly. Along with the Muppet presence in commercials and videos, the Muppets run through a series of guest appearances on television programs: Family Feud, Hollywood Squares, Jerry Lewis’ Telethon,

USA Today, and NBC’s Today Show. These appearances are supplemented with press promotions, such as a spread in US Weekly magazine, and Miss Piggy valentines to celebrities

(Hood, 2002). “The PR team also ran a national survey to find out America’s favourite Muppet.

Kermit won, naturally” (Hood, 2002, p. 19). All of these promotions focus on an adult audience, rather than a child-focussed appeal, adding to the nostalgic promotion planned by EM.TV.

Corresponding commemorative events. Along with the live Muppet Show, “Kermit received a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame” as part of the festivities (“Muppets in global,” REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 224

2002, p. 9). Aside from the commercialization of the Muppets, the twenty-fifth anniversary was

also an opportunity to assert the Muppets historical importance. During the twenty-fifth anniversary release, JHC moved into an old Hollywood lot, originally own by United Artists and

Charlie Chaplin. The historic tie is emphasized by the unveiling of the studio gates where

Kermit is dressed as Chaplin’s famous little tramp: “there’s a great creative legacy on this lot”

(Kronke, 2001, section L.A. life, p. 3). Similar to the historic connection to the lot, the Muppets

are described as having a historical impact. The value of the Muppets, during Muppetfest and

the DVD release, is framed in terms of the national history and collective part of a generation’s

childhood. As one reporter observes, “not many attics in America don’t have something with the

visage of Ernie or Bert” (Kronke, 2001, section L.A. life, p.3). The Muppets are tied to the

quality of American creativity, the programs being referred to “as more than kids’ stuff—they’re

American icons” (Kronke, 2001, section L.A. life, p. 3) or “they are the crown jewels of

America” (“Anniversary Muppet characters,” 2002, para. 7).

Targeting Nostalgic Fans

Reviewers of The Best of collection recognize the program’s appeal to the nostalgia of

potential buyers: “Best of the Muppet Show DVDs. If we need to explain why this is on the list, you must have had a really, really sad childhood” (“Must list,” 2003, p. 49). One of the most commented on aspects of the volumes is the collection featuring Mark Hamill, “who appears along with C3PO, R2D2 and enlist the pigs in space for help in a mission to rescue Chewbacca”

(Wolf, 2002, p. 22). This episode could be considered doubly nostalgic, both for fans of the

Muppets and the popular Star Wars film franchise. Many reviewers of the collection refer to their personal interest in the product: “By the way I’ve always been partial to Ralph the piano- playing dog myself” (Mohan, 2003, p. 31). As another reporter mentions, Muppetfest and the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 225 best of collection provides an opportunity to “reminisce about the time-honored show” (“The

Muppet Show,” 2002, p. 62).

The word, nostalgia, is prominent in much of the coverage of the twenty-fifth anniversary events. Articles feature phrases like “while the nostalgia mill is working overtime,” (Olson,

2002, p. 44) “release of new and nostalgic video programming,”(Olson, 2002, p. 44) and “Jim

Henson’s Muppets have brought joy to generations for over 45 years” (“Kermit the Frog,” 2001,

para. 13). The overwhelming level of marketing, merchandizing and promotion of the Muppets

during the anniversary sparked one reporter to comment that “though silver and gold are the

colors most often associated with big anniversaries, the entertainment industry is seeing green as

it embraces the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Muppet Show” (Olson, 2002, p. 44); this reporter

is, in fact, not noting the colour of Kermit, but that of money stressing the celebration’s attempt

to profit of adult fans’ nostalgia for their childhood favorites.

Intergeneration appeal of The Muppet Show. The entire Muppetfest is explicitly tied

to nostalgia marketing in the trade press. This is most prominent in an interview with Debbie

McClellan (Vice-President of Corporate Communications for EM.TV): “we think the adults will

love it because they will remember back to their days watching The Muppet Show and then there

will be a new generation of kids who are getting to know the Muppets now” (King, 2001, p.

F39). She furthers EM.TV promotional strategies for the Muppets by outlining that “we also

wanted to renew interest in the Muppet brand through outreach to Muppet nostalgia. Through

those 30 and 40 something who were raised on the Muppets, many with children of their own,

the team hoped to reach a new demographic”(Hood, 2002, p. 19). EM.TV explicitly develops a

nostalgic relaunch for the Muppets to attract original viewers, and these viewers, through their

families, were to introduce the characters to a new generation of children. Similarly, Columbia REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 226

Pictures director, Suzanne White, comments on the audience’s memories of the show as a starting point for sales: “[t]hey really remind consumers of the great nostalgia of the show, and they have a variety of appeal to several markets” (Olson, 2002, p. 44).

Muppet Collectables

The Best of the Muppets Collection’s release correspond with a line of merchandise aimed both at adult fans and children. Over 100 licensing agreements were arranged for the twenty-fifth anniversary launch (“Muppets in global,” 2002). The company aims to sign a host of new licensees for products targeted at “three distinct age groups, young adults 12-29, nostalgic adults 30-40, and children” (“Hot properties,” 2002, para. 1). McDonald’s Happy Meals featured eight Muppet characters (“Muppets in global,” 2002). Other merchandizing promotions included die-cast cars and mini Pez dispensers aimed at collectors. Larger end cap displays of the Muppets were featured in almost 900 Barnes and Noble stores (“The business of play,”

2003). Muppet elves were promoted on QVC (The Shopping Channel). A series of high end figurines were produced with a long running release of up to 20 characters in the collection

(“Anniversary Muppet characters,” 2002). The bevy of new merchandise prompts some reporters to parallel the current popularity of the Muppets to their early 1980s merchandizing boom. A reviewer notes that the Muppets’ popularity first emerged as a Christmas “‘must have’ for kids in 1976” (Potempa, 2001, para. 12).

Intergenerational appeal of merchandise. Another reporter comments the intergenerational nature of the renewed appeal. Toys on “nine-year-old Brandon[’s] . . .

Christmas list were once on his mom’s” (Potempa, 2001, para. 1). The article continues to discuss the popularity of the Muppet toys: “seems, like they [the Muppets] have been consistently popular since they first came out on the market . . . now they’re everywhere. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 227

Suddenly, they’re retro cool” (Potempa, 2001, para. 1). The notion of retro cool is important as the value of the Muppets is tied to childhood nostalgia. This nostalgia is best expressed in the trade press that notes the appeal of Muppets toys: “you can identify with [the Muppets] and

there’s some history . . . Everyone can identify with Muppets. They’re like members of your

family” (Potempa, 2001, para. 25).

The press coverage of Muppetfest and the release of The Best of the Muppet Show notes

the increase marketing of the Muppets to nostalgic fans. As a result, the press coverage supports

the mnemonic frame of memento by emphasizing the purchase of material objects to connect to

the past. The coverage also suggests the EM.TV hope that these objects will also promote

intergenerational sharing, as adult fans introduce their children to the Muppet characters.

WDC Release of Season One of The Muppet Show (2005)

Background

Only three years after the large promotional event for The Muppet Show’s twenty-fifth

anniversary, The Muppet Show was released on DVD again, this time formatted as a full season

and part of the WDC’s Kermit’s fiftieth birthday, discussed in more detail in the previous

chapter. WDC continued the heavy nostalgic push that started during the twenty-fifth anniversary promotional campaign. The numerical association of 50 for Kermit’s birthday is used to domesticate the past into a form that is more easily consumed. The impact of this domestication through the calendric organization of the past is created through constructed and arbitrary reiterations. Kermit, a fictional character, has no birthday; but through the use of a calendar, the immortal character can be given an age and celebration. Through this celebration

of the pastness, the franchise is more easily presented and new values are ascribed to older

productions. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 228

Reviewers of the full first season comment on many of the same elements that emerged in the coverage of the Best of the Muppet Show collection. The press coverage notes how the release corresponds with the increasing Muppet media presence. It also stresses how the new releases are aimed at a nostalgic adult audience; however, the coverage notes that the release of the full season does not attempt to appeal to children, by emphasizing the elements of the show that highlight its 1970s production context. These elements form the program’s patina.

Similarly, the press coverage presents how the DVD extras stress the programs age and emphasis

Disney’s focus on the Muppet characters over puppeteers. As a result, the DVD release is associated with the recollection of childhood viewing, which can be purchased and owned by interested adult fans.

Nostalgic Adult Fans

The WDC Muppet Show’s release appeals to the nostalgic adults by framing the Muppets as a perennial children’s favourite, like the earlier EM.TV promotion. As one trade reporter describes the situation: “Disney’s play is to start by dusting off Kermit, Miss Piggy and other

Muppets with a ‘soft’ launch designed to appeal to nostalgic adult audiences” (Marr, 2004b, p.

A4). Or as another reporter notes, Disney was well aware that “while the talking frog remains a nostalgic touchstone for ageing boomers, executives admit that most kids today recognize him only vaguely if at all” (Collins, 2006, p. E24). Disney was said to be priming 20, 30 and 40 year olds for the Muppets’ relaunch. Therefore, Disney launches merchandise at this older target audience. Retro style clothing is offered to the adults: “including green t-shirts with glitter- encrusted images of Kermit” (Marr, 2004, p. B1). Many articles note that the launch targeted at adults would be followed by strategies to return the Muppets to Disney’s key market, children. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 229

“After the characters find their feet. Disney plans a hard launch broadening the appeal to a wider audience, including younger children, starting with a feature film in 2007” (Marr, 2004, p. B1).

Similar to EM.TV’s approach to attracting nostalgic adult viewers, Disney uses a series of television cameos to promote the Muppets. The adult-oriented placement of characters received a positive response from reviewers who found the recent child-focussed productions

responsible for the waning quality of post-Henson Muppet productions (Marr, 2005b). The

focus on an adult audience is echoed in descriptions of The Muppet Show, the starting point of

Muppet productions. “The Muppet Show’s Muppets were never strictly made for kids, and there

has always been a grown-up element to their humor and that’s certainly the case here. Sensitive

parents should be forewarned” (Llyod, 2005, p. E2). This adult focus is repeated when reviewers

suggest the appropriate audience for the DVD release: “[w]hat is there is squarely aimed at

collectors and nostalgia buffs, and not families”(Lewis, 2005, p. 37). Reviewers further observe

that this collection is aimed at collectors, because the main difference between the first season of

The Muppet Show on DVD and The Best of collection is its maintenance of the sequence of the

episodes: “The Best of series had focussed on releasing parts of the show that had aged well, or

episodes that feature guest stars who were still recognizable” (Lewis, 2005, p. 37). The appeal of

the first season version was that “it has never been released in its entirety before; this is the first

time” (Cidoni, 2005, para. 6).

On the other hand, some reviewers suggest that the adult appeal was a reflection of the

wide appeal of Muppet programming. “Needless to say, while Jim Henson’s Muppets always

appeal to young viewers . . . Henson and his fellow puppeteers devise The Muppet Show with a

much broader more sophisticated audience in mind” (Klein, 2005, p. A10). Even daughter, Lisa

Henson chimed into the discussion: “it ended up being funny and appealing to both kids and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 230 adult. Clearly it was not designed just for children” (Klein, 2005, p. A10). Similarly, another reviewer comments that part of the value of The Muppet Show and its release on DVD was that

The Muppet Show’s first season was aimed at adults. “Sesame Street was always a bit of a grownup’s show in short pants, but this variety series, debuting in 1976, truly transcended demographics with its wacky skits” (Poniewozik, 2005, p. 106).

The Muppet Show’s Patina

Much of the coverage of The Muppet Show’s first season release emphasizes the show as an artifact of the television history rather than as a timeless product with continuing appeal. In a

DVD review article, The Muppet Show is situated as a part of television history, included in a list

of “7 blasts from TV’s past” (Poniewozik, 2005, p. 106) which includes Leave it to Beaver as a

representative of the 1950s. The Muppet Show is provided as a representative of the 1970s,

suggesting that “it’s also fun as a field guide to ‘70s celebrities” (Poniewozik, 2005, p. 106).

Similarly, another reviewer considers the shows’ guest stars status as aging celebrities: “The live

guest stars comprise a veritable who’s who of [19]70s variety show performers . . . it’s also fun

to see such seasoned pros and pop-culture icons”(“Sex, violence, and Jim Henson,” 2005, p. 26).

In fact, some reviewers suggest that the variety show format of the program was part of its

historical value: “of one of the TV’s greatest, oddest variety shows” (“The Muppet Show:

Season One,” 2005, p. 81).

DVD Extras

The press coverage stresses the inclusion of DVD extras as another feature targeting adult

fans. One reviewer ties the pilot on the DVD, “Sex and Violence,” to the ongoing debate about

prime-time television and children: “concerns over the content of prime-time television

programming are nothing new as you can see from the opinion of the unaired 1975 Muppet Show REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 231 pilot prepared by Jim Henson” (“Sex, violence, and Jim Henson,” 2005, p. 81). Other reviewers

also note the historical value of the DVD extras by discussing the show’s pitch; the television pitch “is a hoot, saying that the show will appeal to every Nielsen target audience. From small children to ‘intellectual eggheads’ and ‘freaky, long haired dirty cynical hippies’”(Lewis, 2005, p. 37). The style of the comedy promoted comparisons to other 1970s television shows, particularly Laugh-In: “one is reminded how much Henson and his troupe owe to George

Schlatter’s ground-breaking Laugh-In” (“Sex, violence, and Jim Henson,” 2005, p. 81).

At the same time, the DVD release features aspects of 1970s television productions that

reduces the appeal of the nostalgic program. One reviewer finds “it was surprising to go back to season 1 and find the funnies less plentiful that I remembered. . . . Most of the jokes are so corny

they make Laugh-In seem to have nuances and the characters had yet to adopt their now family

look and sound” (Ross, 2005, p. 61). By referencing the show’s opening song, one critic draw

attention to the first season’s awkward nature: “The Muppet Show gets things started on a shaky

but extra-packed special edition” (Ross, 2005, p. 61). Several reviewers find the laugh track as a disruptive and old fashioned feature of television programming ” (“Sex, violence, and Jim

Henson,” 2005, p. 81). Many reviewers consider the first season to fall flat against their expectations. “Season 1 takes a while to hit its stride—the corny crop is heavier than usual in the earlier episode” (Poniewozik, 2005, p. 105). One reviewer suggests that the disappointment was

because the show had remained the same, but the audience had grown up: “it’s essentially a kid’s

show and sadly I outgrew underoos a long time ago” (Ross, 2005, p. 61).

The press coverage refers to the DVD extras another sign of the franchise’s age. The

extras mainly consist of the Muppet pilot and pitch reel. An optional trivia track is the only new

content created aside from the disc’s menus, in which Stadtler and Waldorf “verbally trash the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 232 show and encourage viewers not to press the play button”(Lewis, 2005, p. 37). The release did not feature any of the original staff or current puppeteers who work with the Muppet characters.

“Any commentary would have been a welcome way for contributors, such as puppet voice actors

Frank Oz, Dave Goelz, and Jerry Nelson or any of the myriad of guest stars . . . also missing is a tribute to Henson, himself, who died in 1990” (Lewis, 2005, p. 37). This lack of reference to production staff and puppeteers is common across all of Disney’s fiftieth anniversary releases.

Along with the first season of The Muppet Show, WDC released birthday editions of several Muppet films. These films also lack any extras that include puppeteers, voices, actors or others involved in the production. Instead, Disney constructed a series of autobiographies and interviews with famous Muppet characters: Kermit (The Muppet Movie), Miss Piggy (The Great

Muppet Caper), Gonzo (The Muppet Christmas Carol), Fozzie (Muppet Treasure Island). The release of these films is often referred to as Kermit’s fiftieth anniversary edition, or the fiftieth anniversary of the Jim Henson Company, though it was not involved with the Disney release

(“Billboard bits,” 2005; “Revisit the ghosts,” 2005). This focus on characters’ biographies strengthens the relationship between fan and characters, and dismisses the role of those who created the franchise.

Despite its unchanging content, The Muppet Show is framed as a memento of the past by drawing attention to its age and new physical form. When the production is encoded onto a

DVD, the physicality of its ownership is important, particularly because it reinforces an individual’s relationship to the past. This taste for pastness is manifest in the materiality or aesthetics of the past. The patina of media productions comes from the traces of older technology. As the show ages, this visual distinction becomes more apparent. Like anniversary REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 233 magazine publications, the packaging and aesthetics of the products can evoke a sense of pastness.

The Christmas Tradition of Muppet Productions

While The Muppet Show’s recirculation is deemed as offering the same content

repeatedly, the recirculation of the ongoing Christmas-themed Muppet productions is framed

differently in the press coverage. These Muppet productions feature re-creation rather than

repetition. Through an examination of the press coverage of these Christmas productions, the

reviewers and reporters discuss the productions within the mnemonic frame of tradition. While

each production is different, the press coverage repeats the same frame devices: family reunion

and the Muppets’ use of Christmas special conventions. The following section demonstrates

how the association between the Muppets and Christmas is constructed from 1976-2006. Five

Christmas-themed movies and television specials are aired numerous times and released on VHS

and DVD: John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together (1979), A Muppet Family

Christmas (1987), A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992), and Very Merry Muppet Christmas (2002).

In discussing the Muppet holiday programs, reviewers and reporters highlight the

commonalities between the various Muppet productions, as well as, the generic conventions of

holiday specials. As such, these Muppets Christmas productions build continuity between the

past and present combining past holiday conventions with current popular culture. Each Muppet

Christmas production is tied to those before, building an ongoing association between the

Muppet franchise and this holiday. Through the mnemonic frame of tradition, Muppet

Christmas productions are tied to the nostalgia of past holidays, while addressing the present

context of production. The presentness of each production is asserted through contemporary REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 234 references and guest stars, both of which are tied to the tastes and context of the time of production.

