The Mup p et Show: Sex and Violence: Inv estig ating the Complexity of the Telev ision Body Rayna D enison

(1) ‘I feel p retty, oh so p retty,’ sing s a blue, med ium siz ed Mupp et with small, feminine fea tures w earing a blond wig. Then she pulls off her nose, eyes and ha ir and b eg ins to a dd a new set of fea tures. ‘It’s ala rming how cha rming I feel,’ she wa rb les a s she p la ys w ith a shock of lime g reen foam hair, applying a la rg e g reen nose a nd fa ng ed teeth to her fa ce, her voice cha ng ing from F ra n Brill’s to Jim Henson’s on the pre- record ed song- tra ck. ‘And so p retty, tha t I ha rdly ca n b elieve that I’m real,’ her now g rowling voice continues the Step hen Sond heim song as the blue ‘Wha tnot’ Mup p et finishes her tra nsforma tion from girl to monster w ith a pa ir of mena cing ha iry-b row ed eyes (C ha rles Az na vour Episod e, 17/ 01/1977. See note 1). (2) Und er the d ressing tab le the Mupp et sits at, tw o Mup p eteers work in tand em to sepa ra tely manipula te the head and a rms of the blue Mupp et, creating the imp ression of a single cha ra cter for the ca mera . Watching their p erforma nce in the monitors a t their feet, at one p oint they make the b lue Wha tnot d ive und er the table, repla cing its mid- transforma tion b od y with a nother, p re-p repa red version. The end result is a sketch tha t celeb ra tes the puppet bod y’s ab ility to shift betw een a nd b eyond normative b od y categ ories, simulta neously show ca sing the cra ft a nd skill of the p up peteers. Such sketches w ere common in The Mupp et Show (1976- 1981), b ring ing the ‘real’ bod ies of the show’s cha ra cters into question while celeb ra ting the p upp et a s a site of sp ectacle a nd inventive p erforma nce. Such sketches a lso b eg in to reveal how The Mupp et Show might offer an imp ortant corrective to simp listic notions of the b od y on television. (3) The bod y on television is not alw ays a s stra ig htforwa rd a s it seems. On many occa sions, the med ia ted nature of the bod y on television d isguises its unnatura lness. The stunt d oub le sta nd ing in for Buffy, the falsified corpses of the C SI franchise mad e from p la stics, ma ke-up a nd C GI or the a nima tronic p remature bab ies of hosp ital dra ma s a re a ll instances of such constructed, complex b odies. In most of these instances the intention is to ma sk the bod y’s construction or substitution. In ma sking the pieced- tog ether nature of the performa nces tha t go to ma ke up p opula r television cha ra cters, such show s hid e the a rtistry, cra ft and skills of their p rod uction tea ms. This chapter seeks to investig ate a television series for w hich the aim wa s not to d isguise media tion of the b od y, b ut frequently to celeb ra te it. Follow ing in w ell estab lished traditions of pup p etry and light entertainment television p rog ra mming in w hich pupp et or a nima ted bodies w ere juxtaposed w ith real b od ies, The Mupp et Show d elivered a melee of ( re)p resenta tional strateg ies d esigned to cross the bord ers betw een the huma n and the Other. The Mupp et Show ’s celeb ra tion of the body ca n b e seen in numerous wa ys, from the sheer va riety found in its pupp et b odies, to the ad ulation shown to its guest sta rs, to its insistent d econstruction and reconstruction of bod ily b ounda ries a nd bord ers. (4) For these va rious rea sons alone The Mupp et Show w ould d eserve to be consid ered , along sid e Henson Associa tes’ (HA!) contrib utions to Sesame Street (1969- ), a s some of the most inventive and exp erimenta l television of its da y. How ever, unlike the pup p etry on Sesame Street, w hich wa s a imed p rima rily a t a children’s a udience and intend ed for ed uca tiona l purp oses, The Mupp et Show ’s p rima ry ta rg et audience wa s a family one tha t includ ed a s many ad ults as child ren. Monster Mupp ets played an esp ecially importa nt role in b rid ging this gap b etw een child a nd ad ult aud iences. Most frequently a ssociated with the horror g enre, a g enre tha t The M upp et Show sometimes tap p ed into b ut wa s not usually a pa rt of, monsters in the M upp ets rema in ‘a perfect vehicle for eng end ering… curiosity… b ecause monsters a re (physica lly, thoug h not g enera lly log ically) imp ossib le b eing s.’ (C a rroll 1990: 182) ‘Imp ossib le b eing s’ could d escrib e the entire cast of Mupp et cha ra cters from talking loa ves of F rench bread and d ancing fea ther boas, to singing pig s a nd comed ian b ea rs. Imp ossib le, not just beca use the Mupp ets anthropomorphise and animate everyda y animals and ob jects, b ut b eca use the Mup p ets a re pupp ets mad e of va rious fab rics a nd foa ms, w ith stuck on fa cial fea tures a nd wigs used to differentia te them from one another, thus ma king it d ifficult, if not imp ossib le ‘to b elieve tha t [they’re] real.’ Of course, b eneath their surfa ces w ere human p erformers who worked to create the M upp ets a s believab le cha racters with p ersona lities very much of their ow n. How ever, it wa s the monster M upp ets a t the ma rgins of the Mup pet ca st whose b od ies w ere p erhap s most flexibly imag ined and p erformed. It w as the W ha tnots a nd ‘F ra ckles’ (b rought to The M upp et Show from an ea rlier sp ecia l TV app earance) in pa rticula r tha t p roved the most transg ressive b odies; b odies tha t explod ed, chang ed fea tures a nd surround ed ( sometimes mena cing, sometimes mena ced b y) the huma n guest stars of the show . (5) These monsters often p rovid ed the violent a sp ects of the sex and violence tha t The Mup p et Show’s creators used to b ridg e b etw een child ren a nd their pa rents. Sex and violence, pa rt of the title of one of the ea rly p ilots for The Mup p et Show, p rovid ed Henson Associa tes with previously ina ccessib le outlets for humour a nd add ed to their rep ertoire of aud ience app eals. The Mup pet Show offered a n almost id entica l set of a pp eals to a mixed fa mily aud ience a s Tex Avery’s ca rtoons ha d d one ea rlier in cinema s and on television. According to Paul W ells, Avery ‘understood tha t child ren would b e app eased b y physica l slap stick,’ which The M upp et Show exhibited on a regula r basis, ‘w hile ad ults required a more knowing, self- conscious app roa ch, which would engag e w ith more mature themes.’ (1998: 140 ita lics in orig ina l) W ells continues b y a sserting that und erdog cha ra cters, irrationa l fea rs, surviva l instincts, resistance to conformity a nd, perhap s most significa ntly here, ‘direct engag ement with sexual feelings a nd id entity’ w ere a t the hea rt of Avery’s attemp ts to re- envision a nima tion as a med ium for adults ( 140. See a lso Sand ler 1998). W hile the monsters p rovid ed slap stick violence, it wa s the intera ctions b etw een guest sta rs a nd the central cha ra cters, and betw een the centra l Mupp ets themselves, tha t ga ve the show its ‘sex.’ Sex a nd violence rep resent important a spects of the M upp ets that ha ve been la rg ely forgotten b y a cad emics working on the cha ra cters. By emb ra cing The M upp et Show ’s d isp la ys of sex a nd violence, a more comp lete a nd complex read ing of the Muppet bod y ca n b e und erta ken, provid ing a b etter und erstanding of how the bod y on television ha s perp etua lly b een a planned, constructed a nd med ia ted entity. (6) Ma rried to this re- read ing of the b od ies of The Mup p et Show is a concern hereafterr w ith how the show has b een und erstood b y critics. In the 1970s a nd 80s Henson Associa tes p resented critics w ith Mupp et bodies a s, sometimes simultaneously, b oth ‘real’ and p erformed . As a result, ling ering p rob lems w ith the voca bula ry of the b od y ha unt the reception of The M upp et Show , a s the review ers a ttemp ted to negotia te b etw een the rea l and unrea l nature of M upp ets. Aca d emics ha ve also d emonstrated the comp lexity of the M upp et bod y, a t times averring a nd at others d isa vowing the constructed na ture of these television cha racters. The chapter w ill therefore b egin b y stud ying some of the responses to The Mupp et Show and its cha ra cters, exa mining how a cad emics a nd contempora ry critics have rea cted to the crea tions of J im Henson and his M upp eteers, pa rticularly in rela tion to their bord er- crossing b odies. This a na lysis of the d iscourses a round the M upp ets, contempora ry w ith and sub seq uent to, the show’s phenomena l success ( Ga mba ccini a nd Ta ylor 1990: 308), should enab le a re- read ing of how its b od ies ha ve imp acted on television. Unta ng ling the comp lex web of omissions, confusion a nd disag reement a round the Mupp et bod y should help to exp la in some of the essentia l issues of the constructed b od y on television, offering a sta rting p oint for b road er investiga tions of the b odily construction tha t ta kes pla ce d aily on our television screens.

