From: "nmt" <nmt-AT-sover.net>
To: <puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:18:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] (no subject)


Claudia - I think the only time a critic would even comment on dialogue lip
sync is if it DIDN'T work - if it was glaringly wrong and jarring.  I
repeat:  Good theatre is good theatre whether it be performed by live
actors/puppets/dancers/opera/mime/trained pigs (personally I LOVE a good
trained pig act - VERY few of them around) - only when something is glaring
wrong would it be noted and commented upon by the average, non-puppeteer
theatre goer.  I think that one puppeteer evaluating another puppeteer's
show would pick up on things that are not noted by the general public (AND
critics): puppets that tend to sink or float above the ground/wooden
movement (no pun intended)/bad lip sync/etc.  As to whether a performance is
successful or not should be a no brainier:  Bottom line - did the audience
enjoy the show?  Yeah, my feelings about good theatre are rather simplistic.
When someone plunks down their hard earned cash to go see a performance all
they want to do is be entertained, now whether they were 'uplifted',
'transported', 'emotionally drained' 'hysterical with laughter' 'totally
involved' and all that stuff during the course of the performance still
means that they were entertained.  IF your intention is to train your
students to be aware of so-so manipulation, bad lip sync etc, that's great
but it might confuse the general public.  It would only be good for the
puppeteers being critiqued.  At least that is MY opinion.


David A. Syrotiak, Artistic Director
NATIONAL MARIONETTE THEATRE
http://www.nationalmarionette.com
-----Original Message-----
From: puptcrit-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
[mailto:puptcrit-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org] On Behalf Of
corenste-AT-hunter.cuny.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:30 PM
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] (no subject)


It seems to me the interest in the issue of puppet criticism lies more 
in the kind of remark David said about "I would also expect the person 
doing the critique of a puppet performance to take into consideration, 
and comment upon, the over all design and manipulation of the figures." 
We all want a great experience at the theatre, whether we are watching 
puppets or human actors. But what makes a great experience? Do the same 
elements make a great experience for each of these artistic forms? Or, 
when watching puppet theatre, are there different elements we want to 
pay attention to and take into account and think about how to evaluate? 
And if so, how do we judge success and virtuosity in this arena? Just 
as you wouldn't apply the same criteria to a dance or even an opera 
performance as you would to a theatrical performance,  your attention 
is not placed in the same place with theatre and puppetry. So where 
should a critic be placing his/her attention? How should a critic be 
appraising those elements unique to puppetry? The lypsinching 
discussion is a very good example. Is this part of the art a critic 
should be looking for? Obviously someone trained to look at theatre may 
not be taking this skill into account, or noting that it is a skill at 
all. Does it ever become an interesting choice with a speaking puppet 
to intentionally or accidentally not lypsinch well? How can such 
choices within the limits and expanse of what the form of puppetry has 
to offer contribute to meaning, interpretation and overall theatrical 
experience?

This is the direction I'm thinking.
Thanks. Claudia


_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org

_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org