John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together (1979)

The first Muppet Christmas television special was John Denver and the Muppets: A

Christmas Together, which aired in 1979 on ABC. In the coverage of the special, references are made to the special’s Muppet spin on winter past times. The hour-long special is described by

Brown (1979) of the Los Angeles Times as “too many spoonfuls of sugar” (section 4, p. 21). Yet, he notes that “Kermit the Frog . . . manages to touch and tickle us as he talks about building a

‘snow frog’ back at the old pond” (Brown, 1979, section 4, p. 21). The notion of family

togetherness is also used to frame the production, by emphasizing Denver’s interaction with the

Muppets, rather than the puppeteers (Scott, 1979). Another review argues for the future value of

the production, asserting that the special itself will become part of the Christmas holiday

tradition: “this holiday special almost certain to become a TV perennial, is lavish warm and

insanely entertaining” (“John Denver TV special,” 1979,section 3, p. 20). Just as the potential annual viewing of the special is discussed in the reviews, the release of an LP of the soundtrack offers home consumption of the program. In a review for Stereo Reviews, the album is described as expanding Denver’s audience to include fans of the Muppets. The reviewer notes that “a young woman of my acquaintance tells me she plans to use the album as background music at her Christmas parties” (Anderson, 1979, p. 100). The LP is described with the same framing devices as the ABC special. The LP offers a material form of the special, which can be recirculated after broadcasting.

Re-airing on ABC, the John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together remained a

Christmas stalwart for the next three holiday seasons (Bark, 1983; “Denver, Muppets,” 1982). It REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 235 is noted in 1983, that the special “has been broadcast the last four holiday seasons on ABC ”

(Bark, 1983, para. 5). This re-airing of the special implies that it was treated similarly to other traditional Christmas specials, like The Grinch that Stole Christmas (1966) and Frosty the

Snowman (1969). The popularity of the special is noted in the press coverage of another John

Denver and the Muppets special: A Rocky Mountain Holiday (Begun, 2002). This coverage reasserts Denver’s interactions with the Muppet characters as a form of family. “Denver is right about his chemistry with the Muppets. He is completely natural with them. Whether counselling

Robin the frog or playing the straight man for Kermit, Denver treats the puppets like people”

(Bark, 1983, para. 8). In 2002, the John Denver Christmas special is mentioned again. “John

Denver appeared on The Muppet Show once, but it’s the rerun of his television specials—they originally aired in 1979 and 1983 that made him the show’s defining actor” (Begun, 2002, p. 13).

The Christmas special and its LP provide an ongoing circulation of Muppet Christmas related material. As the first Muppet Christmas special, it is often recalled during reviews of later

Muppet-Christmas productions.

A Muppet Family Christmas (1987)

Four years after the airing of the last documented ABC presentation of John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together, the Muppets are featured in another special on ABC, A

Muppet Family Christmas. A key frame device used in the press coverage of this special is the notion of family and family togetherness as part of the Christmas holiday. Like the earlier

Denver special, it also aired at 8 pm. This timeslot is associated in the press coverage of the special as family entertainment time, implying that children and parents would be watching the special together. Similarly, family is also emphasized as a key aspect of the holiday special by

Jim Henson in interviews. He suggests that the Muppets gathering for the holidays reflects his REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 236 own family’s traditions: “the Christmas special is built around the idea of getting the family together, my kids are sort of sprinkled around right now, but we’ll try to be together at

Christmastime” (McCarthy, 1987, para. 3). He furthers this by noting that the filming of the special itself was a kind of reunion as it brought together puppeteers and staff from The Muppet

Show. Henson notes that “it’s what I think of Christmas as being; a time for a family to gather together . . . a family reunion of sorts for many of the Muppets top talents” (Roush, 1987a, p.

D1).

In the special, the notion of family is also echoed in the puppet characters from various

programs, who spend the holidays with Fozzie and his mother. Reviewers focus the idea of a

Muppet family, often emphasizing the connections between this unlikely combination of

personalities. Reviewers note that “just about every Muppet creation ever manufactured by Jim

Henson and his crew shows up for this holiday special” (Davenport, 1987, section 2, p. 1). The

program features Muppets, Sesame Street characters, Fraggles, as well as Muppet Babies “by

way of home movies” (Davenport, 1987, section 2, p. 1). The only two human participants present at the celebration are Doc from Fraggle Rock and Henson at the end of the special to do the dishes (Bianculli, 1987). Reviewers comment that this collection of puppets was in fact a family (“Muppet, mountain,” 1987; “Trio of Christmas,” 1987). For example Davenport (1987) comments that “hauling out all of the Muppet ‘family’ just shows the quality of the blood line”

(section 2, p. 1). By emphasizing the notion of family reunion in the special, this framing device of family supports the mnemonic frame of tradition is supported by noting the cyclical gathering of characters for the holiday.

Like the gathering of family for the holiday, reviewers of the special also note that A

Muppet Family Christmas draws on conventions from other holiday specials. By noting these REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 237 conventions, the reviewers evoke the mnemonic frame of tradition. The discussion of the rituals and conventions emphasizes the recreation of the past, in this case the recreation of aspects of other Christmas specials. The first convention discussed is A Muppet Family Christmas’ use of a snowstorm delaying a key family member: “[t]here are two elements that any self-respecting home for the holidays show must include: these must be a terrible storm and there must be someone trying to make their way through that storm to join the others around the hearth. That someone is of course, Miss Piggy, who makes periodic phone calls to Kermit to let him know she’s on her way” (Davenport, 1987, p. 2). One reviewer includes Kermit’s reflection on the importance of the holidays as part of the conventions of the holiday special: “‘Life would just pass in a blur if it weren’t for times like this,’ says Kermit to his little cousin Robin. What a grand philosopher the frog is” (Roush, 1987b, p. D3). Both Miss Piggy’s delay and Kermit’s reflection are conventions of the holiday special. By being highlighted in the reviews, these frame devices build to the overall notion of the repetition of the past through recreation and their presence in the Muppet special.

Several reporters describe the ending of the special when the characters are singing carols, before a fire, with the whole family gathered together. The ending of the special is considered to provide the emotional resonance associated with Christmas. As one reviewer notes this sequence is the epitome of the Christmas special’s pleasure: “[t]he house is full to the rafters—with bodies and good feelings” (Roush, 1987b, p. D3). In other words, the special

“boasts all the comforts of home” (“Trio of Christmas,” 1987, p. C15). One reporter even questions, while suggesting this special was a welcome part of the Christmas special traditions,

“Why did Henson wait so long to do a Muppet holiday special? Throw another log on the fire and settle in for an hour of warm cozies as only Henson can cook up” (“Trio of Christmas,” REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 238

1987, p. C15). These holiday specials’ conventions, included in A Muppet Family Christmas tie this special to the nostalgia associated with Christmas and thereby the mnemonic frame of tradition.

Other reviewers connect the notion of the continuing appeal of the Muppets to the cyclical appeal of Christmas. One reviewer asserts that the Muppets are one of the few sacred things, during a holiday filled with commercialization (Milward, 1987). Another reviewer compares the Muppets to old Christmas carols. “When the holidays arrive and you hear the old tune, you find yourself just as charmed by it as you’ve ever been. Defying all logic, the Muppets continue to entertain year after year with an essentially unchanged bag of tricks” (“Muppet

Family,” 1987, p. 52). Still another reviewer also notes this continuing tradition. “The Muppets

have confounded father time and stayed entertaining in a business that would have chewed up

lesser showmen decades ago” (“Muppet Family,” 1987, p. 52). With their continuing appeal, the reviewer suggests the Muppets embody the holiday and represent the ongoing traditions.

During its original premiere in 1987, the recirculation of A Muppet Family Christmas was already being discussed by reviewers, implying expected repeated viewing. In reviews, the press coverage predicts the program will be part of future Christmas traditions: “A Muppet Family

Christmas belongs instantly to the most elite ranks of holiday specials . . . that will delight year

after year. If you’re a kid, you’ll be quoting this show’s funny lines as an adult. If you’re an

adult, it’ll make you feel like kid” (Roush, 1987a, p. D1). The press coverage of this special

foreshadows the later syndication. The special aired again in 1989, but on NBC. It aired

December 24 as part of The Magical World of Disney: “Sunday’s premier of The Muppet Family

Christmas on NBC needn’t be your only reunion with Jim Henson’s fuzzy and lovable creations”

(Westbroock, 1989, section 2, p. 1). When re-aired in 1989, similar framing devices are used to REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 239 connect the TV special to the traditions and rituals of Christmas. Reviewers note “home movie complete with scenes of Miss Piggy, when she was just a little sausage roll” (Westbroock, 1989, section 2, p. 1). Others suggest there is a unique quality to the special which makes its worthy of repeated viewing. “The Muppet family is, of course, quite unlike any other, and its Christmas special also is little different, a welcome antidote to the high blood sugar you may be suffering from” (Laurence, 1989, section TV week, p. 8). In the coverage of The Muppet Family

Christmas’ recirculation, the special is framed as a form of tradition as a result of its continued viewing. This frame is further supported by the home viewing of The Muppet Family Christmas,

first distributed on VHS and later DVD in the mid 1990s and early 2000s.

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

After the death of Jim Henson, the first major Muppet production is another Christmas-

themed project. The Muppet Christmas Carol was based on an earlier Ed Sullivan Show sketch which featured a loose adaptation of the Dickens’ Christmas Carol. The Muppet Christmas

Carol’s theatrical release in 1992 corresponded with the date of a VHS compilation of Ed

Sullivan Show Christmas content, featuring the original sketch. In the previous chapter, The

Muppet Christmas Carol is presented as an attempt to re-introduce audiences to the franchise. In fact, The Muppet Christmas Carol drew on the previous success of the earlier two Christmas specials. Much of the press coverage was already mentioned in the previous chapter, except the associated album and the release of the film on VHS. Unlike the earlier LP for A Christmas

Together, the Carol Christmas album was not a soundtrack, but rather a compilation of old and new Christmas material. The only expressly movie-tie is a song featuring Scrooge star, Michael

Cain (Davies, 1992). The release of the CD, VHS, and DVD ties to consumption and nostalgic remembrance of past Muppet Christmas productions. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 240

The VHS tape was released a year after the film. In fact, The Muppet Christmas Carol was also syndicated. The Disney channel’s airing of The Muppet Christmas Carol, resulted in renewed interest in the earlier specials: “[i]f you like Christmas shows so much, you need to get yourself a copy of A Muppet Family Christmas and see how the real Kermit celebrates, on

Christmas Eve on Sesame Street, or the transcendent Emmett Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas or even

John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together” (Groznic, 2003, p. 4). This reviewer’s comment emphasizes that these earlier Christmas specials are different from The Muppet

Christmas Carol because these productions had the Muppets, themselves, celebrating the holiday, rather than the Muppets, as actors, playing a part in holiday celebrations. In this review, the author also constructs a genealogy for the film, by tracking the roots of the film back to older

Christmas specials.

A Very Merry Muppet Movie (2002)

Following the recirculation of The Muppet Christmas Carol, EM.TV produced a made for TV movie: A Very Merry Muppet Movie. The TV movie was an adaption of the Christmas classic, It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Like with the earlier Christmas material, reviewers note the gathering of family and the film’s use of holiday film conventions. The reunion of fans with the

Muppet characters is framed as a “very welcome Muppet gift” (Rosenthal, 2002, p. 69). It offered reviewers a chance to engage with the old gang. Comments are made noting the nostalgic pleasure of seeing the familiar group of characters. For example, one reviewer describes the film as “heartwarming, nostalgic amusement [the Muppets]” (Owen, 2002, p. D1). Another reviewer shares this pleasure, but also suggests that these pleasing characters are best when they act as they had in previous productions. Emphasis on the Very Merry Muppet Movie’s similarities with older productions support the mnemonic frame of tradition, as the special itself is a repetition of past REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 241 production through recreation. For example, “all the old favourites of the late Jim Henson’s incomparable creature gang are there—from Bert and Ernie in the balcony to Miss Piggy in her

Christmas best. And the best parts of this show come when they’re doing familiar Muppet things” (Hodges, 2002, p. 12). This nostalgic response to the family of characters reflects the underlying promotion and marketing goals of NBC: “it’s perfect for the new approach that we’re taking with our movies in looking for things with pre-sold popular culture appeal” (Littleton,

2002, p. 4). Thus, some reviewers suggest that the film relies too heavily on contemporary references and haphazard material: “telling it like it is makes me feel like Scrooge, but this crazy clunked up script looks like somebody just threw a bunch of Muppet ideas up against the

Christmas tree, and whatever hung on, made it” (Hodges, 2002, p. 12). This contemporary reference emphasizes the notion of recreation than repetition.

Rather than discuss the conventions of holiday films presented in the film’s narrative, reviewers of the 2002 special note the ways in which traditional Christmas films and content are parodied in the film. Because of the reviewers’ focus on the notion of parody rather than repetition, the framing of tradition rather than ritual is presented. Parody offers both a connection to the past, and a notion of recreation. The reviewers’ discussion of the parodied content is summed up by the comment “it takes the star clichés of annual holiday fare and inverts them without wrecking them” (Rosenthal, 2002, p. 69). The reviewers note the film “invoke[s] memories of Christmas movies past” (Owen, 2002, p. D1) , films including: How the Grinch

Stole Christmas (1966), A Christmas Story (1983), Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer (1964). One

reviewer comments that the film “draws on a little O. Henry and a little Dr. Seuss” (Gates, 2002, para. 2). Thus, the film becomes a compilation of a familiar family of characters and a common REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 242 set of holiday material. A Very Merry Muppet Movie was released on both DVD and VHS in

December of 2003 (Kluger, 2002).

Throughout the 30 years span of the Muppet productions examined in this study, the

Muppet characters are repeatedly featured in television specials and Christmas related projects.

Though outside the time range of this project, the Muppets headline another Christmas project, A

Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa (2008). This feature also builds on the model of the earlier

Christmas specials, incorporating popular stars into a plot about getting mail to the North Pole.

All these films tie the characters to holiday family gatherings and the genre conventions of holiday specials. The Muppet specials are presented as new productions that feature old material, suggesting the special function like traditions by recreating the past in the present.

Conclusion

The mnemonic frames of ritual, memento, and tradition highlight how the practices of media franchises, namely the continual circulation and ongoing production of products, present the franchise as a potential site of memory. In the case of the Muppets, the re-circulation of The

Muppet Show and the Christmas themed productions offer continual engagement with the franchise. The press coverage, through frame analysis, describes how this access provides the opportunity for remembrance, whether through habitual or commemorative memory.11 The

recirculation of The Muppet Show through syndication in the 1980s and 1990s allowed viewers

to engage in habitual memory through ritual. Viewers were able to engage in remembrance

through the daily availability of the show. The press coverage features discussions of the

11 As described in the start of this chapter, habitual memory focusses on daily unconscious interactions with the past. Commemorative memory is explicit remembrance often associated with the formal construction of events or monuments. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 243 ongoing value of the older program and its continuing appeal to viewers, while noting the age of the program.

Through its materiality, the later release of The Muppet Show on VHS and DVD allows for individual ownership of the program. As such, this physical ownership and the patina of the program, as emphasized in the press coverage, presents The Muppet Show through the frame of memento. Memento is a commemorative form of remembrance and offers a stable and physical tie to the past. In the VHS and DVD release of The Muppet Show this stability is the unchanged content of the show. . A common frame device, calendric coincidence, is used to assert the past of The Muppet Show for both releases. Through the arbitrary use of numerical association,

EM.TV and WDC promote their releases of The Muppet Show, whether as the twenty-fifth anniversary of the program or as Kermit’s fiftieth birthday.

Though the recirculation of The Muppet Show focussed on repeated access to the same program, the continual cycle of Christmas Muppet productions is presented in the press coverage as remembrance through recreation. The press coverage of these productions includes several frame devices emphasizing repetition: family reunion, Christmas nostalgia, and convention of

Christmas programs. However, each production is new and reflects the context of its production, as mentioned in the press coverage by way of the appeal of the contemporary culture.

Each mnemonic frame, ritual, memento, or tradition, demonstrates how patterns in the circulation of the Muppet franchise’s content build continuity between the past and present. The ongoing recirculation of The Muppet Show or the consistent creation of Muppet Christmas specials presents forms of posterity through continual availability. As discussed by reviewers and reporters, the press coverage evokes these mnemonic frames when considering these patterns REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 244 of recirculation. As a result, the coverage suggests the potential use of the Muppets as a site of memory.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 245

CHAPTER 8—THE MUPPET FRANCHISE AS A SITE OF MEMORY

Life’s like a movie, write your own ending.

—The Muppet Movie (1979)

While puppets may not be the traditional fodder for collective memory research, the

Muppet franchise functions like a site of memory, apparent from the frame analysis of its trade and popular press coverage. The press coverage describes the Muppets as a mnemonic resource that readers can use as a source of continuity between the past and present. The mnemonic frame used varies over time to respond to the needs of the present. These frames and the perpetuation of franchise content suggest that the Muppet franchise meets Nora’s (1989) requirements for site of memory. This study suggests that media franchises function like other traditional sites of memory. As a result, a memory studies’ approach illuminates the social function of media franchises.

Where franchises are often studied for their commercially-driven production culture or intertwining narrative structure, memory studies offers a cultural insight into their longevity and perpetuation. As a field, memory studies lends itself to the study of old buildings, monuments, or spaces. Despite the seeming presentness of media franchises, this study has demonstrated that their reception in the trade and popular press is not different from traditional objects of remembrance, as discussed by Nora. More importantly, the trade and popular press coverage’s use of mnemonic frames implies potential symbolic, functional, and ritual use. As a mnemonic resource, the Muppet franchise’s perpetuation becomes a cultural feature, rather than a commercial function.

From 1976-2006, the Muppet franchise is framed in the popular and trade press in terms of its mnemonic connection between the past and the present. Critics, reviewers, and reporters REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 246 highlight the franchise’s continuity through the use of mnemonic frames. These mnemonic frames originate from frame devices and packages used in the press coverage. Each of these frame devices asserts the value of the franchise often through the franchise’s ties to the past and its relevance to the present. These mnemonic frames are key to the construction of any site of memory as they are flexible aspects that are used in various contexts to construct a sense of continuity. They are also used to provide current society’s need for a constructed sense of past, regardless of the accuracy of the connection, echoing the constructed nature of sites of memory.

By examining Nora’s (1989) qualities of the site of memory and the functions that distinguish them from other objects of remembrance, the potential for the Muppets to be treated as a site of memory is explained.

This chapter includes a summary of the key findings of the data analysis chapters. Each mnemonic frame is defined and then discussed in-terms of the Muppet press coverage.