‘Mupp etmania!’ : The Mup pet Body in Acad emia and Review ( Irw in, 1977. See N ote 2) (7) Attemp ting to put The M upp et Show into a critical context requires at lea st some consid era tion of how the cha ra cters have p reviously b een view ed b y acad emia. The Mupp ets ha ve not b een a llow ed to pa ss, unrema rked, into history, but ra ther have b een the source of some fra ctured a cad emic a na lyses, esp ecially follow ing Henson’s d ea th in 1990 (see N ote 3). The stud ies tha t do exist ha ve b een interested, not in The M upp et Show , but in its sp in-off films and ca rtoons, a nd in its prog enitor, Sesame Street ( see Note 4) . This la ck of eng ag ement with wha t wa s, for the films a t lea st, their centra l Ur- text ( Austin 2002: 126), fosters cond itions in w hich the chara cters and their mea ning s ca n only b e pa rtia lly und erstood and , d ivorced from their history, a re often misunderstood. (8) Ad ditiona lly, these stud ies of the M uppets ha ve tend ed to come from a scattering of d ifferent d iscip lines tha t encompa ss a t lea st the follow ing three a rena s of a cad emic research: first, p upp et studies; second, stud ies of child ren’s med ia a nd lastly, g end er studies. In the first of these app roa ches the Mupp ets have tend ed to b e view ed a s the ma ssified end of the p upp etry tradition, where pupp et a rtistry meets commercia l culture (see, for examp le, C utler Shershow 1995; a nd Seg el 1995). In the second, a nd la rg est bod y of resea rch, the M upp ets are va riously view ed intertextua lly a s the nexus for a network of texts whose p urpose is to g enerate p rofits; or, a lterna tively, they a re exa mined for the role they p la y in child hood d evelop ment (Penderson 2003; Kind er 1991; Hend ershot 1998; a nd Mukerji 1997). M ea nw hile, the third cluster of studies ha s tend ed to focus, to the exclusion of other cha ra cters, on M iss Pigg y ( Row e 1995;a nd Mukerji 1997. See Note 5). (9) W ithin these diverg ent stud ies of the M upp ets, themes emerg e that relate to the interests of this chapter. These themes includ e a concern with the pup p et a s a site of p erformance ( Tillis 1996) a nd a lso politica lly sig nifica nt symb ols. Scott Cutler Shershow contend s tha t the Mupp ets rep resent the shifting sta tus of the pup p et in contemp ora ry culture, w ith the resulting loss of the p uppet’s op positional voice: ‘their narratives emb ody a utop ian yea rning to join with some collective w hole—the ha rmonious, multicultura l community of Sesa me Street, the fanta stic Hollywood of The M upp et M ovie, or the equa lly fa nta stic Broad wa y of The M upp ets Ta ke Ma nhattan.’( 241) W hile true of the M upp et films, I would a rgue tha t the inclusion of avant-ga rd e pupp etry in The M upp et Show , and its mixing of self- contained front and ba ckstag e thea tre narratives lend themselves to a reconsid era tion of Shershow ’s argument. Provid ing a mixture of the ba ckstag e musica l and va riety show television p rog ra mming, the front a nd ba ckstag e sketches of The Mup p et Show hyb ridise a series of contemp ora ry popula r entertainment forms in ord er to defa milia rise them. In so doing, The M upp et Show d oes conta in voices oppositiona l to contemp ora ry America n television p resenta tions of p upp ets, and, moreover, The Mup p et Show revels in p resenting p upp ets a s innova tive, chaotic a nd d isrup tive p erformance objects ( Tillis 1996; Feuer 1981 and 1982; a nd N ea le and Krutnik 1990). (10) Noting these cha otic rep resenta tions, a cad emics ha ve attempted to classify the M upp ets’ bodies in a va riety of wa ys. Chand ra M ukerji offers an in- d epth ana lysis of the a rchetyp es of child hood offered b y the M upp et cha ra cters claiming , Different cha ra cters isolate a nd fore-g round a ra ng e of versions of “the child.” As Kermit, Pigg y, Gonz o a nd Big Bird d ispla y some of the innate va ria tions in child ren, they embod y d ifferent cultura lly sa nctioned wa ys of d efining “the child.” Child ren watching the Mupp ets, then, turn out to be viewing some of the options for na vigation childhood. ( 1997: 160) In M ukerji’s read ing the M upp ets offer stand -ins for child ren’s exp erience of the world, a nd their p assa ge into ad ulthood . How ever, there is interesting overlap b etw een her read ing of M iss Pigg y and tha t proffered in Ka thleen R ow e’s ( 1995) ‘Pig Lad ies, Big Lad ies, and Ladies with Big M ouths: F eminism a nd the Ca rnivalesq ue.’ M ukerji tells us tha t ‘Pigg y is some kind of unsp ea kab le crea ture, p retend ing to b e a pig, p retend ing to b e a g irl.’ ( 174) W hile cla iming tha t ‘Gend er is M iss Pigg y’s ra ison d’etre,’ Row e ag rees with Mukerji that, At the sa me, time, how ever, M iss Pigg y’s appa rent femininity is consta ntly und ermined aurally and visua lly. Her voice, a tremulous fa lsetto, is p rovid ed by a ma n, F ra nk Oz. Even more striking ly, Miss Pigg y physically dwa rfs Kermit. She is enormous besid e him, and her b od y is volup tuously physical. ( 27) (11) Add itiona lly, R ow e w rites, ‘More a n imag e tha n a cha racter fleshed out in na rrative, M iss Pigg y exists in a haz y real, trigg ering multip le and contradictory responses.’ ( 30) It is ea sy to read the unea se w ith which the M upp et bod y is met in these exa mples. The sheer comp lexity of Miss Pigg y’s construction (a man, pla ying a fema le cha ra cter via a p upp et atta ched to his a rm, w hich is itself a rep resenta tion of a n anthrop omorphised p ig) lead s these w riters to ma ke a ssertions ab out M iss Pigg y’s monstrous otherness. W hile these assertions a re sometimes rea sonab le, they do not engag e holistica lly with the p rod uction p rocesses and exp erimentation involved in crea ting Miss Pig gy. (12) Implicit (a nd even explicit) in the languag e of these a rticles is a negative app roa ch to M iss Pigg y. F or examp le, she a lone ‘looms’ over Kermit, d esp ite the fa ct that many of the M upp ets w ere several times his siz e. The p rob lem with Pigg y seems to b e her ‘performance’ of femininity, a nd it is here tha t a more thoroug h und erstand ing of her cha ra cterisation and construction mig ht be b eneficial. F irst, one might consid er tha t it wa s la rg ely tha nks to F rank Oz ’s p erformance of M iss Pigg y tha t she d evelop ed at a ll. Richa rd Hunt wa s initia lly M iss Pig gy’s primary p upp eteer, and p erformed her a s a simp le b a ckg round chorus pig, p la ying minor roles in ‘Veterina rian’s Hospita l’ and ‘At the Da nce.’ It w as only from ab out halfwa y throug h the first season that F ra nk Oz took over her d evelop ment, adding the kara te chop s, ha ir flicking and only sometimes requited rela tionship w ith Kermit tha t ha ve since passed into M upp et history. Oz a lso add ed much to M iss Pigg y’s voice, which wa s once d escrib ed a s ‘the most d elica te and flexib le of instruments, reminiscent of D ea nna Durbin one moment, W illia m Bend ix the next.’ ( Sirkin 1978: 14) It is these g ender-divid e transg ressions in M iss Piggy’s voice tha t Row e seems to find most problema tic. How ever, the a dop tion of various ma sculine a nd feminine traits is a lso pa rt of the plea sure of Miss Pigg y. Oz’s ad option of gend er- crossing id entity tra its p rovid ed the cha racter w ith positive comed ic attrib utes g iving M iss Pigg y a n inherent strength that mad e her continual roma ntic rejection b y Kermit funny and touching. (13) F or examp le, M iss Piggy seems to have d evelop ed into a ca ricature of va rious 1970s femininities. M issing from the ab ove read ing s of Miss Pigg y’s g end er status a re some of the politically motiva ted sub tleties of the first sea son, for exa mple, the wa y in which this ‘monstrous’ fema le p ig b ecame a n equal rights a ctivist, d oling out her now fa mous ka rate chop s not just to g et her ow n wa y or intimidate, but to d ema nd sp ecies justice from her fellow ca st memb ers. In one ea rly examp le, M iss Piggy comp lains ‘I’m tired of these continua l pig slurs,’ misund ersta nding Kermit’s q uestion about Sha kesp ea re a nd Bacon a nd sub seq uently ka rate chopp ing F loyd in the sa me sketch for ma king a joke about her ‘hogg ing’ screen time. La ter in the sa me ep isod e, Kermit is also the recipient of a M iss Pigg y bea ting for b oth rejecting her ad vances and making more jokes about Ba con and Pigg y’s ‘ha m’ a cting. In b oth instances M iss Pigg y’s a tta cks are ba cked b y the app ea ra nce of a g roup of male p ig s (the Bouncing Borsa lino Brothers) a nd her first is p refa ced b y her calling , ‘Pig s of the World , Unite!’ (Florence Hend erson Ep isod e, 16/ 11/ 1976) Here, and in other ep isod es M iss Piggy’s violent b eha viour is also linked to feminism. In the Ca nd ice Berg en ep isod e ( 29/ 11/1976) , Miss Pigg y talks Kermit into letting her p erform the op ening song, claiming tha t ‘I’m tired of a ny kind of p ig joke! ... M s. Berg en sa id I should stand up for my rig hts’ w ith Oz a lternating his d elivery of her d ia log ue b etw een simp ering a pp eals to Kermit and a gg ressive threa ts. The uses to w hich Oz puts M iss Pigg y’s b od y and voice in these exa mp les, one moment overtly sexua lising her, the next re-ima gining her bod y a s a w eap on, show s how centra l the issues of sex and violence w ere to The Mupp et Show. Ta king on boa rd the chang es to M iss Pigg y’s cha ra cter a cross the first season, Miss Pigg y’s b ody p rovides a very d ifferent site to tha t d escrib ed in either Row e or Mukerji’s a rticles, a nd, thoug h there ha s b een little enoug h spa ce for it here, even these short exa mples sugg est tha t a consid era tion of the men behind M iss Pigg y mig ht p rove fruitful. (14) The confusion over the M upp et’s p erformed bod ies does not end at a cad emic app reciations of The M upp et Show a nd its cha ra cters. Journalists in the late 1970s and ea rly 1980s also found much to comment up on w hen it ca me to The M up pet Show . One event in particula r help ed to foster d iscussion of and unea se a round the M upp et bod y in the 1970s, Lord Lew Gra d e’s op en d ay for the M upp ets in 1977. The M upp et Show wa s mad e a t Gra de’s Elstree Stud ios, a nd there wa s also a w orkshop there w here Mup p ets w ere mad e. Gra d e b rought Henson and the M upp eteers, nota bly F ra nk Oz, to the stud io for the op en da y a nd the resulting a rticles show the difficulties journalists had in unpa cking a nd discussing the Mupp et bod y. (15) Interestingly, a nd unlike their a ca d emic counterpa rts, the journa lists invited to Elstree w ere quick to comment up on the constructed nature of the M upp et b od y, revelling in the d etails of their production ( for a n a cad emic exception see M cHug h 2002). F or exa mple, Richa rd North d escrib es Kermit the F rog , saying, ‘he is very ind ivid ua l and huma ne, his eyes ma y b e ping p ong b alls, his bod y a sort of felt, a nd there ma y b e several of him ha nging limp on the workshop wall, b ut he rema ins exp ressive b eyond word s, fra ug ht a nd hop eful in ab out equa l measure.’ ( North, 1977) The constructed nature of the M upp et here is overtly linked to there ha ving b een multip le cop ies of ea ch cha ra cter, but is elid ed the next moment b y his cla ims tha t there is something inherently ‘exp ressive’ a bout the cha racters, even w hen inanimate. Another journalist simila rly comments on the tour journa lists received a t Elstree, stating, ‘W e a re standing in the workshop , with mupp ets on the workb enches a nd ha ng ing a ll round the wall – half a doz en Kermits in a row on one of them.’ (F idd ick 1977) The tour forced a recognition of the M up pet bod y a s a p erforming object, but one which, for all that it ma y ha ve b een constructed, retained something of its cha racter’s p ersona lity reg a rdless of w hether or not it wa s a ctively b eing p erformed . This fits with Steve Tillis’ claims about the occlusion of the a ctor in p upp et theatre. He posits tha t the pupp et a nd p erformer a ct to separa te out a sp ects of sta rd om: ‘w e should conceive of the a ctor a s the producer of the sig ns that communica te a d ra matic cha ra cter, ra ther tha n as, necessa rily, the producer and the site of those sig ns’ (1996: 109) . Later in the sa me article, he p rovid es the reverse a ng le on this a rg ument The p upp et inva riab ly exposes the p resence of the op erator behind it, even a s it occlud es tha t p resence b y ta king focus a s the site of the op era tor’s p erformance: the ontologica l pa rad ox of the p upp et is, in this sense, the result of the simulta neous occlusion and exp osure of the p rod ucer of significa tion. (115) With this in mind, it b ecomes p lausib le to read Kermit a s the site of Henson’s p erforma nces, as a n extension of his ow n sta r p ersona . It also explains why the cha ra cter is seen to have a life of its own, signifying cha ra cterisa tion a nd life b eyond its app ea ra nces on television. (16) This life b eyond The M upp et Show was something that Henson and his compa ny fostered a nd exp loited throughout the p eriod when The Mupp et Show a ired. They seem to ha ve done this in tw o wa ys. First, throug h off- screen p erformances explicitly a imed at show ing the working s of cha ra cter crea tion and manipula tion. For exa mple, in 1981, Rog er North w rote: Now I knew it wa s a mitten. I had seen it ea rlier, a piece of limp materia l on which the two halves of a p ing-pong ba ll had b een stuck, a nd I knew there w a s a ha nd inside it now. I must ha ve muttered something about the economy of it a ll, for a familia r ha ra ssed voice spoke for the first time. “I know, I know. I’m economical, and there’s not much to me”. And for a moment, in an office in Elstree Stud ios, I almost found myself ap olog ising to a mitten. ( 29) Here, Henson’s with/ in- cha ra cter interview help s to d raw a ttention to the imp orta nce of his role as Kermit’s p erformer, w hilst simulta neously exp loiting notions of Kermit a s a ‘rea l’ or autonomous fig ure. A simila r slippa g e occurs, or wa s p erformed for journa lists, b y other Mupp eteers. For exa mple, F rank Oz, in interview with Peter F iddick, attemp ts to shift b etw een answ ering questions a s Miss Pigg y, a nd answ ering them in his own voice and, a s his voice b rea ks, he says, ‘I want to tell you, I’m ha ving a crisis of identity right here on the spot.’ (1977) Oz’s sta tement lend s cred ence to the id ea of the intertwined performer and p erforma nce ob ject, emp ha sising his status as performer while giving M iss Piggy importance a s a n ‘alternate’ pa rt of his p ersona. Thus the Mup p et voice, if not body, is shown to b e enmeshed in that of the M upp et p erformer, crea ting not occlusion of the a ctor, b ut sugg esting that schisms in the b od y (or voice) of the performer create the p ersona lity of the Mupp et cha ra cter. (17) A second strand of interviewing took place in the late 1970s and ea rly 1980s in which the cha ra cters w ere a fford ed lives of their own. Miss Pig gy in pa rticula r ga ve interview s with the p ress in w hich she was p ositioned a s the ba ckstag e sta r b ehind the p erformances shown on The M upp et Show . Miss Pigg y’s popularity in this p eriod should not be und erestima ted; she regula rly received covers and articles in high profile mag azines including Vogue a nd Time in the ea rly 1980s. (‘Mupp et M orsels’ The M upp et Show Sea son One D VD) In a ra ther low er- key British exa mp le, titled , ‘The M en in My Life and the Life in my M en – by M iss Pigg y,’ she is p resented a s a ba cksta g e d iva, keep ing the interview er wa iting and ma king sp urious cla ims about her ca reer. N ow here in the a rticle is the fanta sy of a ‘real’ Miss Pigg y broken; now here a re Oz or Henson mentioned. Instead, the focus is on Miss Pig gy’s priva te life with Kermit. F or instance, Sa lisb ury a sks, ‘Are you going to ma rry Kermit?’ To which, ‘Miss Pig gy’ replies, ‘Oh Lesleee, Lesleee, yes, ma rriag e is something I certainly w ant, but I ha ve my wond erful ca reer. Kermit is a lwa ys b egg ing me to ma rry him.’ (1978: 11) This dual ad dress to a udiences, w ith the M upp ets a s ‘rea l’ sta rs and, a lterna tively, unreal sites of p erformance, add s to the comp lexity of p ercep tions of M upp et bod ies. The trend seems to ha ve b een b orne out in la ter acad emic work on the franchise, some of which d iscusses the techniq ues of pupp etry, w hile others add ress the cha ra cters as sta rs. (18) J ust a s significa nt a s these d iscussions of the Mupp ets’ b od ies, was the d ifficulty tha t review ers had in und erstand ing why certa in kind s of rea l b od ies worked so w ell or so b adly w ith the constructed bodies of the M upp ets. Ma ny of the ep isod e review s for The M upp et Show centred on the sta rs that ap p ea red a long sid e the M upp ets. One, for instance, from a later series tha t fea tured J ohnny Ca sh, b eg ins b y discussing his app ea ra nce on The Mup p et Show , but then ha rdly mentions the M upp ets for the rest of the a rticle, p referring instead to discuss Ca sh’s ow n ‘menag erie’ of a nima ls a t home. (Hiscock 1981; for similar see Ewba nk 1979 on the Lib era ce Ep isod e) Conversely, Richa rd Ing ra ms, in d iscussing the first sea son claims tha t ‘Only a very pow erful lad y like Ethel M erman…is ab le to hold her ow n in their [ the Mupp ets’] compa ny. Even so, when she was sing ing a d uet with Pigg y, I found myself watching the pupp et.’ (1977) The intangib le qualities tha t mad e for a w ell- received g uest sta r seem to lie in their ability to blend w ith the p ersona e of the M upp et cha ra cters, or, else, to p erform ‘bigg er’ than them in some wa y. This relationship is one which w ill b e investiga ted further in the next section, but on the strength of the reviews consid ered here, it seems that a successful app ea ra nce along sid e Henson’s crea tions wa s a va luable tool in leg itimising the cultura l positions of both sta rs and M up pets.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Presenting the End of Sex and Violence on Television … It’ s The Mupp et Show!’ (19) So sa ys The M upp et Show na rrator before a huma noid Mup p et ca lled C razy Ha rry blow s up the set a round him in the p ilot ep isod e which p rovid es the title for this cha pter. As the title ind ica tes, the cultura l sta tus of The Mupp et Show wa s not certa in d uring its first sea son ( see Note 6) . The title sugg ests the need Henson felt to b rea k away from the child ren’s television tradition tha t his p rod ucts ha d become a ssocia ted with throug h Sesa me Street. More to the point, Henson’s a ttemp ts to cross from child ren’s aud iences to fa mily ones necessita ted a d ifferent kind of intera ction b etw een the M upp ets, and betw een the M upp ets and their huma n co-sta rs, tha n wa s found on Sesame Street. Sex a nd violence p rovid ed two inroad s through w hich Henson’s new show could make g ains with the ad ult, or fa mily, television ma rkets. In fa ct, there app ea rs to ha ve b een much incred ulity on the pa rt of review ers concerning The Mupp et Show’s ability to ap p eal to a n adult aud ience. One aud ience memb er’s view, published in the Evening N ews, p rovid es telling evid ence as to w hy this critical misa lignment happ ened . Da vid D ow se cites the shifting sta tus of the M upp ets from a Saturda y morning children’s timeslot in Sesa me Street, to ‘ITV p utting out a child ren’s p rogramme a t p ea k view ing time on Sunda y evening’ a s cause for concern (Dow se 1978). Reg istering his a version to the forma t a nd content of the show, D ow se demonstra tes the relucta nce of some a udience memb ers to move awa y from the origina l view ing context created for the M upp ets in Sesame Street. This sta ted, the shift from child ren’s to genera l television audiences is, in la rg e pa rt, what enabled The M upp et Show to obta in the popula rity tha t ha s seen it spun out into a fully- fledg ed franchise since the 1970s. This section will therefore a ttemp t to ana lyse some of the wa ys in w hich The Mup p et Show re-imag ined the M upp ets for a crossover a udience. (20) F oremost a mong the wa ys in w hich the M upp ets chang ed wa s in their intera ctions w ith guest sta rs. These interpla ys w ere und erta ken in numerous wa ys, and intera ctions d ep end ed la rg ely on the kind of sta r p ersona involved . F or examp le, J oel Grey’s rep uta tion as a sta r of musicals ( on screen a nd Broadwa y) led to him intera cting more w ith the musically oriented Mup p ets, such a s D r. Teeth a nd the Electric Mayhem b and , as well a s Gonzo, for whom he a cted as a p erforma nce tea cher. Likew ise, British comedy sta r Bruce F orsyth wa s tea med w ith Fozzie Bea r for much of his app ea rance, teaching him how to ha nd le heckling from Wa ldorf a nd Sta tler. This tutela ry p osition in relation to the M upp ets is the closest link reta ined by the show to its Sesa me Street roots. W hile this hold-over ma y a ccount for some aud ience confusion, it sha res little in common w ith tw o other frequently used method s of interplay b etw een the Mupp ets a nd their g uests. (21) Most common a mong st these wa s flirta tions, usually orchestrated by M iss Pigg y or Kermit. Kermit’s flirtations w ith fema le guest sta rs took p la ce la rg ely during his ‘Talk Spot’ in the show, w here he w ould be p resented sitting on the edg e of a b a nister-like structure in a simp le set, w ith the g uest sta r in front of the banister. These sp ots, a s the sea son p rog ressed, w ere more a nd more regula rly disrupted b y other memb ers of the Mupp et ca st, most usua lly M iss Pigg y or F ozzie Bea r (a llowing Henson and Oz to p erform tog ether with the sta rs), but one ea rly exa mp le b ea rs scrutiny. In one of the pilot ep isod es, sta rring dancer Juliet Prowse, she and Kermit ha ve the following conversation:( x) Kermit: The a verag e frog d oesn’t ha ve a lot g oing for him in the looks d epa rtment. Prow se: You a re the R ob ert R ed ford of frogs. Kermit: Hey listen, ha ve you ever kissed Rob ert R ed ford ? Prow se: No I haven’t. Kermit: How about kissing the next b est thing ? (J uliet Prow se Episod e, 25/ 04/1977) At w hich point Prow se conclud es w ith a joke ab out Pa ul N ewman a nd, ha ving stroked Kermit’s head throughout, then g ives him a q uick kiss. The exchang e is unapolog etica lly filled with sexua l innuend o and humour, a nd Kermit’s b eha viour here offers and unusua l ea rly insight into how sex and the M upp ets would b e manag ed in la ter episod es. Here Kermit is not, a s Mukerji ha s p roclaims him to b e, ‘unca nny’ in his childish virtue, b ut is ra ther exp loring a more ad ult id entity. (1997: 162) He is p resented in this sketch a s a n attra ctive, ad ult male, and not a s a child . However, Henson’s p erforma nce of Kermit’s flirtation a ctua lly positions the cha ra cter more in the role of an adolescent, unsure of himself and ba shful. This bord er crossing betw een child hood and ad ulthood ca n b e seen even more clea rly in the temp estuous relationship s of M iss Pigg y. (22) Miss Pigg y, a s Rowe p oints out, ha s ‘two a sp ects… ba sic to her id entity: she is a “Miss,” both the most strong ly g end ered of the ma in Mupp et cha ra cters a nd the only female a mong them; she is a lso “Pigg y.”’ ( 1995: 26) W ithin even her na me, therefore, M iss Pigg y sugg ests the excessive femininity tha t w ould b ecome one of her trad ema rks. While it is possible to read Miss Pig gy’s infatuation w ith Kermit a s the motivation for her va rious flirtations across all the series of The Mupp et Show, it is w orth unpa cking some of her ‘courting’ ta ctics here in ord er to b etter und ersta nd the d ifferent roles of sex a nd sexua lity in The M upp et Show . Tw o exa mples of M iss Pigg y’s intera ctions with g uest sta rs a re useful here: her flirta tions w ith French sing er and a ctor C ha rles Az na vour and with Avery Schreib er (one half of a comed y duo that includ ed The M upp et Show writer, Ja ck Burns). In the former exa mp le, M iss Pig gy b ecomes the butt of sexua lised humour in jokes a bout the b eauty of the F rench la ng uag e. During a nother ‘Ta lk Sp ot’ with Kermit, Azna vour is show n sp ea king to Miss Pig gy in the manner of a lover, w hile Oz p erforms her q uivering and sig hing. The humour resid es in the fact that Aznavour is merely reciting p hone numb ers a nd other meaningless phrases instead of actua lly ‘ma king love’ to her. Unusua lly, Azna vour escap es the scene unsca thed , b ut a la ughing Kermit is p unished b y M iss Piggy’s ka rate chop. (23) In the second exa mple, Miss Pigg y tries to convince Schreib er to flirt with her in ord er to ma ke Kermit jealous. This is pa rt of an elabora te scheme on Miss Pigg y’s pa rt w hich la sts a lmost a s long a s the ep isod e a nd ta kes in Scooter as a co-consp irator. In this exa mp le, Schreib er’s refusa l to g o along with M iss Pigg y’s scam a nd her b etra ya l by Scooter lead to a flurry of violence in w hich both a re on the receiving end of M iss Pigg y’s violent pa ssions ( there a re five ka ra te chop s d elivered in this ep isod e, p lus kicks). In these examples, the guest stars p la y a sig nificant role in helping to d efine the ad ult relationship s (or a t lea st teenag ed ones) of the centra l Mupp et cha ra cters. Once a gain, ad olescent b eha viour pa tterns a re visible in Miss Pig gy, who is positioned a lterna tely a s an unwitting foil for male misog yny and the orchestrator of elab orate pla ns to ensna re the object of her affections. Her adolescent b eha viour is ma rked b y the intermingling of love w ith violence, making her neither a victim nor a mature ad ult in b eha viour. Sta rs in these examples p rovid e an alterna tive focus for M iss Pigg y’s pa ssions, and the intersp ecies lust and love d emonstrated in them, either ‘rea l’ or ‘p erformed’ p rovid