framptonhollis You can say what ever you want about it, but there's no denying that Jim Henson's earlier works are certainly...INTERESTING to some degree. Having only thus far witnessed 'Time Piece', if 'Piece' can be considered a basis for the style of these earlier Henson films than I am likely to love every one that I see! Surreal, funny, bizarre, brilliant...it's Henson years before he came to be known as the world famous creator of such classics as 'The Muppet Show' and 'Sesame Street'. I can certainly say that it is at least mildly surprising seeing a film made by the man who invented 'Sesame Street' that also contains some heavily raunchy jokes and images, but this element only adds to the fun! Seriously, 'Time Piece' is an uproarious and surrealist joyriot!

Robert Reynolds This short was nominated for the Academy Award for Short, Live Action, Losing to Le Poulet (The Chicken). There will be spoilers ahead: Jim Henson, already feeling constricted at being considered a producer of children's programming, produced this experimental film as a way of demonstrating other facets to his work. It's most decidedly not intended for children.It's a visual short, with only four instances where a single word is uttered. Henson plays a man, whom we see all through the short. At the beginning, we see him in a bed in a hospital room. A doctor comes in and checks his heart rate. This is where it starts to get surreal. You begin to hear sounds which aren't typical for the situation-a camera shutter click when he blinks, clicking in place of a heart beat and so on.The editing on this is extensive, as all the scenes are very brief, running seconds in length. Henson is seen in various places, in different clothing and varied surroundings. He's seen on a pogo stick, running, walking, dressed in suits, rags, as a caveman and even as Lincoln for a bit. Timepieces are shown here and there.Henson is shown with a woman, with the inference that she's his wife. The woman also does a variety of things-cut cords, take off clothing, eat dinner, change clothing and so on. There are points in this where, if you blink, you'll likely miss something! Everything revolves around rhythm and time and it all comes back around rather neatly. The ending is good, so I won't spoil it here.So far as I'm aware, this isn't available commercially at the moment, though at one point, I believe you could find it online. Pity, because it's well worth seeing. Most recommended.

Lee Eisenberg It was only after "Sesame Street" debuted that Jim Henson became a household name. Of course, that wasn't his first foray into the public eye. The man who created the Muppets had been working on stuff since the '50s, but his avant-garde 1965 short "Time Piece" is also worth seeing. This film has no discernible plot. It focuses on time, whether as an abstract concept, or as the dominant force in our lives (to the extent that it imprisons us). Henson plays a man who walks to the beat of a ticking clock. A few other things happen, all set to a beat.The antics of Bert & Ernie, as well as Kermit & Piggy, showed everyone that Henson was capable of creating some far-out material. But here, he goes for the surreal. In a good way. Definitely worth seeing. Watch for a young Frank Oz (the voice of Fozzie, and the director of "The Muppets Take Manhattan", "Little Shop of Horrors", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "What About Bob?", "In & Out", "Bowfinger" and the original "Death at a Funeral") in one scene.

MartinHafer This is an experimental film done early in Jim Henson's career--before he achieved national prominence. While I didn't enjoy it and didn't see it as a great artistic triumph (despite the Oscar he received for Best Live Action Short), I am thrilled that he made it because it gave him a chance to experiment and hone his craft. Interestingly, the film has none of his Muppets--even though for almost a decade he'd been using them on local (Washington, DC).The film has a beat (such as drum or cymbal) every second and the action changes--almost slide show style. Much of it seemed rather random, though some of the seemingly random images weren't (such as the obvious phallic imagery). Clever at times, but not a film I'd want to see again.