Particular attention is given to the ways in which the frame stresses continuity by addressing the

present context of the franchise. Each chapter highlights the similarities in ruptures that spark

the need for continuity and how these mnemonic frames respond to this rupture in different

ways. Following this summary, the mnemonic frames found in the press coverage of the Muppet

franchise are integrated into Nora’s framework for a site of memory. This framework includes a will to remember the site, the materiality of the site, the symbolic use of the site, and functionality of the site. After discussing the relationship between various mnemonic frames and the elements of a site of memory, the limitations of the study are described. While the single case study limits the generalizability across franchises, it offers a rich understanding of the ongoing framing of a franchise. Despite the limitations of the study, this study’s findings on the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 247

Muppets franchise augments past scholarship on media franchises and suggests future research into their mnemonic appeal, which ends the chapter.

Review of Key Concepts and Findings

A mnemonic frame is a shared cultural construct used to organize the experience of remembrance. It is a form of Goffman’s (1974) frames, which he describes as giving significance to events or objects. When tied to the act of collective memory, a mnemonic frame

builds continuity by offering a past which reflects the needs of the present. A study of mnemonic frames depends on the context or depiction of the past. In particular, a mnemonic

frame describes a cultural construct used to build continuity in the face of rupture. The

mnemonic frames, which emerge from trade and press coverage, are a cultural resource for

remembrance and are not unique to the Muppet franchise; rather the Muppet franchise is one

such use—within a particular context.

This study describes 12 mnemonic frames, discerned from the analysis of the press coverage of the Muppet franchise. Each frame organizes past associations with the Muppets to to build a sense of continuity. The mnemonic frames share commonalities, particularly, when they respond to similar ruptures. Each analysis chapter features three frames that emerge from similar ruptures.

The Mnemonics of Ownership

When companies merge and franchises are purchased, three mnemonic frames are evoked to build continuity by using the past to support current ownership claims. These include the mnemonic frames of homecoming, legacy, and repatriation. The mnemonic frames homecoming, legacy, and repatriation, appears in the press coverage of the Muppets franchise during ownership changes. As such, each frame offers a sense of continuity by legitimizing the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 248 franchise’s new owner’s claims. All these frames offer a return to the past in terms of the actions of the present.

The mnemonic frame of homecoming builds continuity by considering ownership changes as a return to a point of origin, rather than a rupture. To build continuity for the Muppet franchise during the WDC-JHP merger, the trade and popular press stress similarities between

Disney and Muppet characters, such as their evergreen status. The origins of the Muppets become connected to a particular place in Walt Disney World, its new MGM theme park.

Similarities between Henson and Disney are constructed to present Disney as an inspiration for

Henson’s work. The mnemonic frame of homecoming stresses a return to a community with which the characters are already familiar. As such, homecoming builds continuity through family associations and thus suggests a return to stability and permanence. The mnemonic frame of the homecoming would be invoked again over a decade later. When Disney successfully purchases the Muppets, the characters are again described as evergreen; the characters are now considered in a place of stability.

After Henson’s death, both WDC and JHP use different legacy claims to assert their ownership of the characters. The mnemonic frame of legacy is used to build continuity during disruptions created by ownership disagreements. In particular, this frame creates continuity by legitimizing the new owner’s relationship to the franchise’s past. Both WDC and Henson’s heirs use this frame to build continuity between Jim Henson’s stewardship of the Muppet characters and their own possible direction for the franchise. Each company or group presents a different version of Jim Henson to support its case for ownership.

During the EM.TV sale, the mnemonic frame of repatriation emerges. The mnemonic frame of repatriation highlights the audience’s past affective association with the site, while REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 249 acknowledging its nostalgia. With the waning popularity of the Muppets, the sale of the Muppet characters from EM.TV to JHC features a mnemonic frame that addresses the lower value of the franchise. The mnemonic frame of repatriation stresses continuity by preserving the past for future generations; it implies the contemporary value of the franchise through the franchise’s need for proactive perseveration. In this case, the press coverage of the JHC purchase creates a need for proactive preservation, rather than profit.

The Mnemonics of Commemoration

The unexpected death of the Muppets’ key creative figure, Jim Henson, produced an ongoing rupture for the franchise. Over the ten year period after his death, three mnemonic frames emerged from the analysis in the press coverage, which stress Henson’s continuing role

in the franchise despite his death: surrogation, resurrection, and veneration. Each features a

commemoration of Henson, while using the Muppet characters in different ways. Surrogation

uses the Muppets to mark the liminality created by Henson’s death. Resurrection uses the

Muppets to build continuity by performing in new productions. Lastly, the Muppets are

preserved and displayed to become monuments to Henson’s achievements through veneration.

The mnemonic frame of surrogation builds continuity by replacing what was lost, but the

replacement still marks the rupture caused by loss. The mnemonic frame of surrogation marks a

liminal time period in which a loss is both filled and remains. Kermit the Frog and other

Muppets are used as surrogates for Henson. Kermit’s presence marks Henson’s continuity,

while Kermit’s silence marks Henson’s absence. Within this frame, several framing devices

stress Henson’s ongoing value—presenting Henson’s contribution as the foundation for its

productions and profitability. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 250

The mnemonic frame of resurrection offers a different form of continuity as the Muppet characters no longer represent Henson, but become a vehicle for his continuation. Resurrection differs from surrogation as it stresses the reintegration of a new social norm. This reintergration is stressed by Kermit’s reappearance with his voice in new productions. Through resurrection,

Henson’s continuity is a form of ongoing commemoration, as the Muppets are treated as a living memorial to Henson.

The mnemonic frame of veneration builds continuity by interpreting and representing the past. It stresses the notion of ancestors and origins; both of which set out that the past is preserved in the evolution to the present. This mnemonic frame appears in the press coverage of museum exhibits focussed on Jim Henson, particularly his artistic or technical contributions.

The coverage of these exhibitions positions Henson’s work as the origins for later puppetry or animatronics. The Muppet characters still play a key role in Henson’s presence; however, they are not performers, but objects to be preserved and interpreted.

The Mnemonics of Restoration

Waning franchise popularity creates another series of ruptures to which the press coverage evokes mnemonic frames to offer a sense of continuity. During the 30 year period time covered, three moments respond attempts to restore the franchise to its past popularity: the

Muppets first film post-Henson (The Muppet Christmas Carol); the release of the new Muppet film and TV show (Muppet Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight); and the celebration of

Kermit’s fiftieth birthday. Continuity is built during these ruptures through the mnemonic

frames of reconstruction, revival, and renaissance. The frames construct continuity with past successes by attempting to re-create the past, to create what was not possible in the past and to offer access to the past. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 251

The mnemonic frame of reconstruction stresses continuity by repeating the past for a new generation. It asserts current popularity by evoking its past popularity. In the case of the press coverage of The Muppet Christmas Carol, the mnemonic frame of reconstruction is evoked when film critics stress the return of a Muppet mentality to the film. At the same time, other reviewers stress discontinuity by implying that the film is not connected with earlier productions. The mnemonic frame of reconstruction suggests a return to the past with little change, stressing a repetition of the past rather than evolution from it.

The mnemonic frame of revival aims to innovate or to improve promoting the past rather than repeating it. As such, continuity is constructed as a return to past practices rather than a full repetition of the past. This frame stresses the creation of the new that was not possible in the past. In the case of the Muppet franchise, practices that are reused from the franchise’s previous business strategies, including promotion and licensing agreements, the use of new technology and innovation, and references to contemporary culture. As a result, the mnemonic frame builds continuity, by increasing the franchise’s profitability and return to past business practices, rather than appealing to past content.

The mnemonic frame of renaissance stresses the current value of older content by increasing accessibility to it, rather than reconstructing past products. The mnemonic frame of renaissance builds continuity by reengaging with the past that was not available before.

Therefore, it transforms the experience of the past. In the case of the Muppet franchise, this notion of progress is underscored by web content and DVD formats. The mnemonic frame of renaissance builds a sense of progress by releasing older content alongside new productions.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 252

The Mnemonics of Recirculation

The first nine mnemonic frames are connected to ruptures, whether it be in ownership or popularity. The last three mnemonic frames emerge in response to the ongoing recirculation of franchise material: ritual, memento, and tradition. In particular, these frames emerge as the recirculation of the franchise’s productions prompt reviewers to reflect on their past recollections of the Muppet franchise.

The mnemonic frame of ritual highlights continuity from habitual engagement with the

past and ongoing accessibility with the past. It emerges during the press coverage of the

syndication. The daily syndication of The Muppet Show, decades after the show’s first-run ended, ensures the viewers continued access to it. During the syndication coverage, the press stresses the show’s continuing appeal to family or intergenerational viewing audiences.

Rather than an individual form of habitual remembrance, the mnemonic frame of memento focusses on a more commemorative form of remembrance. The mnemonic frame of memento stresses an individual’s ownership of material culture, which shows its age. The frame of memento occurs when The Muppet Show changes when the franchise products are released on

VHS and DVD. The press coverage stresses anniversary celebrations and the franchise owner’s explicit desire to appeal to audience nostalgia. At this point, the continual availability of the television program stresses a material form of engagement allowing audiences to own the show.

Another mnemonic frame that builds continuity through recirculation is the frame of

tradition. The mnemonic frame of tradition presents the continuity through cyclical recreation.

The examination of the Muppet franchise’s Christmas productions demonstrates how holiday

productions ensure the ongoing availability of the franchise through a series of new productions.

The press coverage of the holiday productions speculates on the future interest in these REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 253 productions, through a comparison to older holiday productions. Cumulatively, this approach stresses sentimental nostalgia for the earlier Christmas productions replaced by the new productions. As a result the press coverage evokes the frame of tradition, in which continuity is a product of cyclical recreation.

Relationship of Mnemonic Frames to Sites of Memory

Using Nora’s (1989) concept outside a nationalist context, acts of remembrance and the role of the mnemonic associations can be understood to relate to popular culture, and increasingly to corporately owned properties. This examination allows for a new set of institutions and stakeholders to negotiate the meaning of the past. The social impact of the site of memory mirrors the expanding cultural nicheification. The consideration of popular commercial culture as a site of memory also implies that what is valued as a material tied to the past has shifted with the increasing mediation of memory (Van Dijck, 2007). As such, this shift requires memory scholars to engage with popular culture beyond materials that represent key historical events. In particular, it requires memory studies to address popular franchise properties as objects of remembrance rather than to focus on popular culture’s representation of historical events. It also calls for scholars of media history to engage with the ongoing circulation of television, film and merchandise, to augment existing histories and studies that focus on first-run circulation of productions.

Will to Remember the Muppets

Nora (1989) highlights that there needs to be a will to remember, rather than a passive association with, the past. This notion of will is often discussed in terms of the organization or explicit construction of a site. He notes that the will to remember separates sites from others, as the will to remember is often what makes the object worthy of memory, rather than a certain REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 254 reality or historical verifiability. The will to remember, he stresses, is a fundamental element of all sites of memory. All sites of memory are constructions, often a series of different constructions over time. Nora’s understanding of sites of memory reflects this emphasis on conscious commemoration. As such, sites of memory are hybrid places where continuity is equally as important as rupture. All the mnemonic frames, apparent in the press coverage, engage the Muppet franchise as a symbolic fixture because of its continual accessibility and value to present-day audiences. As Nora (1989) asserts, all rituals reflect a sense of rupture or

sign of pastness, while asserting continuity. The press coverage demonstrates how the Muppet

franchise could be considered a loci of memory or memory trace, open to a condensed series of

multiple meanings (Nora, 2006).

The Muppets can be considered a site of memory as both corporate stakeholders and

production personnel participate, discuss, and assert the Muppet franchise as important for the

future. At the same time, they actively recall the Muppets reflecting on different decades,

different technologies, and different generations. Similarly, the press coverage features

reviewers and reporters discussing their memories of Muppet productions, their reactions to

Henson’s death, and their childhood associations with the Muppets. These two groups’ will to

remember demonstrates possible interactions for readers to engage with the franchise as a site of

memory. Through the will to remember, the franchise has the qualities and uses of the site of

memory. The memory trace offers, Nora (2006) argues, “the trace of distance and mediation of

continuity” between the past and the present (p. 2).

Muppet Materiality

The materiality of a site of memory refers to a site’s ability to offer concrete sensual

experiences. The term, sites of memory, an English translation of les lieux de mémoire, evokes REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 255 notions of locations or physical landmarks. However, Nora’s (2006) work includes ideas, concepts, and figures. Nora does not require a site to be physically present, but to be tied to an embodied experience through associations with materiality. As material, sites offer pleasure,

giving a sense of the recovery of the lost. This materiality comes through reconstituted and reproduced aspects of the site. In Winock’s (1992) chapter on Joan of Arc, statues, stories, and pictures of Joan of Arc provide the embodied experiences associated with a site of memory.

Regardless of their physical status, Nora (1996) explicitly notes ephemeral ideas can be sites of

memory, because they are tied to embodied experiences, such as rituals. Nora, in the

introduction to the first English volume of Realms of Memory (1996), highlights that sites of memory require a material presence beyond an association with the past. He argues that the materiality of the site should not limit its portability. The Muppet franchise is able to offer embodied experiences in several ways throughout the 30 years addressed in this study.

The Muppet franchise includes several material objects with which to associate remembrance. The expanse of merchandise produced over 30 years includes toys, clothing, and household goods. In addition, Muppet LPs, VHS tapes, DVDs, along with books and comics offer a second layer of engagement with the Muppets. In museums, the franchise’s characters are presented and allow for interaction. Particularly, review of exhibits at children’s museums encourage patrons to touch and manipulate the Muppet characters. The Muppet franchise’s productions offer another series of embodiments. These embodied experiences include the ritual viewing of the TV show during its first-run and second-run syndication. They also include the experience of watching theatrical releases, offering an embodied memory of the franchise not exclusively tied to remembrance. While the ability to offer embodied experiences is one aspect of Nora’s sites of memory, it is the presentation of these experiences as part of “the warmth of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 256 tradition” which more strongly suggests the franchise’s potential use as a site of memory (Nora,

1989, p. 7).

The warmth of tradition describes society’s desire to transform the past into the present, to construct “the illusion of eternity” (Nora, 1989, p. 12). Thus, the warmth of tradition defines the embodied experience offered by the materiality of the site of memory as momentary affect, or sentimentality, despite its constructed nature. This warmth of tradition reflects society’s need, according to Nora, for a tangible engagement with the past, as true experiences are no longer available. The warmth of tradition is the aspect created by the presentation of the past and its significance for the present. Nora posits that true memory is associated with rituals that no longer exist. A site of memory should offer an experience, though constructed, that engages with a memory trace.

The mnemonic frames produced from the frame analysis of the press coverage of the

Muppets highlight the potential for embodied experiences with the franchise. The press coverage connects the material forms of the franchise with the past’s role in the present through the mnemonic frames: repatriation, veneration, renaissance, and memento. These mnemonic frames use the franchise as a memory trace in which a tangible engagement with the past is possible. The Muppet franchise is featured in the discussions of the EM.TV sale of the franchise and the eventual Disney purchase, in the frame of repatriation. The mnemonic frame of repatriation features the value of the franchise as supported by the audience’s past affective association with the site. The press coverage discusses the waning value of the franchise and its potential for nostalgia. Similarly, the mnemonic frame of veneration builds on Henson’s persona by offering objects and places for pilgrimages of remembrance. Press coverage of traveling and permanent museum exhibitions offer Henson as a figure tied to the origins: of television, of REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 257 puppetry, or of technology. The museum spaces are discussed in the press coverage as offering remembrance, particularly when discussing their appeal to adults. The mnemonic frame of renaissance also emphasizes the Muppets franchise as a reconstruction or recovery of the past, augmented and improved through technology and progress. This frame describes the evolution

and transformation of the Muppets, while using their earlier connection to the past. The press

coverage includes the increased availability of Muppet merchandise and productions. It

highlights the franchise’s changes, as well as reviewers’ sentimental attachment to past

productions. Lastly, the mnemonic frame of memento emphasizes the role of the personal ownership of Muppet productions. As a memento, the Muppet franchise is treated as an exteriorization of memory, which serves as a cherished recollection. The press coverage draws

attention to the VHS and DVD releases of The Muppet Show as a link to television history, and

to reviewers’ own remembrances of the program, both of which supports the franchise as a stable

tie to the past.

Symbolic Puppets

Because Nora proposes that sites of memory are concentrations of meaning, they need to

be open to a wide range of symbolic values. Nora notes that gaps in signification create

opportunities for new symbolic arrangements. Nora (1989) comments that the symbolic function

of les lieux de mémoire is encompassed in susceptibility “to abstract . . . elaboration” (p. 18).

This means that the site must be open to characterization or ritual meaning. Nora asserts that the

symbolic function of sites of memory is often a product of several past associations. Nora’s

example of the Tour de France, a textbook, gained its first meaning through its use in the

classroom. It then, as a historical marker, is tied to both nostalgia and a sense of national

identity. These associations become the basis for later remembrance activities. Nora asserts that REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 258 sites of memory are invested with a symbol or mark of their pastness to provide a division of time. As symbolic sites of memory, the Muppet franchise needs to be open to the construction of different meanings and set up for signification. To facilitate the association with symbolic meaning, long-term access to the franchise is needed. However, the franchise also changes to respond to the present’s discontinuity. This is then combined with the franchise’s signs of age to offer a reflection of the division of time. The Muppet franchise is open to symbolic use because its meaning is not complete. The franchise is open to a range of symbolic meanings after the death of Jim Henson, which leaves a void. Similarly, its age and lost productions are new opportunities for symbolic meaning. Changes in staff and ownership also signal discontinuity to which new symbolic associations can be added.