es audiences with new wa ys in w hich to consid er the sexua lised b od y of the M upp et. As d elinea ted above, sta r intera ctions with the M upp et ca st also help to crysta llise a sp ects of their star p ersona e, often centred on the bod y, b e it in voca l or p hysica l humour a s seen a bove, or in other wa ys that w ill b e explored b elow . (24) Another wa y in w hich the Mupp et b ody w a s sexualised during Sea son One of The M upp et Show ca n b e seen in the many inter- sp ecies relationship s d ep icted throug hout. One significa nt recurring sketch from the show d emonstrates the M upp eteers commitment to this id ea , the ‘At the D ance’ sketch. Like the La ugh In ( 1968- 1973) spot that it spoofs, ‘At the Da nce’ centres on a b allroom a round w hich couples dance while telling jokes. W hile these ‘coup les’ do a lter a cross the sea son, w ith some b eing more frequently used tha n others, there a re some interesting consistencies. First, the only sa me sp ecies couples are a nima l ones. An ea rly version of M iss Pigg y p erformed b y R icha rd Hunt app ears rep ea ted ly ea rly on in the sea son, da ncing w ith another pig. It w as a lso in this sketch tha t the M upp et ra ts w ere first introd uced, da ncing tog ether and ma king risq ué jokes b ased around affluence a nd an implied African American ethnicity. But other tha n these anima l coup les, every other dancing pair is ‘mismatched’; anima ls and huma n-ba sed M upp ets tog ether, or more commonly monsters and huma ns, w ith the occa sional multi- coloured ‘W hatnot’ coup le. (25) Notab le p airing s from the first sea son includ e Rowlf the D og paired w ith a young ‘huma n’ g irl, seen ma king jokes a bout her w ea ring a flea colla r; a nd humanoid Georg e the Janitor w ho commonly da nces with M ild red Hocksted d er, a Whatnot memb er of The M upp et Show Sea son One pa nel seg ments. This Mupp et misceg ena tion is clea rly intend ed to enha nce the pa rod ic comedy in these sketches, signa lling homag e to La ugh In’s successful forma t. How ever, more intrig uingly, this combination of d ifferent kind s of M uppets also help s to fore- ground the rang e of b odies on d ispla y in The M upp et Show . Unlike Row e’s claim that the female b od y is ab sent from the Mupp ets, w e ca n see in this sketch how necessa ry and insistently p resent it w a s. Moreover, w e ca n see how the constructed nature of the bod y wa s celeb rated in this sketch, with simila r M upp ets reapp earing w eek on week b ut in d ifferent w ig s, w ith d ifferent pa rtners and sometimes in different outfits d ep end ent on the jokes being told. (26) Many of these jokes w ere intrinsica lly violent. Miss Pigg y’s violent nature is the most routinely cited exa mp le of Mup p et violence, a nd is often used to ca st her in a monstrous role in rela tion to the central Mupp et ca st. How ever, in Sea son One of The M upp et Show , Miss Pigg y is not the most violent of Mupp et cha racters b y fa r. In fa ct, b efore her first ka rate chop, in the R uth Buzz i episod e ( numb er 4 a ccord ing to the ord er they w ere tap ed in), M iss Piggy remains a non- violent backg round cha ra cter, b ecoming increa sing ly violent only a s the sea son p rog ressed. Violence p erp etrated a mong the other M upp et cha ra cters falls into tw o b roa d ca teg ories. On the one hand , there are multip le insta nces across the first sea son of wha t mig ht b e ca lled , Mupp et-bod y horror, where one M upp et ea ts another. A g ood exa mp le of this b eha viour can b e found in a sketch b ased on Sherlock Holmes, where a la rg e p urple monster b utler slowly eats a ll the evid ence tha t Rowlf, as Holmes, is trying to use to solve the case. The evid ence includ es M iss Pigg y, pla ying a serva nt w ho w itnessed the crime. (Joel Grey Episod e, 18/ 10/1976) A less violent exa mp le includ es a sketch where a crocod ile, singing ‘N ever Smile at a C rocodile,’ eats a series of frog s, only for them to jump out of his mouth at the end of the sketch (Sandy D uncan Episod e, 04/ 10/ 1976). A fina l telling sketch ta kes p la ce to a ccompa ny the song ‘I’ve Got You Under M y Skin’, in w hich a la rg e yellow monster Mupp et called a Behemoth eats a smaller red and purple one, only to ha ve the song b ecome an unw illing d uet a s the little M upp et ap p ea rs insid e the Behemoth’s mouth, p op s his head throug h its should er a nd then is regurg itated b efore b eing ea ten a second time ( Vincent Price Ep isod e, 31/ 01/ 1977). These exa mp les of Mupp et bod y- horror ca nniba lism stress the ana rchic a sp ects of the comed y of The M upp et Show . The core of the humour in ea ch sketch comes, often from the cannibalistic p ra ctices themselves, but a lso sometimes from the refusa l of the ea ten to rema in so. (27) On top of cannib alistic Mupp ets, there a re the examp les, like tha t discussed at the b eg inning of this chap ter, of M upp ets d ra stically altering their bodies during sketches. This d ifferent version of bod y horror usua lly p la ys with concep tions of bea uty, as in the op ening exa mple w here the ‘a ttra ctive’ fema le W hatnot chooses to b ecome a monster, und ermining conventional cod es of feminine b eauty. A simila r exa mple ca n b e found in a running g ag towa rd s the end of the first sea son, w ith the ‘Vend aface’ ma chine. Here, va rious Mupp ets intera ct with a ma chine tha t offers to chang e their app ea ra nce, for examp le, Sta tler ha s his features ‘rea rrang ed’ b y the ma chine w hen it p unches him in the fa ce (M ummensha nz Episod e, 06/ 01/1977) . In a more extend ed sketch one Wha tnot M upp et trades in the features of its monstrous, ‘ug ly’ fa ce for b eautiful feminine ones, only for the next Wha tnot to receive the first’s ‘sca ry’ fea tures in place of its d owd y ones ( Ka ye Ba lla rd Ep isod e, 11/ 22/ 1976). Bea uty a nd the sea rch for physica l p erfection thereb y b ecome mocked concepts in The M upp et Show, w ith cha otic, ugly a nd tra nsmuta ble bod ies freq uently d ep icted as p referab le to a ny sta nda rd d efinitions of p hysical a ttra ctiveness. (28) On the other hand there w ere the many slap stick insta nces of violence seen in The M upp et Show . Interestingly the most extreme violence on the show wa s g enera lly p erp etrated b y its ‘monster’ cha ra cters aga inst either other monsters, or against the centra l ca st of Mupp ets. On occa sion though, sta rs would g et violent with the M upp ets and vice versa. In one exa mp le, Broad w ay sta r Ben Vereen is rep ea ted ly b lown up b y C razy Ha rry and is show n ha ng ing from the set’s light rig ging (Ben Vereen Ep isod e, 24/ 01/1977) . In another, a nd more common kind of intera ction, R ita M oreno d oes an interp retive dance in a ba r setting with a life- siz e M upp et a nd sp end s much of the ‘numb er’ throw ing a limp stand- in rep la cement Mupp et a cross the set and through the w alls ( Rita M oreno Episod e, 20/ 09/ 1976). R uth Buzz i similarly p erformed ‘Ca n’t Take My Eyes Off of You’ w ith la rg er than life- siz e Mupp et monster Sw eetums, and they sp end the entire numb er alterna tely hitting a nd hang ing off of one a nother (R uth Buzzi Episod e, 11/ 10/1976) . This g uest- to-Mup p et violence w a s an imp orta nt p a rt of the comed y of the first sea son, offering slap stick and excuses for physica l intera ction b etw een the Mupp ets and their guests. Such violent encounters help ed to reinforce the corporea lity of the Mupp et bodies; a s they bang ed into the huma n sta rs, they help ed to ma ke the Mupp ets seem more ‘rea l.’ (29) Mupp et-on-M upp et violence w as a n a ltog ether more cha otic affa ir. In one a ll- monster sketch, from the episod e sta rring J oel Grey, the Mupp et monsters sing ‘Comed y Tonig ht’ while throwing dagg ers, shooting g uns a nd a rrow s a nd exploding one another. This is the most violent of the sketches in Sea son One, b ut is b y no means unusua l. Craz y Ha rry reap p ea rs across the sea son, most frequently b low ing up Wald orf a nd Sta tler, while F rackles a re used in a va riety of sketches where their head s a re blown off, p a rticula rly ‘At the Dance’ sketches. Wha t these sketches sha re is a common und erstand ing that, a s with Avery’s ca rtoons, the M upp ets’ bodies w ould b e rep aired a nd return to the show unscathed. This forced a ttention on the unrea lity of the Mupp et bod y and with it on the creators’ ab ility to construct a nd reconstruct cha ra cters’ b odies a t w ill. Violence here then, unlike w ith the g uest sta rs, emp ha sised the p erformer over the site of performa nce, the Mup p eteer’s skill over the M upp ets corporea lity.

Conclusions: ‘ Yes, b ut a couple of what?’ (30) J anice asks this q uestion of F loyd in an ‘At the D ance’ sketch in Sea son One (R ita M oreno Ep isod e, 20/09/1976) , ma king a joke of the sheer va riety of M upp et b od ies d isp la yed in The M upp et Show . F rom men in costumes almost ten feet tall, to rod p upp et inchw orms, to medium siz ed hyb rid hand a nd rod p upp ets, The M upp et Show’s b odies are hig hly va riable entities. M oreover, the juxtap osition of M upp ets with the human b odies of sta rs fore-g round s their constructed na tures, while p la cing the Mup p ets in a ba cksta g e musical- style na rrative worked to ma ke their constructed na tures invisibly visib le. By this I mean tha t just a s Ja nice’s q uestion throws their constructed na tures into relief, so the ba ckstag e portion of the show that follow s w orks to natura lise a nd justify the M upp ets w ithin their environment. By ma king their constructed na tures pa rt of the na rra tive of the show, The Mupp et Show ’s crea tors ca refully ma inta ined the mixture of ad ult a nd childish app ea ls that w ould d raw in the family audiences they required. As a result, the M upp et b od y b ecomes one of the show ’s central concerns, a concern tha t manifests on a va riety of narrative, a esthetic, performa nce and reception levels. (31) How ever, it is not just the visib le M upp et b od y that ma tters. As ca n b e seen in the ca se of M iss Pigg y, the p erformer a lso matters. Her cha ra cter only emerg ed fully in the series in the ha nd s of F rank Oz, remaining und isting uished w hen p erformed b y Richa rd Hunt. W ithout Oz creating the cha ra cter, much of w ha t w ould b ecome a ssociated w ith this ‘unsp ea kab le’ yet hig hly voluble cha ra cter would ha ve b een lost. Ind eed , the interview s p erformed b y the M upp eteers in the late 1970s and ea rly 1980s often a ctively worked to b lur the b ounda ries b etw een their bod ies and those of the Mupp ets they p erformed. Kermit ha s frequently b een d iscussed b y Henson himself a s an extension of his own p ersona lity (North 1977: 49; R og ers 1981 or Irw in 1977). This blurring of the lines b etw een p erformance ob ject a nd p erformer help s to equate the sepa ra te bod ies of the Muppets and those who control them, w hile ta king the focus off the cha ra cters a s sta rs. (32) Sex and violence w ithin The M upp et Show ad d to this discussion of the M upp et bod y b y helping to unra vel some of the mea ns b y w hich the M upp ets w ere d ifferentia ted from their b rethren in other show s, and also from the ma jority of pupp ets on television in the 1970s. The discussion ab ove ha s ind icated some of the many wa ys in w hich the Mupp ets’ bod ies w ere utilised not just a s sites of p erformance, b ut a s liminial sites, shifting b etw een the reg isters of a dult a nd child ren’s culture in ord er to ma ximise a ud iences, whilst a lso shifting b etw een the monstrous and b eautiful, the ma le a nd the fema le, the human a nd the Other. By refusing simple concep tions of the b od y a s behold en to cultura l constructs of b eauty, g end er or the ‘huma n,’ The Mupp et Show provid ed a n exp erimenta l sp ace in w hich id entity and the role of the bod y could b e explored. Hence this cha p ter’s cla ims to comp lexity of the M upp et b od y in this lig ht enterta inment show. (33) The result of Henson Associa tes’ experiments, in some ca ses, appea rs to ha ve b een the creation of limina l ‘ad olescent’ p ersonae for the core ca st of cha ra cters. Miss Pigg y a nd Kermit w ere the key adolescent cha ra cters of the series, w ith their flirta tious relationship s acting a s the focus for much of the show ’s sexua l tension. Tha t Miss Pigg y’s response to her emotions wa s often violence also indica tes how enmeshed sex a nd violence b eca me to the hea rt of the show ’s cha ra cterisations. How ever, a t other times the Mup p ets bodies provid ed much more a na rchic spa ces for d elib era tion about sex and violence, a s w hen vend ing ma chines pull apa rt Mupp et fa ces, only to rep la ce them w ith others tha t b rea k cosmetic rules of b eauty. Sex a nd violence w ere used to further p roblema tise the Mup p et b od y, to crea te a spa ce in w hich they could b e seen a s both ‘rea l’ cha ra cters and rep la ceab le component pa rts w hich could b e literally d econstructed, or blow n up , on a whim. Va rious typ es of M upp et- on- Mup p et a nd Mup p et- sta r violence help to ma ke this point, ra nging from ca nniba lism to fighting to attempted exp losive ‘a ssa ssinations.’ By using this kind of violent, Tex Avery- inspired humour, the Mupp et bod y b ecomes a site for d efa milia risa tion. In this w ay, such ‘unrea l’ b odies w ere used to dra w attention to the a ct of p erformance, to the skill a nd cra ft of the Mupp eteers. Tra nsg ressed bod ily b ounda ries, like Mupp ets insid e other Mupp ets, help ed to remind a ud iences of the men insid e the p upp ets on screen. (34) It is this b ord er crossing that ha s enabled the Mupp ets to inspire generations of pup p ets on television. F rom the rema rkable ep isod e of Angel where the hero is transformed into a Mupp et- styled pupp et ( see Fea sey, this collection), to the use of Henson’s companies in the ma king of science fiction series like Fa rscap e ( 1999-2003) a nd films like Brotherhood of the Wolf ( Le Pa cte d es Loup es, 2001), to films like Meet the F eebles ( 1989), the M upp ets continue to influence our und erstand ing of where p upp ets a re ap p ropria te in contempora ry culture. The Mupp et Show b roke new g round for the p upp et on television a nd ha s thus mad e room for a fa r g reater va riety of p upp et bodies to b e shown thereon. The Mup p et Show thereby p rovid es a g ood exa mple of how consid erations of the body on television still req uire develop ment. D ifferently to any other show b efore or since, The Mupp et Show mad e the body its centra l concern, a nd b y combining performa nce object bod ies with huma n b odies, the M upp ets act to d raw our a ttention to the constructed, media ted nature of the bod y on television. In a ttemp ting to a nsw er the question of, ‘A couple of w ha t?’ offered b y a Mupp et, w e b ecome better able to und ersta nd w hat the bod y on television mig ht b e mad e of.