The longevity of the Muppet franchise, as well as, the recirculation of past productions facilitates its symbolic function. Like Nora’s (1989) example of the Tour de France or Joan of

Arc, the symbolic meaning of the Muppet franchise changes over time, but is rooted in its origins. The association between the Muppets’ popularity and their later nostalgic adult audience suggests that the Muppet franchise is associated with childhood experience. In addition, the scale of the early popularity of the Muppets supports its potential symbolic meaning. The

Muppet Show and The Muppet Movie releases at the peak of the franchise’s popularity set up the first reception, like the Tour de France book’s use in classrooms. The scale of the Muppets original popularity supports its later treatments, because several of these early associations reflect a sense of origin on which later symbolic meaning is built. The association of The

Muppet Show with family viewing and children reflects Nora’s discussion of tracing individual and cultural origins. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 259

The association of the Muppets and childhood ties the Muppet franchise to the origins of a generation. As Nora (1989) outlines, a site of memory is often tied to symbolic use, often evoking a traceable origin or restoration of inception. The Muppet franchise, appealing to a family audience, as discussed in the trade press, reflects both a division of time and a continuation from origin to present. It reflects a division of time through asset loss, like

Henson’s death becoming the end of childhood. It builds continuity as it proliferates, expands, and continues. The Muppet franchise is open to symbolic use of the site of memory, since the characters become separated from the people who perform them. These unchanging characters and their images are used in a variety of contexts. The identity of the characters and possibly their familiarity facilitates their use as a reference or repository of the past. As a familiar icon, the Muppet franchise becomes open to multiple meanings, while condensing remembrance.

While the openness of the sites of memory’s symbolic meaning is important, Nora (1989) highlights this openness is only important in understanding how sites of memory are used to provide “the silence of custom” (p. 2). Sites of memory may be open to different meanings constructed or manifested by symbolic association. Nora notes that sites of memory are the products of constructed symbolic meaning. They are artificial. Sites of memory are representations both of consistent traditions of meaning that close in on itself, while “open to the full range of its possible signification” (Nora, 1989, p. 24). In other words, sites of memory are given symbolic meaning through introspection. Nora argues sites of memory condense meaning through their use as objects where time is frozen, forgetting is over, and continuity is constructed. The Muppet franchise is framed as “the silence of custom” since the Muppets are presented as a place where the present and the past exist simultaneously (Nora, 1996, p. vii). REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 260

The mnemonic frames are used to address the franchise’s symbolic functions, condensing its meaning. In particular, the mnemonic frames of legacy, surrogation, revival, and ritual, all present the Muppet franchise as a source of continuity between past and present. These frames

are used to construct stability, reaffirming the franchise’s tradition (past) and expanding its

openness for new meaning (present). They respond to instability or loss of the past by

concentrating more meaning into what remains. It is through the press coverage’s discussion of

the franchise that its symbolic function is expressed. It is the press coverage that demonstrates

how the franchise can express the “silence of custom” (Nora, 1989, p. 2). In addition, the press

coverage reflects possible forms of continuity that the franchise can offer. Both WDC and Jim

Henson’s heirs use the concept of legacy to legitimize their claims to franchise. Further, the

press coverage of their claims notes the rupture of Henson’s death while ensuring the franchise’s

continuation into the present. Similarly, the surrogation of Kermit the Frog as an effigy for the

departed Henson marked both the rupture of the events, while ensuring the perpetuation of the

past through the characters. The use of the mnemonic frame of revival ties the franchise’s

success in the early 1990s to its previous popularity in the 1970s. This frame associates new

productions to a sensibility of the past, in particular, as a form of continuity between Henson and

post-Henson productions.

The mnemonic frame of ritual is different from other mnemonic frames that suggest the

Muppet franchise is a symbolic referent of the past and present. The mnemonic of ritual focusses more so on the habitual aspects of custom. As such, it builds association through continual availability, by means of syndication. In this way, the press coverage of the ongoing audience for The Muppet Show reruns highlights the audience’s assumed interest in older programming as a sign of the franchise’s relevance to past and current audiences. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 261

Functional Franchises

The last quality of sites of memory, which Nora (1996) refers to as the functionality of the site, is that they be open to multiple meanings. A site is functional because it has the flexibility to move to new context and give new meaning. In fact, Nora suggests the functionality of sites of memory can be tied to their divorce from realism or reality. Sites of memory do not need to be real, but need to be malleable and persistent. Sites of memory are often recycled and reflect their changing function in society. Lastly, Nora outlines that sites of memory should have the ability to stop time. By this, Nora (1989) suggests that sites of memory have an immortal quality through their capacity to metamorphose, responding to the context of

the present. Nora (1989) outlines that site of memory requires the “recycling of meaning” (p.

19). Because the Muppet characters are fictional references, their new productions can reflect

both past Muppet style, while also denoting the present context of their production. In this way,

the ongoing circulation of Muppet material along with new productions facilitates the persistence

of the site and its symbolic function.

While the Muppet franchise has functionality, it is more important that it be treated as

“the repetition of the ancestral” (Nora, 1989, p. 7). By this phrase, Nora points out that shifting meaning or endurance does not necessarily ensure a site of memory because its functionality is tied to its treatment, particularly the way in which the site is recycled and invested with different signification over time. Through the press coverage, the Muppet franchise is presented as a repetition of the ancestral as their coverage frames the franchise within the mnemonic frames of homecoming, resurrection, revival, and tradition. Each of these frames highlights the variety of actions and practices that can be performed at the site. These frames illustrate how the Muppets REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 262 can be used to reflect unforeseen new meanings, while remaining tied to older meanings. They also demonstrate how the Muppets are a trace of the past, which is nonexistent or an illusion.

Through the mnemonic frame of homecoming, WDC and Henson’s heirs assert the future

value of the franchise, by reflecting on its past appeal. The frame offers the illusion of future value, which is continuous with the present, while the present is a continuation of the past. The mnemonic frame of resurrection, which offers the illusion of Henson’s continuity, dispels the loss caused by his death. Through the frame of resurrection, the Muppets are presented as a repository for memories of Henson, previous productions, and childhood. Similarly, the mnemonic frame of revival presents the increasing popularity of the Muppets in reference to their previous popularity. It also features discussion about change, which are presented as representations of new audiences. The frame serves to offer the illusion that the renewed

popularity of the Muppets is both a repetition of the past, while also an exploration of new

meanings and ideas. Through the framing of the franchise as tradition, the press coverage

highlights the franchise’s ability to repeat older conventions (particularly those of Christmas

specials), while reflecting the contemporary context of productions. The franchise can be as both

an object of the present and the past. In other words, the franchise can be a potential site of

memory.

Through these qualities, the franchise is open for activities around which a site of

memory can anchor, condense and express the capital of collective memory. Nora (1989) frames

his discussion of memory and history in the notion of an increased expansion of the individual’s

responsibility to construct and maintain memory, as a result of modernity. Nora (1989) outlines that everyone can be a historian creating their own archives of “their buried pasts” (p. 15). As individuals become the collectors and selectors of memory, the assumption that these memories REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 263 are tied to nationalism or traumas, the topics which dominate literature, is no longer accurate. In

particular, Nora’s observation about the increasing nicheification of the society, echoes

contemporary discussions of the media audiences. If audiences are able to collect and select the

programs and meaning they want to follow, they may also choose to own and treat these shows

and franchises as part of their personal archive. Where the personal archive becomes the site of

memory, the realms of the past are constructed by corporate owners, staff, and reviewers, who

encourage or support these practices. Thus, the franchise becomes tied to the commemorative

vigilance of the individual in society.

Limitations of Study

This study outlines 12 mnemonic frames that emerge from the frame analysis of the

Muppet franchise’s press coverage, but these frames are not unique to the Muppet franchise.

The mnemonic frames are cultural resources for remembrance and could be used to build continuity in other contexts around other sites of memory. Like all projects, this study is subject to limitations. In particular, these limitations are tied to the study’s scope and data analysis method. While these limitations reduce the generalizability of the study’s conclusions, these limitations are tied to decisions which produce important insights which form its contributions to the literature on media franchises.

Limitations of Single Case Study

This study’s generalizability is limited by its focus on a single case study. Only examining the Muppet franchise limits the claims that can be made about the remembrance potential of other media franchises as a site of memory or mnemonic resource. It is possible that the Muppet franchise is the sole franchise to be framed this way in its trade and popular press coverage. Comments from other scholars’ examination of franchises imply that this is unlikely. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 264

Geraghty (2008) and Johnson (2013) consider the reception of Transformers movies with regard to nostalgia, including reviewers’ remembrance of the original cartoon. The choice to study a

single case study made it feasible to conduct a longitudinal examination of the Muppet franchise.

This approach ensures that the mnemonic function of a franchise is not a single event, but part of

the process. The longitudinal study ensures that claims about the mnemonic framing of the

Muppet franchise are ongoing, not momentary.

Limitation from Choice of Data

Another limitation of the study is the type of data used in the frame analysis, trade and

popular press. By examining the framing of the Muppet franchise in the trade and popular press,

this study is unable to speak about the actual remembrance of individuals, beyond those of

reviewers and critics. The scope of trade and popular press represents mainly American-based

sources. Further, the popular press survey only represents a selection of American major city

papers and press clipping from the JHC archive. This further limits the generalizability of

findings.

Despite these limitations, the use of press coverage allows for the study of shifts in

mnemonic framing, which would not be possible by asking individuals about their remembrance

practices. Individual remembrance continually represents the current context of the present,

providing only one point of reflection of the franchise. For example, it would not be possible to

engage individual remembrances of the Muppets before Henson’s death, as that event now

impacts their recollection of the past. Similarly, the use of other resources, such as fan sites,

would only represent a small group remembrance of the franchise—documenting a group who

are highly invested in a form of Muppet remembrance.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 265

Implications of Study

Through the frame analysis of the press coverage of the Muppet franchise over a thirty-

year period, continuity is constructed—despite ruptures—articulated through the use of various

mnemonic frames. These mnemonic frames reflect subtle changes in the franchise context—

while addressing similar ruptures of ownership, death, and popularity. These frames also stress

the role of ongoing availability of franchise content. On their own, these mnemonic frames may

seem simple. When approached as a whole, they reveal that the press coverage models using the

Muppets as a mnemonic resource. Further, these frames reflect Nora’s (1989) site of memory, in which productions are used to offer a connection the past. The mnemonic frames suggest that the press coverage models the Muppets franchise as a site of memory. This presentation of the

Muppets is not momentary, but ongoing and more prominent after the peak of Muppet popularity. Therefore, the Muppet franchise, through press coverage, becomes a resource for the shared sense of past.

The Muppets franchise’s framing in the press as a site of memory has implications for the study of the Muppets and media franchises. Despite the limitations to this study’s generalizability, its key findings impact approaches to studying media franchises and the

Muppets. This study offers the first longitudinal scholarly study of the Muppets; further, it is one of the few to address Muppet reception rather than readings of Muppet productions. As such, it

offers insights into the reception in the press of key Muppet productions, as well as, how this

reception shifted over time. By considering the Muppet franchise and not just a selection of

Muppet productions, the study addresses promotion and popular reception, as discussed in the

press coverage. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 266

Further, this study argues the value of a memory studies approach to media franchises, particularly how this approach can be used to supplement the current literature on media

franchises. Notably, it implies other causes for the longevity of these cultural productions

beyond industrial practices. When applying this study’s insights into media franchise potential

as a mnemonic resource to the field of media studies, new insights into the remake and pre-sold models of production examined by scholars of production culture can be formed. The framing of the Muppet franchise in the press suggests that media franchises’ longevity is also a product of society’s need for continuity—offering an ongoing way to bring the past into the present.

Contribution to the Study of the Muppets

This study contributes in three specific ways to the current scholarly and non-scholarly literature on the Muppets: by examining the Muppet over a 30 year period, by focussing on press coverage and Muppet reception; and by using the term franchise. The current literature that examines the history of the Muppet franchise is non-scholarly. Furthermore, non-scholarly works, such as Christopher Finch (1993) and Brian Jones (2013) focus on Henson’s career and creations. As a result, these works focus Henson’s production process over reception or critical review of the programs. In addition, these works also overlook the recirculation of franchise production, as well as franchise merchandise, as they stress Henson’s creativity over the

Muppets profitability.

This study’s systematic analysis of press coverage augments current scholarly literature on the Muppets. These studies selectively analyse productions and rarely incorporate press coverage or issues of reception (Davis, 1999; Denison, 2012). As such, the focus of the current literature is on issues of genre and adaption, within production (Napolitano, 2009; Stelle, 2009).

Further, the literature which discusses the Muppets’ presentation of social norms, assumes the REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 267 audience would share this interpretation. By examining the press coverage of the Muppets, rather than production, this study offers the first step in a historical reception study of the

Muppets. In this way, it suggests the value of future reception work on the Muppets, by highlighting how the franchise’s popularity, meaning, and target audience change over time. By

conducting a frame analysis, this study demonstrates the importance of systematic scholarship on

the Muppets. Systematic scholarship, in this case in the form of frame analysis, acknowledges the researcher’s biases and requires that all material which is engaged is given equal merit.

Most importantly, this study is the first to refer to the Muppets as a franchise. As such, it

not only addresses the reception of productions, but encompasses marketing and other ancillary

merchandise or production. As a franchise, a wider scope of interrelated materials is addressed,

providing a more comprehensive understanding of the circulation of Muppet characters.

Similarly, the consideration of the Muppets as a franchise challenges the bias in both the

scholarly and non-scholarly literature which describes the Muppets as a creative and non-

commercial series of characters. Only Leal (2009) has acknowledged the impact profitability has

had on shaping the continued use of the Muppets. Future studies should continue to use the term

franchise when discussing the Muppets as this term includes a wider range of cultural products,

which are interconnected. It would not be advisable to separate products from other productions.

This study’s focus on remembrance also augments the current scholarly literature on the

Muppets by offering further insights into its adaption of genres and its relationship to social

norms. While several scholars address the Muppets’ adaption of genre (Parmiter, 2009;

Underwood, 2009), this study suggests that the appeal of these practices could be linked to how

these adaptions offer a form of continuity. This adaption of genre draws on elements of the past,

but reads them through the social context of the present. Several studies argue that the Muppets REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 268 produce challenges to social norms (Dobin & Kidd, 2005; Kinder, 1991); however, this study suggests that elements of social critique can also be seen as a form of patina—a demarcation of the production’s age. Thus, the social norms function differently when viewed after the first run.

This study’s focus on the Muppets remembrance offer an alternative understanding for the facets previously discussed in the scholarly literature. Issues of adaptation or references to contemporary culture can be considered part of the franchise’s mnemonic function.

Future scholarly research on the Muppets could build on this study’s contribution to the literature by examining the international reception of the Muppets productions, particularly The

Muppet Show. While this study focusses on American reception and Denison (2009) outlines features of the British reception, further studies could examine global audiences. Further studies could also continue to examine the implication of branding on the franchise reception, particularly changes after Disney’s 2006 purchase.

Lastly, future research on the Muppets may want to examine the implication of the shifting target demographic for the productions. While not the focus of this study, the frame analysis demonstrates that the Muppets first aimed at an adult audience, then at a family audience, and in the early 1990s, a child audience. Yet with a nostalgic market, the target returns to an adult audience. Implications of the expected audience likely affect the content of productions. This could be a fruitful context for a textual analysis of production.

Contribution to Media Franchise

While media franchises are typically studied in the commercial context of their production, this study unpacks part of the social function of franchises. In particular, this study’s memory studies’ approach offers insight into the longevity of the franchise and more broadly the recirculation of media production. This study suggests that the transmedia storytelling and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 269 paratext features of franchise production also serve its potential mnemonic use. Studies of media franchises tend to stress the conditions of production and their commercial nature. Thus, the majority of scholars use a production culture approach to examine franchises. This approach stresses, the economic incentives for franchise continuation, overlooking why audiences continue to engage with the material. This may give the false sense that all franchises are financially viable. Thompson notes that there have been many franchise failures, as the pre-sold nature of franchises does not ensure an audience.

Current scholarship appears to imply that franchises continue because they are economically viable. While this may be true, it does not explain why audiences continue to engage with the material. It also does not offer an explanation for why franchises fail.

Thompson (2009) notes that the pre-sold major franchise productions do not guarantee audience success. She comments that several potential franchises have failed to launch, such as the best- selling children’s fiction novels A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004) and The Spiderwick

Chronicles (2008). She concludes that scholars need to examine both the successful and the failed franchises to fully understand phenomena.

This is the first longitudinal study of a media franchise’s reception in the press, offering insight into the social function of franchises. Its use of a memory studies framework to unpack the relationship between franchises and remembrance, is most often addressed as nostalgia in the media studies literature. This study highlights how the framing of the Muppets constructs a form of continuity between past and present. By using a longitudinal approach, this study demonstrates that the term media franchise is used to describe much older production practices, challenging the assumptions that media franchises are a relatively new phenomena. The integration and perpetuation of franchises has roots in serialization, adaptation, and REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 270 merchandizing. This earlier reuse and repurposing of content has only recently been discussed as franchise production. This study presents franchise-like perpetuation and circulation as part of a longer tradition. The term franchise may highlight the practices associated with enduring

cultural icons of the twenty-first century.

Memory scholars stress the need to recall the past as key to providing a sense of

continuity. This continuity is often tied to national emblems, heritage sites, and typically

historical connections; this study suggests it could also be tied to other enduring cultural forms—

media franchises. While more studies are needed, this function would suggest that it could be

fruitful to re-examine the recirculation of media content. If other franchises are similarly framed,

the continued audience appeal of franchise productions could be a function of remembrance.

This explanation would not contradict the commercial considerations of franchise productions, but also address the possible social function or reception of these productions. Some scholarship

has been done in the area of DVD releases in repackaging and how their repackaging impacts readings of the text (Kompare, 2004; Skopal, 2007). While this approach considers the impact of extra features, deleted scenes, and the collectible nature of the feature and it overlooks the increase of nostalgic marketing and its use to promote collection of various TV series and films.

This study finds that home consumption of media franchises functions as a potential souvenir, which evokes earlier viewing. By looking further into the social function of the recirculation of media products, further acts of remembrance may be found. Kompare (2013) and Spigel and

Jenkins (1991) both imply that reruns impact the recollection of the past; this study suggests that nostalgic marketing re-packs and offers access to products and aims at the ever increasingly younger nostalgic audience. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 271

As further research continues to examine the social implications of media franchises, the continuation of a memory studies focus is important because it offers explanations and approaches to the continued use of enduring cultural forms. Unlike adaptation and intertextuality, the focus of memory studies is on the implications of and conflicts amongst interpretations of the past. Memory studies is best suited to impact these complex competing acts of remembrance, as it considers different groups’ forms of remembrance and the arguments to legitimize their memory. In particular for franchises, it offers an approach that would acknowledge both the remembrance prompted by owners and those of the fan community, while conceding that each group has access to different powers or authority over the franchise.