Note 1: W hatnots a re a g eneric kind of Mupp et, to which a ny numb er of d ifferent eyes, noses and mouths can b e add ed a s necessa ry. (F or more see Finch 1986) Da tes ind ica te first airing of ep isod es in N ew York, USA, w herever availab le. Note 2: All new spa p er sources ta ken from the British Film Institute Newspap er Clipp ings a rchive for The M uppet Show, which is cata logued und er The M upp et Show , ATV/Henson Ass. 1976 (2) a nd 1980 ( 4) and also und er The M upp ets, Cha ra cters, unless otherw ise sta ted. These d o not alw ays ha ve full references, but a ll ava ilable informa tion will b e provid ed in the Bib liog rap hy. Note 3: The first full- leng th b ook on the M upp ets w as recently announced, in a call for pap ers for a forthcoming ed ited collection b y Anissa M. Graha m and J ennifer C. Ga rlen ca lled Kermit C ulture: Persp ectives on Jim Henson's Mupp ets http:// cfp.english.up enn.edu/ a rchive/ Collections/ 2821.html ( Accessed 14/ 06/2007) . Note 4: W hile the reasons for this elision of the show from the history of the M upp ets a re unclea r, it is p ossib le tha t they lie in the ina ccessibility of the text. Until recently, The Mupp et Show wa s not ava ilable for home view ing , while the films w ere availab le on VHS a nd then DVD, and the Mupp et Babies ( 1984-1991) ca rtoon wa s airing around the time some of these studies w ere und ertaken. The Mupp et Bab ies ca rtoon w as b ased on a sketch from The Great M upp et Cap er (1981) film, and not on the orig inal series. Note 5: One notab le excep tion to the categories would b e Ja ck Zip es’ excellent technica l rea ding of Henson’s The Storyteller ( 1987) (1995, pp. 109- 126) . Note 6: One review er cited it as ‘television’s unlikeliest success’ in the wake of its Sea son One hit sta tus. F idd ick, ‘All Ha nd s on D eck.’