Similarly, a memory studies approach stresses reception over readings of the programs. The

Muppet franchise’s potential as a site of memory does not come from its productions, but its use.

This focus on use suggests there is no inherent memory in any franchise. Through their

endurance, promotion, reception, franchise can be a site of memory or focal point of society’s

need for a past that builds continuity with the present.

Understanding franchises as a site of memory offers a reinterpretation of media studies’ approach to franchises focussed on their continuity. Studies which address transmedia

storytelling are examining how franchises demonstrate forms of continuity in their narrative

(Jenkins, 2006; Schauer, 2007). Considering media franchises’ potential as a site of memory, the

studying of transmedia storytelling in franchises could be considered a form of continuity

between products. While the literature does address the shifting content of reception, and an

implied assumed order of viewing, it does not address viewer’s varying level of familiarity with

the franchise. Often it focusses fans’ mastery over textual resources. A remembrance approach

suggests that a potential source of transmedia storytelling’s appeal would emerge from its REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 272 continuity. Like sites of memory, franchises’ transmedia storytelling builds on a series of productions. Similarity, intertextuality, and particularly paratexts, are approaches which can be revised if we consider franchises as resources for remembrance. Paratexts and the circulation of other material prompt reviewers to consider their past viewing. In particular, connections between productions create situations for reviewers to reflect on their past associations with the

franchise. The cycle of Muppet Christmas productions is a good example of this intertextuality

as a form of content.

Areas for Future Study

The findings of this study suggest several areas for future research. It proposes the value

of continuing to use a memory studies approach to the study of franchises and the reception of

other media content. A memory studies approach to franchise culture would be an important

alternative to fan studies that typically dominate the reception of franchise productions. As the

media studies broadens its types of audience to include non-fan audiences and anti-fan

audiences, scholars should also consider how remembrance is tied to texts and how it varies by

individual connection to texts.

While current scholarship on media franchises stress fan appropriation of material, it

would be interesting to compare fan use of franchises to other remembrance practices, such as

pilgrimages or memorials. Considering franchises as a memory resource would also prompt

scholars to consider a franchise’s role in intergenerational connection. Rather than looking at

personal appropriation of the franchise, franchise reception considers the ways in which older

material is reframed and interpreted for viewers, much like exhibits in museums. By considering

aspects of remembrance, fans’ relationships to the text could be considered as more than a taste REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 273 preference, but as a substitute for other cultural and social frameworks. Fan remembrance, like sites of memory, could be substitutes for daily person-based interactions with the past.

Similarly, an understanding of the shifts of the types of sites of memory could signal important changes. A move towards popular film and television franchises as a resource for remembrance could respond to the breakdown of national memory, Nora’s (1989) traditional sites of memory. Perhaps technology and increasing globalization sparks new sites of memory, which replace physical or national sites. Through a memory studies’ lens, franchise marketing could be studied to understand the ways in which corporations encourage viewers to use media franchises as an object for active remembrance. Further research could look at the ways in which corporations use paratexts as a form of nostalgia marketing. By considering the social impact of these approaches, media studies may be able to understand the intergenerational appeal of franchise productions and the way in which productions translates past familiarity into profitability.

The most pressing area for ongoing research into media franchise remembrance would be the IP implications of the private ownership of sites of memory. Other memory studies works on the legitimization of certain forms of remembrance and a power structures involved in contested remembrance (Olick, 1999; Sturken, 2007; Irwin-Zarecka, 1994). Alternative memories are the product of minority groups who contest the nationally held remembrance. In terms of franchise productions, Bowery (2011) presents the need for fan or viewer engagement with the text and questions of the ongoing control the productions. IP rights limit fan engagement and possibly damage their interest in franchises. Similarly, issues of memory contestation may exist within the memory of franchises, as IP laws and proper ownership could restrict counter-memory.

Further legitimate forms of remembrance, as determined by franchise owners could require REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 274 purchases and create uniformity of in remembrance activities, reducing the personal experience of the past. The use of franchise material would be controlled differently than traditional national symbols offering an interesting challenge to collective memory. Lastly, the study of franchise remembrance provides new insights into the commercialization of memory, bridging media studies focus on industrial practices and IP and memory studies’ interest in power structures that legitimize version of the past. Future research on the marketing of remembrance could continue to connect the two fields of the study.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 275

References

Oh this is nothing wait until you see the end credits. —The Great Muppet Caper (1981)

6. (2004, April). Spin. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

72 hours. (2001, June 22). The Los Angeles Times. www.latimes.com

Abate, M. A. (2009). Taking silliness seriously: Jim Henson’s The Muppet Show, the Anglo-

American tradition of nonsense and cultural critique. The Journal of Popular Culture,

43(4), 589-613. doi: 10.111/j.1540-5931.2009.00698.x

Activision and Sears developing Muppet promotion. (1996, September 9). New Media Week, 2.

Activison plans 1 million in marketing for Muppet game. (1996, January 7). Video Store, 50. Jim

Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Ames, K. (1979, July 2). Kermit and his gang. Newsweek, 94, 67.

Anderson, W. (1979, December). Denver Muppets/ Xmas. Stereo Records, 43, 100.

Andreeva, N. (2004, August 24). Ashanti is off to see Muppets in ABC's oz. The Hollywood

Reporter, 385. www.hollywoodreporter.com

Andrews, E. (2000, February 28). For EM.TV, a Muppet mission accomplished. The New York

Times, C13.

Andrews, N., & Quirke, A. (2012, February 18). Films on release, Financial Times,16.

Anniversary Muppet characters being crafted in New Zealand. (2002, July 11). Associated Press.

www.ap.org

Appleson, G. (1991, April 18). Henson family sues Disney over use of Muppet characters. The

Houston Chronicle, 2. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 276

Arar, Y. (1990, May 20). Entertaining thoughts they danced and beguiled the time away. The Los

Angeles Daily News, L21.

Arlow, J. (1979, April). It’s a Muppets’ world. Clipper, 44-47, 100-1. Jim Henson Company

Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Armstrong, K. (1990a, May 17 1990). Henson’s death leaves Muppet voice void. Associated

Press. www.ap.org

Armstrong, K. (1990b, May 21 1990). Thousands attend memorial for Muppet creator.

Associated Press. www.ap.org

Arnett, R. P. (2009). Casino Royale and franchise remix: James Bond as superhero. Film

Criticism, 33(3), 1-16.

Arnold, G. (1979, July 6). Muppet migration. The Washington Post. Jim Henson Company

Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Arnold, G. (1996, February 16). Muppet Treasure Island runs into some rough seas. The

Washington Post, C17.

Assmann, A. (2008). Transformations between history and memory. Social Research, 75(1), 49-

74.

Assmann, A. (2010a). The Holocaust—A global memory? In A. Assmann & S. Conrad (Eds.),

Memory in a global age: Discourses, practices and trajectories (pp. 97-118). London,

GBR: Palgrave MacMillian.

Assmann, A. (2010b). Re-framing memory. In K. Tilmans, F. V. Vree & J. Winter (Eds.),

Performing the past: Memory, history and identity in modern Europe (pp. 35-41).

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 277

Assmann, C., & Assmann, A. (2010). Neda—the career of a global icon. In A. Assmann & S.

Conrad (Eds.), Memory in a global age: Discourses, practices and trajectories (pp. 225-

242). London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillian.

Assmann, J. (2001). Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique, 65, 125-

133.

Assmann, J. (2002). Religion and cultural memory (R. Livingstone, Trans.). Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Assmann, J. (2003). Cultural memory: Script, recollection and political identity in early

civilizations. Historiography East and West, 1(2), 157-177.

Assmann, J. (2010). Globalization, universalism and the erosion of cultural memory. In A.

Assmann & S. Conrad (Eds.), Memory in a global age: Discourses, practices and

trajectories (pp. 121-137). London, GBR: Palgrave Macmillian.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans). Austin, TX:

The University of Texas Press.

Baltruschat, D. (2010). Global media ecologies: Networked production in film and television.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Bark, E. (1983, May 8). John Denver and the Muppets team for a second TV special. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Barnes, B. (2011, November 20). Wocka, wocka, wocka! Muppet antics resume, New York

Times, p. L10.

Bash, A. (1996, April 11). Human half of new Muppets host. USA Today, D3.

Bedford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview

and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 278

Begun, B. (2002, September 2). Muppet makeover. Newsweek, 13.

Bennett, R., & Pryor, P. (2003, May 13). Muppets find their way home. The Hollywood

Reporter, 378, 67.

Bennett, R., & Pryor, P. (2004, February 24). Disney pulls strings for the Muppets. The

Hollywood Reporter, 382, 52.

Bennett, T., & Woolacott, J. (1987). Bond and beyond: The political carrier of a superhero.

London, GBR: Routledge.

Berkowitz, D. (2011). Telling the unknown through the familiar: Collective memory as

journalistic device in a changing media environment. In M. Neiger, O. Meyers & E.

Zandberg (Eds.), On media memory: Collective memory in a new media age (pp. 201-

212). London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillian.

Bianculli, D. (1987, December 15 ). Holiday night. The New York Post. Jim Henson Company

Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Bianculli, D. (1990, November 21). Magical Muppet moments. The New York Post. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Biddle, F. M. (1989, August 29). Kermit and company enter a Mickey Mouse World. The Boston

Globe. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Big Bird at Henson funeral. (1990, May 22). The San Francisco Chronicle, A2.

Billboard bits: Muppets. (2005, November 23). Billboard. www.billboard.com

Black banned at service for Muppets creator. (1990, July 1). Associated Press. www.ap.org

Blake, D. (1991, April 30). Henson licenses Muppets to Disney for two park shows. Associated

Press. www.ap.org

Blake, R. A. (1979, July 28). Films/TV: Puppets and pugilists. America, 141, 36. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 279

Blau, E. (1990a, May 17). Jim Henson, puppeteer, dies: The Muppet’s creator was 53. The New

York Times, 139, A1.

Blau, E. (1990b, May 22). Henson is remembered as man with artistry, humanity and fun. The

New York Times, B11.

Bodnar, J. (2000). Pierre Nora, national memory, and democracy: A review. The Journal of

American History, 97(3), 951-963.

Bolton, G., & Muzurovic, N. (2010). Globalizing memory in a divided city: Bruce Lee in

Mostar. In A. Assmann & S. Conrad (Eds.), Memory in a global age: Discourses

practices and trajectories (pp. 181-198). London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillian.

Bourdon, J. (2003). Some sense of time: Remembering television. History and Memory, 13(2),

5-35.

Bowles, K. (2011). ‘Society with spectacles:’ Cultural memory, business risk and the revival of

3D. Media International, 139, 103-112.

Bowrey, K. (2011). The new intellectual property: Celebrity, fans and the properties of the

entertainment franchise. The Griffith Law Review, 22, 188-220.

Boyar, J. (1992, December 11). Muppet Christmas blends spirit of Dickens, Henson. The Las

Vegas Review Journal, D14.

Brockmeier, J. (2010). After the archive: Remapping memory. Culture and Psychology, 16(1), 5-

35. doi: 10.1177/1354067x09353212

Brooker, W. (2004). Alice’s adventures: Lewis Carroll in popular culture. New York, NY:

Continuum..

Brooker, W. (2005). Batman unmasked: Analyzing a cultural icon. New York, NY: Continuum.. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 280

Brown, J. (1979, December 5). John Denver and the Muppets... ABC reviewed. The Los Angeles

Times, IV21.

Brown, L. (1978a, January 8). The Muppet Show very much at home abroad, Thank you. The

New York Times, D29,37.

Brown, L. (1978b, February 9). The whole world love a Muppet—and that rates. The Chicago

Tribune, section 2, 12.

Buchan, J. (1989, August 19). Muppets join the fantasy world of Walt Disney. The Financial

Times, 19.

Burger, A. (2009). A rainbow for the 21st century: The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz and the

reimagination of the American myth. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit

culture: Critical perspective on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 103-115). Jefferson, NC:

McFarland and Company Inc.

The business of play. (2003, November 2003). Kidscreen. Jim Henson Company Archive,

Brooklyn, NY.

Caldwell, J. (2008). Production culture: Industrial reflexivity and critical practice in film and

television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Canby, V. (1979, June 22). The screen: Muppets Go To Hollywood. The New York Times, C19.

Cannadine, D. (Ed.). (2004). History and the media. New York City, NY: Palgrave MacMillian.

Carlton, B. (1991, December 16). Kermit the Frog lives on. The Oregonian, E6.

Carr, J. (1992, December 11). Christmas Carol: Middling Muppets. The Boston Globe, 53.

Celebrate 25 years of The Muppet Show magic. (2001, November 29). PR Newswire.

www.prnewswire.com

Chiu, T. (1991, May 13). Saved from extinction. People Weekly, 35, 94-96. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 281

Churmin, N. (1998, June 19). Muppet exhibit is Henson experience. The Dallas Morning News,

C1.

Cidoni, M. (2005, August 11). Beloved Kermit the Frog approaching 50. Associated Press.

www.ap.org

Clark, V. C. (1995, February). Kevin Clash principal muppeeter. Black Enterprise, 25, 95.

Coleman, J. (1979, June 8). Films: Static. New Statesmen, 97, 839.

Colker, D., & Viertel, J. (1979). On the set with the Muppets. Take One, 7, 17-19.

Collins, S. (2006, February 4). Kermit big leap back to green. The Los Angeles Times, E1,24.

Company News: Disney counterclaim in suit over Muppets. (1991, April 25). The New York

Times, 140, D4.

Confino, A. (1997). Collective memory and cultural history: Problems of method. American

Historical Review, 1386-1403.

Confino, A. (2008). Memory and the history of mentalities. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.),

Cultural memory studies (pp. 77-84). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press.

Conway, B. (2010). New directions in the sociology of collective memory and commemoration.

Sociology Compass, 5(7), 442-452. doi: 10.111/j.1751-9010.2010.000300

Cook, S. W. (1994, February 22). Jim Henson: The works tell of Muppeteer’s vigor. The Dallas

Morning News, C3.

Cornea, C. (2009). Showrunning the Doctor Who franchise: A response to Denise Mann. In V.

Mayer, M. Banks, & J. Caldwell (Eds.), Production studies: Cultural studies of the media

industries (pp. 115-122). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cox, D. (1995, December 11-17). Muppets make movies. Variety, 361, 60. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 282

Cox, J., & Lliles-Morris, S. (1989, August 29). Mickey buys the Muppets. USA Today, A1.

Cox, J.(1991, October 11). Modest Muppet display honor Henson’s youth. The Los Angeles

Daily News, L27.

Cox, T. (2002, November 29). Comeback kids (and frogs). The Chicago Herald, 31.

Creator’s death won’t slow use of Muppets by Disney. (1990, June 15). Associated Press.

www.ap.org

Cubbit, G. (2007). History and memory. Manchester, GBR: Manchester University Press.

Culhane, J. (1979, June 10). Muppets in movieland. The New York Times Magazine, section 6,

52-54, 58-72.

Culhane, J. (1990, November). Unforgettable Jim Henson. Reader's Digest, 137, 124-129.

D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to

Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-887.

Darratt, B. (1979, September). Screen: Miss Piggy. People Weekly, 12, 88-90.

Davenport, J. C. (1987, December 16). Holiday highlights. The Houston Chronicle. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Davies, B. (1992, September 26). Henson Records bow with new Muppet albums. Billboard,

104, 10.

Davis, H. H. (1999). A weirdo, a rat, and a humbug: The literary qualities of The Muppet

Christmas Carol. Studies in Popular Culture, 21(3), 95-105.

Davis, H. H. (2009). The Muppets and Shakespeare. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.),

Kermit culture: Critical perspective Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 81-91). Jefferson, NC:

McFarland and Company Inc. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 283

Davis, M. (2008). The street gang: The complete history of Sesame Street. New York, NY:

Viking.

Den Boer, P. (2010). Loci memoriae—Lieux de memoire. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.), A

companion to cultural memory studies (pp. 19-25). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Grutyer

Denison, R. (2009). British to a fang, British to a whisker: Reconsidering The Muppet Show’s

national identity. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical

perspective Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 154-169). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and

Company Inc.

Denny’s grand slam and Jim Henson’s Muppet Show. (2002, May 15). Business Wire.

www.businesswire.com

Denver, Muppets in holiday show. (1982, December 19). The Pasadena Citizen. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

DiOrio, C. (2002a, October 8). Muppets in waiting. Daily Variety, 4.

DiOrio, C. (2002b, December 5). Silent treatment. Daily Variety, 6.

DiOrio, C. (2002c, December 20). Muppet for Mouse? Daily Variety, 6, 33.

DiOrio, C. (2004, February 18). Muppets on Move. Daily Variety, 1, 38.

Diorio, C., & Meza, E. (2003, May 8). The Muppets: Reloaded. Daily Variety, 1, 19.

DiOrio, C., & Netherby, J. (2004, February 23). Disney has the Muppets in hand. Video

Business, 24, 5.

Disney buys Muppets. (1989, August 28). Reuters News. www.reuters.com

Disney calls Muppets lawsuit distortion. (1991, April 17). Reuters News. www.retuers.com

Disney deal for Muppet collapses. (1990, December 14). The San Francisco Chronicle, C1.

Disney to continue work on Jim Henson’s projects. (1990, May 17). The Wall Street Journal, B8. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 284

Dorbin, S., & Kidd, K. (2005). It’s not easy being green: Jim Henson, the Muppets, and

ecological literacy. In S. Dorbin & K. Kidd (Eds.), Wild things: Children’s culture and

ecocriticism (pp. 232-253). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Droesch, P. (1990, November). This week. TV Guide. www.tvguide.com

DVD and video. (2003, December 12). Entertainment Weekly, 64.

Ebert, R. (1979, August 17). The Muppets’ debut on the silver screen is pure magic. The

Chicago Sun-Times. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY

Ebiri, B. (2011, November 21). The touching nostalgia of the Muppets. New York [magazine].

Jim Henson Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Ellwood, D. W. (Ed.). (2000). The movies as history. Leeds, GBR: Sutton Publishing.

England honors Jim Henson in St. Paul’s memorial service. (1990, July 3). The San Francisco

Chronicle. Jim Henson Company Archives, Brooklyn, NY.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51-59.

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of

Communication, 57, 163-173.

Entman, R. M. (2010). Media framing biases and political power: Explaining slant in news of

campaign 20008. Journalism, 11, 3898-3408. doi: 101177/1464884910367587

Erll, A. (2008). Cultural memory studies: An introduction. In A. Erll (Ed.), A companion to

cultural memory studies (pp. 1-18). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Erll, A. (2010). Regional integration and (trans)cultural memory. Asia European Journal, 8, 305-

315. doi: 10.1007/s10308-010-0268-5

Erll, A. (2011). Memory in Culture. London, GBR: Palgrave Macmillan. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 285

Evans, N. J. (2010). Undoing the magic? DVD extras and the pleasure behind the scenes.

Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 24(4), 587-600.

doi:10.1080/10304312.2010.486472

Fenstemaker, H. (1990, February 4). Novelties for ‘90. The Chicago Sun-Times. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Finch, C. (1993). Jim Henson: The works. New York, NY: Random House.

Fink, M. (1996, December 9). Hugh Grant has been. People Weekly 46, 61.

Fisch, S. (2001). "G" is for growing: Thirty years of research on children and Sesame Street.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fischer, M., & Cox, A. (2009). The uniquely strong but feminine Miss Piggy. In J. C. Garlem &

A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspective on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp.

181-201). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Fisher, K. (1997). Locating frames in the discursive universe. Sociological Research Online,

2(3). www.socreonline.org.uk

Flander, J. (1977, October 31). With Muppets, adult TV looks like child’s play. The Washington

Star. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Flander, J. (1978). Miss Piggy and the Muppets go to market. The Washington Star. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Fleming, C., & Pendleton, J. (1991, April 22). Henson charges Disney with Muppet-mugging.

Daily Variety, 343, 3.

Flores, I. (1989, August 28). Walt Disney acquires Kermit, Miss Piggy , and other Muppets.

Associated Press. www.ap.org

Foreman, L. (2001, March 14). Kermit on the move. Daily Variety, 8. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 286

Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A., & Wiebe, E. (2011). History as social memory assets:

The example of Tim Hortons. Management and Organization History, 6(1), 101-120.

doi: 10.1177/1744935910387027

Frawley, J. (1979, July). Directing the Muppet Movie. American Cinematographer, 60, 672-675.

French, B. M. (2012). The semiotics of collective memories. Annual Review of Sociology, 41,

337-353.

Fretts, B. (1996, June 21). This week. Entertainment Weekly, 54.

Friday profile Brian Henson. (1992, December 11). The Los Angeles Daily News, I4.

Frit, B. (2005, July 11-17). Guess who’s pulling the strings. Variety, 7.

Frook, J. (1990, December 14). Henson firm and Disney fail to reach deal. The Los Angeles

Daily News. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Frosh, P. (2011). Television and the imagination of memory: Life on Mars. In M. Neiger, O.

Meyers & E. Zandberg (Eds.), On media memory: Collective memory in a new media age

(pp. 117-131). London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gagne, C. (1996, March). Muppet Treasure Island. Film Journal, 99, 108.

Garlen, J. C. (2009). Gonzo, (the Great) cultural critic. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Garham (Eds.),

Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 116-128). Jefferson,

NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Gates, A. (1995, December 25). Henson’s son builds on Muppet tradition. The New York Times,

53.

Gates, A. (2002, November 29). Television in review. The New York Times, E30.

Gedi, N., & Elam, Y. (1996). Collective memory—What is it? History and Memory, 8(1), 30-50. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 287

Gentile, G. (2004, November 17). Disney relaunches Muppet brand with website. Associated

Press. www.ap.org

Geraghty, L. (2008). Repacking generation one: Genre, fandom, and The transformers as

adult/children’s television. In L. Geraghty & M. Jancovich (Eds.), The shifting definition

of genre (pp. 181-200). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Gilbert, M. (1996, February 16). Muppet movie a low-tech treasure. The Boston Globe, 55.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA:

Northeastern University Press.

Going out guide. (1979, June 6). The New York Times. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn,

NY.

Goldfarb, J. (2002, December 19). Disney bid seen for Muppet maker. Reuters News.

www.reuters.com

Gongaware, T. B. (2010). Collective memory anchors: Collective identity and continuity in

social movements. Sociological Focus, 43(3), 214-239.

doi:10.1080/00380237.2010.10571377

Goodman, B. (2007, July 27). Retired Muppets will move to Atlanta. The New York Times, E1,

Gorp, B. V. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal

of Communication, 57, 60-78. doi: 10.111/j.1460-2466.2006.00329.x

Graham, A. M. (2009). The Muppet Show reforms the fringe. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham

(Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 54-70).

Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Graham, J. (1996, March 7). New host bows on Muppet Tonight. USA Today, D3. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 288

Gray, A. (2013). Televised remembering. In E. Keightley & M. Pickering (Eds.), Research

methods for memory studies (pp. 79-96). Edinburgh, SCT: Edinburgh University Press.

Gray, J. (2010). Show sold separately: Promos, spoilers and other media paratexts. New York,

NY: New York University Press.

Gritten, D. (1990, August 19). The next muppetmeister. The Los Angeles Times, C7,42.

Grossman, R., & Ogintz, E. (1990, May 18). Henson’s Muppet gives kids a friend for life. The

Chicago Tribune, section 5:1, 5.

Groznic, L. (2003, January 23). I appreciate the Muppets on a much deeper level that you. The

Onion. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Guarino, A. (1979, July 2). Muppet fans getting a musical film treat. The New York Daily News.

Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Gubnick, L. (1991, April 29). Did Mickey shaft Kermit. Forbes, 147, 44.

Haberkorn, G. (2009). The Muppet as a metaphor for the self. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Garham

(Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 25-40).

Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Halas, E. (2008). Issue of social memory and their challenges in the global age. Times and

Society, 17(1), 103-118. doi:10.1177/0961463X07086305

Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory (F. Ditter & V. Ditter, Trans.). New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Hanrahan, K. (2007, July 15). Kermit finds new pad down in the Delta. The Chicago Sun-Times,

C5. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 289

Harrigan. (1990, July). It’s not easy being blue. Life, 13, 92-98.

Hartl, J. (1979, July 4). The Muppet Movie out Disneys Disney. The London Times. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Haskins, E. (2003). Put your stamp on history: The USPS commemorative program Celebrate

the Century and post modern collective memory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(1), 1-

18.

Hayes, T. (1998, November 29). Muppet science on display. The Palm Beach Post, C9.

Hays, C. L. (1991a, April 18). Kermit the Frog in new role: Plaintiff. The New York Times, 140,

D29.

Hays, C. L. (1991b, May 1). Company news: Disney and Henson in Muppet settlement. The New

York Times, 140, D4.

Hebel, U. J. (2010). Sites of memory in U.S.-American histories and cultures. In A. Erll & A.

Nünning (Eds.), A companion to cultural memory studies (pp. 47-59). Berlin, Germany:

Walter De Grutyer.

Heffley, L. (1990a, May 17). The man who gave soul to the Muppets. The Los Angeles Times,

F1,9.

Heffley, L. (1990b, June 21). Ernie isn’t retiring. The Los Angeles Times, 49.

Henderson, P. (2003, May 15). Feature: Henson family writes surprise end to Muppet caper.

Reuters News.

Henson and Disney agree to license Muppet attraction in Florida. (1991, April 30). PR

Newswire. www.prnewswire.com

Henson and Turner complete 20M deal. (1988, April 29). MiP-TV’88, 1, 19. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 290

Henson assoc. sues Disney. (1991, April 17). PR Newswire. www.prnewswire.com

Henson fans make funeral a sunny day. (1990, May 22). The Chicago Sun-Times, 3.

Henson taught kids learning can be fun. (1990, May 18). The Chicago Sun-Times, 31.

Henson to sell out to Disney. (1989, August 18). Broadcast. Jim Henson Company Archive,

Brooklyn, NY

Hersh, A. (1991, August 3). Jim Henson foundation nurtures art of puppetry. Backstage, 3.

Hill, M. (2002). Fan cultures. London, GBR: Routledge.

Hodges, A. (1990, May 17). Sesame Street monument to Jim Henson’s talent, vision. The

Houston Chronicle, section 2, 6.

Hodges, A. (1996, March 7). Muppets Tonight has a grown-up sense of humor. The Houston

Chronicle, section 2, 1.

Hodges, A. (2002, November 28). Merry Muppets/ Creature borrow from classic for NBC

holiday special. The Houston Chronicle, 12.

Hogan, S. (2007, December 15). Muppet master: Jim Henson’s world travel to Mesa. The

Tribune. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Holden, S. (1996, February 16). Those Muppet puppets as wacky swashbucklers. The New York

Times, C3.

Holden, S. (2011, November 23). Getting the gang together again, The New York Times, C.1.

Holston, N. (1990, May 17). First Kermit was hand in green sock. The Star-Tribune Newspaper

of the Twin Cities, E1.

Hood, J. (2002, March 11). Muppets perform for new audience. PR week, 19.

Horwitz, J. (1996, February 22). All hands on deck for Kermit and crew. The Washington Post,

C7. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 291

Hoskins, A. (2001). Anachronism of media, anachronisms of memory: From collective memory

to a new memory ecology. In M. Neiger, O. Meyers & E. Zandberg (Eds.), On media

memory: Collective memory in a new media age (pp. 278-288). London, GBR: Palgrave

MacMillian.

Hot properties. (2002, January). Earnshaw’s Infants, Girls and Boyswear Review. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

How did they know. (1995, December 28). Atlantic City Press. Jim Henson Company Archive,

Brooklyn, NY.

Howe, D. (1992, December 11). Muppet Christmas only moderately merry. The Washington

Post, N49.

Hume, J., & Arcenaux, N. (2008). Public memory, cultural legacy, and press coverage of the

Juneteenth revival. Journalism History, 34(3), 155-162.

Huyssen, A. (1995). Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. London, GBR:

Routledge.

Impostor in the ranks. (1976, August 14). TV Guide. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn,

NY.

Irwin-Zarecka, I. I. (1994). Frames of remembrance: The dynamics of collective memory. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Iyengar, S. (2005). Speaking of values: The framing of American politics. The Forum, 3(3), 1-8.

doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1093

James, N. (1996, June). Muppet Treasure Island. Sight and Sound, 6, 47-48.

Jedlowski, P. (2001). Memory and sociology: Themes and issues. Times and Society, 10(1), 29-

44. doi:10.1177/0961463X01010001002 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 292

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY:

New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. & Tulloch, J. (1995) Science fiction audiences. London, GBR: Routledge.

Jim Henson interview. (1989, November). American Film, 15, 18-21.

Jim Henson creator of the Muppets is dead. (1990, May 19). The Economist, 51.

Jim Henson Productions and Disney sign world wide video distribution deal. (1991, December

18). Business Wire. www.businesswire.com

John Denver TV special. (1979, March 8). The New York Times, section 3, 20.

Johnson, D. (2009a). Franchise histories: Marvel, X-Men, and the negotiated process of

expansion. In J. Staiger & S. Hake (Eds.), Convergence media history (pp. 14-23). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, D. (2009b). Franchising media worlds: Content network and collaborative production

of culture. [Doctoral Dissertation], University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI.

Johnson, D. (2011). Devaluing and revaluing seriality: The gendered discourses of media

franchising. Media, Culture, and Society, 33(7), 16. doi:10.1177/0163443711415747

Johnson, D. (2012). Cinematic destiny: Marvel studios and the trade stories of industrial

convergence. Cinema Journal, 52(1), 24. doi:10.1353/cj.2012.0108

Johnson, D. (2013). Media franchising: Creative license. New York, NY: New York University

Press.

Johnson, H. (1990, May 18). Television at its finest. The Washington Post, A2.

Johnson, P. (1990, November 13). Kermit the frog will speak again. USA Today, D1.

Johnson, R. (1983). Popular memory: Theory, politics, method. In Making histories: Studies in

history-writing and politics. London, GBR: Hutchison. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 293

Johnson, S. (1996, January 24). Best bet. The Chicago Tribune. www.chicagotribune.com

Johnston, H. (1995a). A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schema. In

H. Johnson & B. Klanderman (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 217-245).

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Johnston, H. (1995b). Verification and proof in frame discourse analysis. In B. Klanderman & S.

Staggenbords (Eds.), Methods of social research (pp. 61-91). Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

Jones, B. (2013). Jim Henson: The biography. New York, NY: Ballentine Books.

Jouzaitis, C. (1990, May 17). Henson likely to live on at Disney. The Chicago Tribune, section 3,

1-2.

Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective

memory studies. History and Theory, 41, 179-197.

Kansteiner, W. (2004). Nazis, viewers and statistics: Television history, television audience

research and collective memory in West Germany. Journal of Contemporary History,

39(4), 575-598. doi:10.1177/0022009404046788

Karkabi, B. (1990, May 17). Jim Henson 1936-1990. The Houston Chronicle, section 2, 1.

Kauffman, S. (1979, July 21-28). Stanley Kauffman on films: Escapism. New Republic, 181, 26-

27.

Keane, M., & Moran, A. (2008). Television’s new engines. Television and New Media, 9(2),

155-169. doi:10.1177/1527476407313815

Kelleher, T. (2005, May 23). The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz. People Weekly, 63, 39.

Kempley, R. (1992, December 14). Bah humdrum. The Washington Post, B7. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 294

Kennedy, K. E. (2009). It’s time to get together for some sex and violence on The Muppet Show?

In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim

Henson’s Muppets (pp. 142-153). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Kermit leapfrog back in the show’s finale. (1990, November 20). USA Today, D8.

Kermit Mickey Mouse settle their difference. (1991, May 1). The San Francisco Chronicle, C1.

Kermit the Frog. (1989, Summer). People Weekly, 31, 58.

Kermit the Frog is America’s favorite Muppet. (2001, December 4). PR Newswire.

www.prnewswire.com

Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

King, D. (1992, December 11). The Muppet Christmas Carol. The Tulsa World, E2.

King, S. (2001, December 6 ). Family after 25 years celebrating all thing Muppet. The Los

Angeles Times, F39.

Kitch, C. (2008). Placing journalism inside memory—and memory studies. Memory Studies,

1(3), 311-320. doi:10.1177/175-698008092796

Kitch, C. (2011). Obamabilia and the Historic Moment: Institutional authority and “deeply

consequential” memory in keepsake journalism. In M. Neiger, O. Meyers & E. Zandberg

(Eds.), On media memory: Collective memory in a new media age (pp. 189-200).

London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillian.

Klein, J. (2005, August 12). Get things started. The Chicago Tribune, 7, A10.

Kluger, B. (2002). It’s A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie. Parenting, 17, 195.

Koenig, T. (2006). Compounding mixed-methods problems in frame analysis through

comparative research. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 61-76.

doi:10.1177/1468794106058874 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 295

Kompare, D. (2004). Rerun nation: How repeats invented American television. London, GBR:

Routledge.

Kronke, D. (1992, December 11). More Muppet mayhem would make a much better Carol. The

Los Angeles Daily News, L10.

Kronke, D. (2001, December 2 2001). Deeply felt. The Los Angeles Daily News, section L.A.

life, 3.

Küchler, S. (2012). Social memory in the age of knowledge. International Social Science

Journal, 62(203-204), 57-65.

Kuhn, A. (2002). Dreaming of Fred and Ginger: Cinema and cultural memory. New York, NY:

New York University Press.

Kuhn, A. (2010). Memory texts and memory work: Performances of memory in and with visual.

Memory Studies, 3(4), 298-313. doi:10.1177/1750698010370034

Landsberg, A. (2004). Prosthetic memory: The transformation of American remembrance in the

age of mass culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Laurence, R. (1989). Muppets cut the syrupy sweet. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Jim Henson

Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Laurent, L. (1978, August 27). The Muppet Show just keeps growing. The Washington Post,

section TV Channels, 7.

Le Goff, J. (1992). History and memory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Leal, A. (2009). Muppets and money. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture:

Critical approaches to Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 202-216). Jefferson, NC: McFarland

and Company Inc. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 296

Lee, P. (1989, August 29). Deal is a natural for Muppet maker. The Los Angeles Times, section

4: 1,5.

Legg, S. (2005). Contesting and surviving memory: Space, nation and nostalgia in Les Lieux de

Memoire. Environmental Planning D: Society and Space, 23, 481-504.

doi:10.1068/d0504

Lenius, P. N. (1996, April 1). Dole Muppets sail off for salads. Supermarket News, B23.

Lerman, L. (1995, December 11). On a treasure quest. Daily Variety, 361, 60.

Lessem, D. (1992). Return of the Muppets. Jim Henson Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Lev, M. (1990a, May 18). Henson’s death clouds Disney’s Muppet deal. The New York Times,

139, D1,5.

Lev, M. (1990b, May 18). Henson’s death muddies sale of Muppet company. The Houston

Chronicle, 2.

Levy, W. (1992, December 14). The Muppet Christmas Carol. Daily Variety, 349, 44.

Lewis, D. (2005, August 15-21). The Muppet Show: Season One. Variety, 37.

Lifeline. (1997, April 3). USA Today.www.usatoday.com

Lipsitz, G. (1990). Time passages: Collective memory and American popular culture.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Littau, K. (2011). Media, mythology and morphogenesis: Aliens. Convergence: The

International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(1), 19-36.

doi:10.1177/1354856510383360

Littleton, C. (2002, February 15). Holiday Muppets movie sealed with kiss at NBC. The

Hollywood Reporter, 4.

Llyod, R. (2005, May 20). Off to see the wizard. The Los Angeles Times, E2. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 297

Loewy, D. (1988, March). Inside the house that Henson built. Channels, 8, 52-53.

Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

MacMillian, K. (1992, October 7). Henson Muppet will visit museum. World-Herald. Jim

Henson Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY

Man behind the frog. (1978, December 25). Time, 112, 74.

Mandell, A. (1979, January 3). Creative and marketing talents wed in selling The Muppet Show.

Daily Variety, 293, 196.

Mankofsky, I. (1979, July 199). Through the rainbow with lens and camera. American

Cinematographer, 60, 668-671.