Bib liog rap hy

Carroll, N oël ( 1990), ‘Why Horror?’, The Philosophy of Horror Or Paradoxes of the Hea rt, N ew York: R outledg e, p p.158- 195.

Cutler Shershow, Scott ( 1995), ‘“No String s on M e”: F rom Pinnochio to the M upp ets’, Pupp ets a nd “Pop ula r” Culture, New York: Cornell University, pp.222- 241.

Feuer, Ja ne ( 1981), ‘The Self-R eflective Musica l and the Myth of Enterta inment’, Rick Altman, ( ed .), Genre: The M usica l, A R ead er, Lond on: R outledg e and Keg an Pa ul, pp. 159- 174.

--- ( 1982), The Hollyw ood M usica l, Blooming ton, Ind iana : Indiana University Press.

Finch, C hristop her ( 1986), Of M upp ets a nd M en: The Making of The Mupp et Show , N ew York: Alfred A Knop f, Inc.

Hend ershot, Hea ther ( 1998), Saturda y M orning C ensors: Television Regula tion b efore the V-C hip, D urha m: Duke University Press.

Kind er, Ma rsha ( 1991), Pla ying W ith Power in M ovies, Television a nd Vid eo Ga mes: F rom M upp et Bab ies to Teena ge Muta nt N inja Turtles, Berkeley: University of Ca lifornia Press.

McHug h, Susa n (2002) ‘Bring ing Up Bab e’, Ca mera Obscura, 17.1, pp. 148- 187.

Mukerji, C hand ra ( 1997), ‘Monsters a nd Mupp ets: The History of Child hood and Techniques of C ultura l Analysis’, in Elizab eth Long, ( ed.) From Sociology to Cultura l Stud ies: N ew Persp ectives, Oxford: Blackw ells Pub lishers, pp. 155- 184.

Nea le, Steve, and F ra nk Krutnik ( 1990), Popula r Film and Television Comedy, London: Routledg e.

Row e, Ka thleen ( 1995), ‘Pig Lad ies, Big Ladies, a nd La dies w ith Big Mouths: F eminism a nd the Ca rniva lesque’, The Unruly Woma n: Gend er and the Genres of Laughter, Austin: University of Texa s Press, pp . 25- 49.

Salisb ury, Leslie (1978) , ‘The M en in M y Life and the Life in M y M en – by M iss Pigg y’, TV Times, 93: 47, 18- 24 Novemb er, pp. 10- 11 ( plus cover imag e).

Sand ler, Kevin S. ( ed.) ( 1998), R ead ing the Rabb it: Exp lora tions in Wa rner Bros. Animation, N ew Brunsw ick, N ew J ersey: Rutg ers University Press.

Seg el, Ha rold B. ( 1995), ‘Pupp ets and Their Kin in Fiction D rama’, Pinnochio’s Progeny: Pupp ets, Ma rionettes, Automa tons, and R obots in Mod ernist a nd Ava nt-Ga rd e Dra ma , Ba ltimore: J ohn Hop kins University Press, pp . 222-242.

Sirkin, Elliot (1978) , ‘A Sow is Born’, Film Comment, 14: 3, Ma y/J une, pp. 13-15.

Tillis, Steve ( 1996), ‘The Actor Occlud ed : Pupp et Theatre a nd Acting Theory’, Theatre Top ics, 6: 2, pp . 109-119.

Wells, Pa ul ( 1998), Und erstand ing Animation, London: Routledg e.

Zip es, Ja ck ( 1995), ‘Once Up on a Time Beyond D isney: Contemp ora ry Fairy-tale F ilms for Child ren’, in Ca ry Ba zalg ette a nd Da vid Bucking ha m ( eds), In F ront of the C hild ren: Screen Enterta inment a nd Young Aud iences, London: BFI Pub lishing, pp . 109-126.

BF I Newsp ap er Clippings Collection

Ewba nk, Tim (1979) ‘Liberace g ets hounded b y a M upp et!’ Sun, 19 January.

Fidd ick, Peter ( 1977) ‘All ha nd s on d eck,’ Gua rdian, 23 Ma y.

Hiscock, J ohn (1981) ‘Ca shing in on the Wild Life,’ Sun, 31 Janua ry.

Ing ra ms, R icha rd ( 1978) ‘The Mup p et Show,’ Sp ectator, 07 Ja nua ry.

Irw in, Ken (1977) ‘Mup petmania ma kes a million!’ Da ily M irror, 17 Aug ust.

North, R icha rd ( 1977) ‘Und er the tab les with Kermit,’ Ob server, 08 Octob er, pp . 47-50.

Rog ers, Byron ( 1981) ‘Pupp et Love,’ Sunday Telegra ph, 26 J uly, p. 29.