Mann, D. (2009). It’s not TV, It’s brand management TV: Collective author(s) of the Lost

franchise. In V. Mayer, M. Banks & J. Caldwell (Eds.), Production studies: Cultural

studies of the media industries (pp. 99-114). New York, NY: Routlege.

Marcel, J. C., & Mucchielli, L. (2010). Maurice Halbwachs's Memoire Collective. In A. Erll &

A. Nünning (Eds.), A companion to cultural memory studies (pp. 141-149). Berlin,

Germany: Walter de Grutyer.

Marlowe, C. (2005, June 24). Muppets move to center stage for Movies.com. The Hollywood

Reporter. www.hollywoodreporter.com

Marr, M. (2005a, May 19). Why Miss Piggy wore Prada. The Wall Street Journal, B1.

Marr, M. (2005b, May 20). Betting Kermit stays green. The Wall Street Journal, A4.

Martin, J. (1979, July 6). Muppets: A ragbag of idolatry. The Washington Post. Jim Henson

Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 298

Marvel, B. (1977, May 2). The adult kid’s shows. The National Observer. Jim Henson

Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Maryland’s Muppet mania. (1997, February 7). The Washington Post, N57.

Masters, K. (1990, June 13). Disney’s muppet miasma. The Washington Post, C1.

Maudlin, J. G. (2009). The Muppet Show as educational critique. In J. C. Garlen & A. M.

Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 170-

180). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

McBride, J. (1989, August 30- September 5). Heigh ho, Heigh ho: off to Disney Muppets go.

Variety, 336, 1.

McCarthy, A. J. (1987). Muppet of his mind. DTAL television. Jim Henson Productions Archive,

Brooklyn, NY

McCoy, A. (1995, March 10). The Muppet man The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2.

McIntrire, S. L. (1997, April 6). Kermit returns to birthplace. The Delta Democrat-Times.

McKinley Jr., J. (1995a, July 26). Hormel sues over a boarish film Muppet. The New York Times,

B2.

McKinley Jr., J. (1995b, July 30). Spa\am, a boar (and a boor) riles Hormel. The New York

Times, section 4, 2.

McNally, O. (1976, October 1). The Muppet Show for all ages. The Hartford Courant, 25.

Meehan, E. (1991). ‘Holy commodity fetish, Batman!’: The political economy of a political

intertext. In R. Pearson & W. Uricchio (Eds.), The many lives of the Batman: Critical

approaches to a superhero and his media. (pp. 47-65). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mendoza, N. F. (1994, April 17). The latest Muppet caper. The Los Angeles Times.

www.latimes.com REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 299

Meyer, O. (2009). The engine’s in the front, but its heart’s in the same place: Advertising,

nostalgia, and the construction of commodities as realms of memory. The Journal of

Popular Culture, 42(4), 735-755. doi:10.11/j.1540-5931-2009-00705.x

Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Introduction. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.),

Collective Remembering (pp. 1-22). London, GBR: Sage Publications Ltd.

Mifflin, L. (1991, September 2). Chronicle a museum fill of Muppets. The New York Times,

section1, 2.

Millar, J. (1996, February 16). A new Muppet caper. The Houston Chronicle, section 2, 1.

Milward, J. (1987, September 3). The Muppets’ magic empire. The Philadelphia Inquirer.

www.philly.com/inquirer

Miss Piggy and friends join Mickey Mouse club. (1989, August 29). The Houston Chronicle.

www.chron.com

Misztal, B. (2003a). Durkheim on collective memory. Journal of Classical Sociology, 3(2), 123-

143. doi: 10.1177/1468795x030032002

Misztal, B. (2003b). Theories of social remembering. London, GBR: Open University Press.

Misztal, B. (2010). Collective memory in a global age: Learning how and what to remember.

Current Sociology, 58(1), 24-44. doi:10.1177/0011392109348544

Mitchard, J. (1996, March 16-22). Return of muppetmania. TV Guide, 44, 30-32.

Mohan, M. (2003, March 14). The Best of The Muppet Show. The Oregonian, B1.

Moller, S. (2012). Blockbusting history: Forrest Gump as powerful medium of American

cultural memory. International Social Science Journal, 62( 203-204) 67-77. doi:

10.111/j.1468-2451.2001.01794.s REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 300

Mukerjii, C. (1997). Monsters and muppets: The history of childhood and techniques of cultural

analysis. In E. Long (Ed.), From sociology to cultural studies (pp. 155-185). Malden,

MA: Blackwell Publishers.

A Muppet Family Christmas. (1987, December 23). Daily Variety, 329, 52.

Muppet holdings integrated into consumer product division. (2005, October 17). Licensing

Letter, 29.

Muppet meat makes the grade. (1996, January 7). The Washington Times, A14.

The Muppet Movie. (1979, June 4). Women’s Realm. Jim Henson Productions Archive,

Brooklyn, NY.

The Muppet Movie review. (1979, July 21). America, 141, 36.

Muppet sells shrimp for Long John Silver’s. (2001, November 5). Adweek, 22, 6.

The Muppet Show celebrates 25th anniversary. (2002, February). License. Jim Henson

Productions Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Muppet Show tops access field in Katz study of Oct. Arbitrons. (1977, December). Variety, 289,

37.

The Muppet Show: Season One. (2005, June 21). The Advocate, 81.

The Muppets celebrate Jim Henson. (1990, December 3). Daily Variety, 341, 84.

Muppets come to town. (1991, November 2). The Chicago Sun-Times, 40.

Muppets forever. (2001a, July 6). The Los Angeles Times. www.latimes.com

Muppets forever. (2001b, August). The New York Family. www.newyorkfamily.com

Muppets in global Happy Meals blitz. (2002, December 12). Marketing Week, 9.

Muppets join cathedral service for their creator. (1990, July 2). Reuters News.

The Muppets make it big. (1979, June). American Film, F4, 25-27. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 301

Muppets move back home. (2003, May 12-18). Variety, 4.

The Muppets turn super with Turner. (1988, April 15). The Chicago Sun-Times, 18.

Muppets, mountains and memories for Christmas. (1987, December 16). The Atlanta Journal-

Constitution, D14.

Murray, S. (2004). ‘Celebrating the story the way it is: ’ Cultural studies, corporate media and

the contested utility of fandom. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies,

18(1), 7-25. doi:10.1080/1030431032000180978

Murray, S. (2005). Brand loyalties: Rethinking content within global corporate media. Media,

Culture, and Society, 27(3), 415-435.

The Museum of Radio and Television Arts (1993). Jim Henson’s World of Television. New

York, NY: Author.

Museums. (2001, August). The Star-Tribune Newspaper of the Twin Cities 197.

The must list. (2003, December 19). Entertainment Weekly, 49.

Napolitano, M. (2009). Disneyfying Dickens: Oliver & Company and The Muppet Christmas

Carol as Dickensian Musicals. Studies in Popular Culture, 32(1), 79-102.

Neighbors, R. C. (2011). The search for a “more civilized age,” or the failure of utopian desire in

the Star Wars franchise. In R. C. Neighbors & S. Rankin (Eds.), The galaxy is rated G:

Essays on children’s science fiction film (pp. 111-122). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and

Company Inc.

Neman, D. (1992, December 12). Magic is missing in "Muppet Christmas Carol". The Richmond

Times-Dispatch, B9.

New president at Muppet unit. (1991, January 28). The New York Times, D2.

Newsmakers. (1977, August 15). Newsweek. www.newsweek.com REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 302

Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy

in the age of press. Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70. doi:10.1177/1468794106058871

Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7-25.

Nora, P. (1996). From Lieux de Mémoire to Realms of Memory (L. C. Kritzman, Trans.). In P.

Nora & L. C. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory: The construction of the French past

(Vol. 1, pp. xv-xxiv). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Nora, P. (2006). Introduction (R. C. Holbrook, Trans.). In P. Nora (Ed.), Rethinking France: Les

lieux de mémoire (Vol. 2, pp. vii-vix). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nordheimer, J. (1990, June 20). Wages of fame: An unquiet death. The New York Times.

www.nytimes.com

Novak, R. (1992, December 21). The Muppet’s Christmas Carol. People Weekly, 38, 19-20.

O’Connor, J. J. (1990a, November 21). Muppets celebrate pays tribute to Henson. The Houston

Chronicle, section 2: 10.

O’Connor, J. J. (1990b, November 21). Reviews/television: Muppets and friends celebrate Jim

Hensons. The New York Times, 140, C20.

Oh, D. C. (2012). Black-yellow fences: Multicultural boundaries and whiteness in the Rush Hour

franchise. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 29(5), 349-366.

doi:10.1080/15295036.2012.697634

Okamott, A. (1998, August 24). Art and entertainment. The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

wwwledger-enquirer.com

Olick, J. K. (1998). What does it mean to normalize the past? Social Science History, 22(4), 547-

571. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 303

Olick, J. K. (1999). Genre memories and memory: A dialogical analysis of May 8, 1945

commemorations in the Federal Republic Germany. American Sociological Review,

64(3), 381-402.

Olick, J. K. (2006). Products, processes, and practices: A non-reificatory approach to collective

memory. Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 36, 5-14.

doi:10.1177/01461079060360010201

Olick, J. K. (2007a). From usable pasts to the return of the repressed. Hedgehog Review, 9(2),

19-31.

Olick, J. K. (2007b). The politics of regret: On collective memory and historical responsibility.

London, GBR: Routledge.

Olick, J. K. (2009). Between chaos and diversity: Is social memory studies a field? International

Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 22, 249-252. doi:10.1007/s10767-009-90597

Olick, J. K. (2010). From collective memory to the sociology of mnemonic practices and

products. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.), A companion to cultural memory studies (pp.

151-161). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Olick, J. K., & Levey, D. (1997). Collective memory and cultural constraint: Holocaust myth and

rationality in German politics. American Sociological Review, 62(6), 921-936.

Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From "collective memory" to the

historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105-140.

Olick, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Levey, D. (2011). Introduction. In J. K. Olick, V.

Vinitzky-Seroussi & D. Levey (Eds.), The collective memory reader. Oxford, GBR:

Oxford University Press.

Olson, C. A. (2002, August 3). Play the music, Light the lights. Billboards, 1114, 44. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 304

On the Muppet Swintrek. (1977, August 16). The York Dispatch. Jim Henson Company Archive,

Brooklyn, NY.

Orne, T. (1992, December 11). Kermit and co. raise Caine in Carol. The Salt Lake Tribune, B3.

Osgood, C. (1990, May 21). Fate links dissimilar Henson, Davis. The Chicago Sun-Times, 23.

Ostrow, J. (1990, May 17). Muppet’s creator showed us ourselves Kermit and pals bow heads

The Denver Post, A2.

Ostrow, J. (1996, January 21). More Muppet madness. The Denver Post, F1.

Owen, R. (2002, November 27 ). Those ’70s shows: Bradys and Muppets vie for laughs Friday.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, D1.

Paikert, C. (1991, March 4). Diversity keys new era for Jim Henson Prod. Daily Variety, 342, 44.

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Frame analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political

Communication, 10, 55-75.

Parmiter, T. K. (2009). The American journey narrative in the Muppet movies. In J. C. Gralen &

A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets

(pp. 129-141). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Parody, C. (2011). Franchising/Adaptation. Adaptation, 4(2), 210-218.

doi:10.1093/adaptation/apr008

Patakey, L. (1997, January 22 1997). Letter. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Jim Henson Company

Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Pearson, R. E., & Uricchio, W. (Eds.). (1991). The many live of the Batman: Critical approaches

to a superhero and his media. London (GBR): BFI Publishing.

Pendleton, J. (1990, May 17). With death of Henson, Disney deal questioned. The Los Angeles

Daily News, B1. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 305

Perchaluk, E. (1979, July). The Muppet Movie. Independent Film Journal, 82, 10.

Perry, J. (1978, August 8). More madness from the Muppets. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Jim

Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Pierce, S. D. (1990). Kermit and Co. visit new boss. The Desert Morning News. Jim Henson

Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Pollock, D. (1979, May 30). The Muppet Movie. Daily Variety, 295, 16.

Poniewozik, J. (2005, December 5). 7 blasts from TV’s past: From Beaver to Beavis, these

DVDS show there was gold every age. Time, 106.

Potempa, P. (2001, November 17). Play it again. The Vidette Times. Jim Henson Company

Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Potts, M. (1991, May 1). Disney-Henson pact ends Mickey and Kermit spat. The Washington

Post, F1.

Prady, B. (1990, June 28). Jim Henson (1936-1990). Rolling Stone, 581, 36.

Proffitt, J. M., Tchoi, D. Y., & McAllister, M. P. (2007). Plugging back into The Matrix: The

intertextual flow of corporate media commodities. Journal of Communication Inquiry,

31(1), 239-254. doi: 10.1177/0196859907300955

Radstone, S. (2008). Memory studies: For and against. Memory Studies, 1(1), 31-39.

doi:10.1177/1750698007083886

Rainer, P. (1992, December 11). Muppets take of Dickens’ carol. The Los Angeles Times, F12.

Rainie, H. (1990, May 28). Obituary: Jim Henson. US News and World Report, 108, 12-13.

Reibstein, L. (1991, April 29). Kermit vs Mickey Mouse. Newsweek, 117, 42-43.

Reid, M. (1996, September 8). Avast matey! The Star-Tribune Newspaper of the Twin Cities 17. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 306

Retsinas, G. (2003, May 8). Hensons buying back the Muppets for $89 million. The New York

Times, C1,6.

Revisit the ghosts of Christmas past (2005, November 22). Business Wire.

www.businesswire.com

Richardson, J. H. (1990, May). The class of 1990. Premiere, 3, 70-75.

Rigney, A. (2001). Imperfect histories: the elusive past and the legacy of romantic historicism.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rigney, A. (2005). Plenitude, scarcity and the circulation of cultural memory. Journal of

European Studies, 35(1), 11-28. doi:10.1177/004244105051158

Rigney, A. (2008). Divided past: A premature memorial and the dynamics of collective

remembrance. Memory Studies, 1(1), 89-91. doi:10.1177/17506980007083892

Rigney, A. (2010). The dynamics of remembrance: Texts between monumentality and morphing.

In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.), A companion to cultural memory studies (pp. 345-356).

Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Rigney, A. (2011). Embodied communities: Commemorating Robert Burns, 1859.

Representations, 115(1), 71-101.

Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society. London, GBR: Sage.

Roach, J. (1996). Cities of the dead: Circum-Atlantic performance. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Roberts, F. (1996, February 25). Down to the sea with Smollett and Miss Piggy. The New York

Times, section 1, 25.

Rosenberg, H. (1994, April 6). Muppets take on Nickelodeon. The Los Angeles Times.

www.latimes.com REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 307

Rosenberg, H. (1996, March 8). Muppets Tonight review. The Los Angeles Times, F39.

Rosenthal, P. (2002, November 29). It’s inspirational, celebrational. The Chicago Sun-Times, 69.

Ross, D. (2005, August 12). Been green. Entertainment Weekly, 833, 61.

Rotherman, A. (1991, February 4). The Henson kids carry on. Business Week, 72-73.

Roush, M. (1987a, December 15). Merry Muppets. USA Today, D1.

Roush, M. (1987b, December 15). Warm your spirit in a Muppet wonderland. USA Today, D3.

Roush, M. (1990, November 20). Muppets carry on in the ultimate Henson tribute. USA Today,

D8.

Rowe, K. (1995). The unruly woman: Gender and the genres of laughter. Austen, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Samuel, R. (1994). Theatres of memory. London, GBR: Verso.

Schaefer, S. (1992, December 12 ). Kermit and gang make an emotional return in the hand of

Brian Henson. The Boston Herald, 025.

Schauer, B. (2007). Critics, clones and narrative in the franchise blockbuster. New Review of

Film and Television Studies, 5(2), 191-210. doi:10.1080/17400300701432894

Scheider, L. D. (2009). Stuffed suits and hog-wild desire. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham

(Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 40-53).

Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Scheff, T. J. (2005). The structure of context: Deciphering frame analysis. Sociological Theory,

23(4), 368-385.

Schildcrout, J. (2008). The performance of nonconformity on The Muppet Show–or, how Kermit

made me queer. The Journal of Popular Culture, 41(5), 823-835.

Schindehett, S. (1990, June 18). Obituary-Jim Henson. People Weekly, 33, 88-93. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 308

Schindler, H. (1988, April 14). Turner, Henson close Muppet deal. The Salt Lake Tribune.

www.sltrib.com

Schneider, M. (2005, October 24). Muppets pull strings at ABC. Daily Variety.

www.varikety.com

Schudson, M. (1990). Ronald Regan misremembered. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.),

Collective remembering (pp. 108-119). London, GBR: Sage Publications Ltd.

Schudson, M. (1993, May/June). Watergate: A study in mythology. Columbia Journalism

Review, 28-41.

Schudson, M. (1997). Lives, laws, and and language: Commemorative versus non-

commemorative forms of effective public memory. The Communication Review, 2(1), 3-

17.

Schwartz, B. (1990). The reconstruction of Abraham Lincoln. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards

(Eds.), Collective remembering (pp. 81-107). London, GBR: Sage Publications Ltd.

Schwartz, B. (1991). Iconography and collective memory. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(3),

301-319.

Schwartz, B. (1997a). Collective memory and history: How Abraham Lincoln became a symbol

of racial equality. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(3), 469-496.

Schwartz, B. (1997b). Memory as a cultural system: Abraham Lincoln in World War I. The

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17(6), 22-58.

Scott, J. (1989, August 29). Disney adopts the famous frog and Miss Piggy. The Atlanta Journal-

Constitution, A1.

Scott, V. (1979, December 2). John Denver and the Muppets spend Christmas together. The Salt

Lake Tribune. Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 309

Seckard, E. S. (1990, May 16). Muppet projects to continue despite Henson’s death. Associated

Press. www.ap.org

Seligman, B. (1992, June). Reaching the unreachable. Licensing Today, 23-24.

Sex, violence and Jim Henson. (2005, July 25). Video Business, 26.

Shales, T. (1976, October 2). Countrified Muppets, Nabor-ly barnyard. The Washington Post,

B7.

Shales, T. (1987, December 16 ). Delight before Christmas. The Washington Post.

www.washingtonpost.com

Shales, T. (1990a, November). Kermit, carrying on. The Washington Post.

www.washingtonpost.com

Shales, T. (1990b, November 21). TV preview. The Washington Post, D1.

Shales, T. (1996, January 25). Smithsonian Journey explores world of wonder. The Los Angeles

Times. www.latimes.com

Shefrin, E. (2004). Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and participatory fandom: Mapping new

congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture. Critical Studies in

Media Communication, 21(3), 261-281.

Sirkin, E. (1978). Sow is born; Miss Piggy. Film Comment, 14, 13-15.

Siskel, G. (1979, July 15). Can a frog turn into a prince in Hollywood. The Chicago Tribune,

section 6, 3,9.

Sizzling debate. (2002, July 29). People Weekly, 58, 17.

Skopal, P. (2007). ‘The adventure continues on DVD:’ Franchise movies as home video.

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,

13(2), 185-198. doi:10.1177/1354855607075244 REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 310

Smith, B. (1990, May 22 ). Street kids say ‘bye to Jim Henson. Houston Chronicle, section 2: 3.

Smith, J. Y. (1990, May 17 ). Jim Henson, creator of Muppets. The Washington Post, A1, 23.

Smith, Z. N. (1990, May 17). Friends, fan mourn loss of Muppets’ Jim Henson. The Chicago

Sun-Times, 7.

Snow, D. A., Rochford Jr., E. D., Worden, S. K., & Bedford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment

processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociology Review,

51(4), 464-481.

Sobchack, V. (Ed.). (1996). The persistence of history: Cinema, television and the modern event.

New York City, NY: Routledge.

Sommers, J. M. (2012). The traumatic revision of Marvel’s Spider-Man: From 1960s dime-store

comic book to post 9/11 moody motion picture franchise. Children’s Literature

Association Quarterly, 37(2), 188-209. doi: 10.1353/chq.2012.0016

Spigel, L., & Jenkins, H. (1991). Same bat channel, different bat times: Mass culture and popular

memory. In R. E. Pearson & W. Uricchio (Eds.), The many lives of the Batman (pp. 117-

148). New York,, NY: Routledge.

Stack, P. (1992, December 11 1992). Muppets overrun new movie. The San Francisco

Chronicle, C1.

Stack, P. (1996, February 16). Kermit hits the seas. The San Francisco Chronicle, D3.

Staiger, J. (2005). Media reception studies. New York City, NY: New York University Press.

Stanley, J. (1991, January 13). His career has a Muppet Babies boom. The San Francisco

Chronicle, 40. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 311

Stelle, G. (2009). Starring Kermit the Frog as Bob Cratchit: Muppets as actors. In J. C. Garlen &

A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets

(pp. 92-102). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc.

Stevenson, R. (1989, August 29). Muppets join Disney menagerie. The New York Times, section

4, 1.

Stewart, M. (2004). Remembering without commemoration: The mnemonics and politics of

holocaust memories among European Roma. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute, 10, 561-592.

Stoessner, J. (2009). From Muppetry to puppetry. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Graham (Eds.), Kermit

culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 71-80). Jefferson, NC:

McFarland and Company Inc.

Strauss, B. (1992, December 6). Dickens, you say! The Chicago Sun-Times, 9.

Straw, W. (2007). Embedded memories. In C. R. Acland (Ed.), Residual media (pp. 3-15).

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Strickler, J. (1992, December 11). Muppet Christmas Carol has charm. The Star-Tribune

Newspaper of the Twin Cities E6.

Strickler, J. (1996, February 16). Treasure is Muppet movie parents will appreciate to. The Star-

Tribune Newspaper of the Twin Cities, E1.

Strother, S., & Vaughan, V. (1990, December 15). Muppets may head for exits at Disney parks.

The Los Angeles Daily News, B1.

Sturken, M. (2007). Tourist of history: Memory, kitsch and consumerism from Oklahoma City to

Ground Zero. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Swanson, K. (2001, December 13). Musical mayhem from Muppets. Daily Variety, 16. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 312

Tai, H.-T. H. (2001). Remembered realms: Pierre Nora and French national memory. The

American Historical Review, 106(3), 906-922.

Taithe, B. (1999). Monuments aux mort? Reading Nora’s Realms of Memory and Samuel’s

Theatre of Memory. History of Human Sciences, 12(2), 123-139.

doi:20.2277/09526959922120289

Taylor, D. (2003). The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

TBS acquires rights to Muppet Show. (1988, April 13). Associated Press. www.ap.org

Thompson, K. (2009). Franchise failures. The Velvet Light Trap (64), 107-109.

Tiny Tim without father Jim. (1992, December 21). Time, 140, 79.

Treen, J. (1991, December 22 ). The legacy of Jim Henson. The San Francisco Chronicle,

section Sunday, 28.

Trio of Christmas specials fill ABC with Muppets, mountains, memories. (1987, December 16).

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, C15.

Turner Broadcasting System Inc. (1988, April 14). The New York Times, D6.

Turner, D. (2007, July 25). Henson Muppet collection donated to Atlanta Puppetry Museum.

Associated Press. www.ap.org

Turner, R. (1990, December 14). Media: Disney, Muppets find it’s not easy talking green. The

Wall Street Journal, B1.

Turner, R. (1991, April 18). Media: Muppets seek their revenge against Disney. The Wall Street

Journal, B1.

Turner, R. (1991, December 18). Muppet deal rebuilds bridge to Disneyland. The Wall Street

Journal, B1. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 313

Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York, NY:

Performing Arts Journal Publications.

Underwood, B. (2009). How to become a Muppet. In J. C. Garlen & A. M. Garham (Eds.),

Kermit culture: Critical perspectives on Jim Henson’s Muppets (pp. 9-24). Jefferson, NC:

McFaeland and Company Inc.

Updated Muppets set for comeback. (2002, March 10). CNN: Money. www.cnn.com

Van Dijck, J. (2007). Mediated memories in the digital age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

Van Dijck, J. (2008). Future memory: The construction of cinematic hindsight. Theory, Culture

and Society, 25(3), 71-87. doi: 10.1177.02632764080900658

Verniere, J. (1992, December 11). Movie review: Muppets have a Dickens of a time with Carol.

The Boston Herald, S6.

Verniere, J. (1996, February 16). A Muppet treasure for both kids and adults. The Boston Herald,

S3.

Walsh, M. H. (1997, May 31). Sneaking a peek at America’s treasures. The News-Post Herald.

Jim Henson Company Archive, Brooklyn, NY.

Walt Disney Co. in pact to acquire Henson Associates. (1989, August 28). Dow Jones.

www.dowjones.com

Wang, Q. (2008). On the cultural constitution of collective memory. Memory, 16(3), 305-317.

doi:10.1080/09658210701801467

Ward, A. (1998, June 19). Muppets and puppets. Ft. Worth Morning Star-Telegram. www.star-

telegram.com

Warren, M. (1996, March 7). Muppets making a comeback. The Plain Dealer, E8. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 314

Weeks, J. (1996, February 16). Kermit, honey, that’s our cue Miss Piggy. The Los Angeles Daily

News, l6.

Weiner, A. H. (2003, May 23). Puppet masters. Entertainment Weekly, 11.

Wertsch, J. V., & Roediger III, H. (2008). Collective memory: Conceptual foundations and

theoretical approaches. Memory, 16(3), 318-326. doi:10.1080/09658210701801434

Westbrook, B. (1989, December 24). Enjoy the Muppets with no strings attached. The Houston

Chronicle. www.chron.com

Westbrook, B. (1990, May 17). Jim Henson 1936-1990. The Houston Chronicle, section 2, 1.

White, C. R. (2012). Balancing the force: How media created by Star Wars now defines the

franchise. In D. Brode & L. Deyneka (Eds.), Myth, media, and culture in Star Wars: An

anthology (pp. 101-112). Lanham, MD: Scarecross Press.

White, K. (1998, October 4). Muppets share their story at Discovery Children’s Museum. The

Las Vegas Review Journal. www.reviewjournal.com

Will, E. (1992, December 11). Dickens’ holiday classic gets a Muppet treatment. The Denver

Post, 6.

Williams, R. (2013). "Anyone who calls muse a Twilight band will be shot on sight:" Music,

Distinction, and the "interloping fan" in the Twilight franchise. Popular Music and

Society, 36(3), 327-342. doi:10.1080/03007766.2013.798543

Williams, S. (1990, May 16). Puppeteer Henson leaves a legacy of living characters. Associated

Press. www.ap.org

Williamson, K. (1996, April ). Muppet Treasure Island. Box Office, 132, 117.

Winock, M. (1998). Joan of Arc (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). In L. C. Kritzman (Ed.), Realms of

Memory (Vol. 3, pp. 433-483). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 315

Winter, J. (1995). Sites of memory, sites of mourning: The great war in European cultural

history. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press.

Winter, J. (2001). Film and the matrix of memory. American Historical Review, 857-864.

Winter, J. (2002). Sites of memory and the shadow of war. In A. Erll & A. Nünning (Eds.), A

comparison to cultural memory studies (pp. 61-76). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Winter, J. (2008). Historical remembrance in the twenty-first century. The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 6-13.

doi:10.1177/0002716207312761

Winter, J (2010) The performance of the past: Memory, history, and identity. In K. Tilmans, F.

van Vree, and J. Winter (Eds.), Performing the past: Memory, history and identity in

modern Europe (pp. 11-23). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press

Winter, J., & Sivan, E. (2000). Setting the framework. In J. Winter & E. Sivan (Eds.), War and r

remembrance in the twentieth century (pp. 6-39). Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge

University Press.

Wolf, J. (2002, July 28). The best of The Muppet Show. Video Store, 24, 22.

Wolf, M. (1990, July 2). Britain mourns master puppeteer Jim Henson. Associated Press.

www.ap.org

York, A. E. (2010). From chick flicks to millennial blockbusters: Spinning female-driven

narrative into franchises. The Journal of Popular Culture, 43(1), 3-25.

Zagor, K. (1991). Muppets squabble with Disney ends. The Financial Times, 6.

Zelizer, B. (1992). Covering the body: The Kennedy assassination, the media, and the shaping of

collective memory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 316

Zelizer, B. (1993). Journalists as interpretative communities. Critical Studies in Media

Communication, 10, 219-317.

Zelizer, B. (1995). Reading the past against the grain: the shape of memory studies. Critical

Studies in Media Communication, 9, 214-239.

Zelizer, B. (1999). Exploring sites of memory. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 201-205.

Zelizer, B. (2008). Why memory’s work on journalism does not reflect journalism’s work on

memory. Memory Studies, 1(1), 79-87. doi:10.1177/18750698003891

Zelizer, B. (2011). Cannibalizing memory in the global flow of new. In M. Neiger, O. Meyers &

E. Zandberg (Eds.), On media memory: Collective memory in the media age (pp. 27-36).

London, GBR: Palgrave MacMillan.

Zeman, J. (2007, September 6). It’s time to meet the Muppets. Associated Press. www.ap.org

Zerubavel, E. (1996). Social memories: Steps to a sociology of the past. Qualitative Sociology,

19(3), 283-298.

Zerubavel, E. (2003). Time maps: Collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Zhito, L. (1989, September 8). Disney CEO. Amusement Business, 20.

Zimmerman, K. (1995, December 11). Topper remains true to inheritance. Daily Variety, 361,

58.

Zipes, J. (1997). Happily ever after: Fairy tales, children and cultural industry. London. GBR:

Routledge. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 317

Appendix A: Overview of the Press Documents from JHCA and Indexes.

Table 1

Line Graph of Number of Publications per Year

350

300

250

200

150

100 Number Publications of Number 50

0 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year of Publication

Note: The first peak at 1979 corresponds to The Muppet Movie is released. The second peak over 1990-1 corresponds to the Henson-Disney merger and Henson’s death. 1992 also has over 100 articles because of the lawsuit which followed the failed merger. The third peak occurs in 1996 with the release of The Muppets’ Treasure Island and Muppets Tonight.

Table 2

Number of Publications Found for Each Year Surveyed

Decade Number of Article Per Year 1976-1979 1976:25 1977:45 1978:59 1979:130 1980-1989 1980:35 1981:55 1982:48 1983:62 1984:75 1985:15 1986:67 1987:55 1988:30 1989:99 1990-1999 1990:290 1991:157 1992:128 1993:138 1994:47 1995:47 1996:124 1997:38 1998:46 1999:73 2000-2006 2000:50 2001:89 2002:60 2003:60 2004:39 2005:74 2006:20 Note: The total number of articles found was 2,260. REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 318

Table 3

Newspapers Surveyed with Over 25 Muppet-related Articles

Name of Newspaper Number of Articles Found The New York Times 147 The Washington Post 82 The Los Angeles Times 46 The Chicago Tribune 44 The Houston Chronicle 40 USA Today 38

Note: ProQuest associated some article with newswire organizations: Associated Press—46; Reuters—26.

Table 4

Magazines with Over 10 Muppet-related Articles

Name of Magazine Number of Articles Found People 48 Time 36 Entertainment Weekly 23 TV Guide 21 Newsweek 15

Table 5

Trade Press Sources Surveyed with Over 10 Muppet-related Articles

Name of Sources Number of Articles Found Variety 126 The Hollywood Report 41 Cinefantastique 23 PR Newswire 20 American Cinematographer 17 Business Wire 12

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 319

Appendix B: Conceptual Map for Frame Analysis

Conceptual Map for Using Frame Analysis. Adapted from Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993).

Frame analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 63.

Conceptual Map for Frame Analysis, including Frame Packages.

Frames of Memory (as pre- Frames which are no existing cultural stock used longer contingent on in other situtations) the franchise studied

Frame devices Frame devices examined through examined through Frame Packages (as the logic of the logic of reasoning and context) reasoning and reasoning and context context

Frame Devices (Heuristic Shared constructs of Shared constructs of Shared constructs of Devices, or Meaning significances aross significances across significances across Making Constructs) articles articles articles

Selection and construction Expression in Expression in Expression in (expression in material)of particular article particular article particular article the cultural phenomen.

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 320

Appendix C: Framing Packages in Chronological Order

Original Frame Packages Based on Literature.

Time Span Name of Event 1976-1981 The Muppet Show airs 1979 Theatrical release of The Muppet Movie 1979-1983 John Denver and Muppets: A Christmas Together airs 1981 Theatrical release of The Great Muppet Caper 1983 John Denver and Muppets—A Rocky Mountain Holiday airs 1984 Theatrical release of The Muppets Take Manhattan 1987-9 A Muppet Family Christmas airs 1990 Death of Jim Henson; The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson airs 1990/1 Failed merger of the Jim Henson Productions with the Walt Disney Company 1991 Opening of Leland museum exhibit on Jim Henson 1992 Theatrical release of The Muppet Christmas Carol 1994 Kermit on display at the Smithsonian for the first time 1996 Theatrical release of The Muppet Treasure Island 1996-1998 Muppets Tonight airs 1997 Henson family donate to the Center for Puppetry Arts, Atlanta 1998-2007 Various travel exhibition of Henson’s work: Smithsonian’s Fantastic Journey and Jim Henson’s Fantastic World 1999 Theatrical release of Muppets from Space 2000 Ten year anniversary of Jim Henson’s death 2000 EM.TV purchases Jim Henson Productions, including Muppet characters 2001 DVD release of The Muppets take Manhattan 2001 Paley Centre presents Muppets Forever! The Legacy of Jim Henson. 2002 A Very Merry Muppet Christmas airs 2002 Muppetfest celebrates the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Muppet Show; The Best of the Muppet Show collection available on DVD and VHS 2003 Jim Henson heirs buy back Jim Henson Productions, including Muppet characters 2004/5 Sale of Muppet characters to the Walt Disney Company 2005 Kermit’s Fiftieth Birthday: including Jim Henson’s United States Postal Service stamp set and release of various books 2005 The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz airs and available on DVD 2005/6 DVD release of the first season of The Muppet Show, Muppet Treasure Island, The Muppet Christmas Carol, The Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie 2006 Kermit permanently ion display at the Smithsonian

REMEMBERING WITH THE MUPPETS 321

Revised Frame Packages Based Press Coverage. Events are shown in strikethrough font because limited coverage or they were not significantly different from other events. Events in the same colour were treated as an ongoing event and one frame package.

Time Span Name of Event 1976-1981 The Muppet Show airs 1979 Theatrical release of The Muppet Movie 1979-1980 John Denver and Muppets: A Christmas Together airs (Christmas productions) 1981 Theatrical release of The Great Muppet Caper 1983 John Denver and Muppets—A Rocky Mountain Holiday airs 1984 Theatrical release of The Muppets Take Manhattan 1987-8 A Muppet Family Christmas airs (Christmas productions) 1990 Death of Jim Henson; The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson airs 1990/1 Failed merger of the Jim Henson Productions with the Walt Disney Company 1991 Opening of Leland museum exhibit on Jim Henson (Museum exhibits) 1992 Theatrical release of The Muppet Christmas Carol 1994 Kermit on display at the Smithsonian for the first time 1996 Theatrical release of The Muppet Treasure Island 1996-1997 Muppets Tonight airs 1997 Henson family donate to the Center for Puppetry Arts, Atlanta (Museum exhibits) 1998-2007 Various travel exhibition of Henson’s work: Smithsonian’s Fantastic Journey and Jim Henson’s Fantastic World (Museum exhibits) 1999 Theatrical release of Muppets from Space 2000 Ten year anniversary of Jim Henson’s death 2000 EM.TV purchases Jim Henson Productions, including Muppet characters 2001 DVD release of The Muppets take Manhattan 2001 Paley Centre presents Muppets Forever! The Legacy of Jim Henson (Museum exhibits) 2002 A Very Merry Muppet Christmas airs (Christmas productions) 2002 Muppetfest celebrates the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Muppet Show; The Best of the Muppet Show collection available on DVD and VHS 2003 Jim Henson heirs buy back Jim Henson Productions, including Muppet characters 2004/5 Sale of Muppet characters to the Walt Disney Company 2005 Kermit’s Fiftieth Birthday: including Jim Henson’s United States Postal Service stamp set and release of various books (Kermit’s Fiftieth) 2005 The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz airs and available on DVD (Kermit’s Fiftieth) 2005/6 DVD release of the first season of The Muppet Show, Muppet Treasure Island, The Muppet Christmas Carol, The Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie (Kermit’s Fiftieth) 2006 Kermit permanently ion display at the Smithsonian