File puptcrit/puptcrit.0605, message 424


From: Christopher Hudert <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 03:19:20 -0400
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Changing treads or worlds



On May 30, 2006, at 3:05 PM, mjm wrote:

> Questions (below)
> On May 30, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Christopher Hudert wrote:
>> ...   Personally I have nearly zero interest in this type of show as 
>> I find
>> them to be often more sermon than show. I don't mind being challenged
>> or made to think. but I do mind being told what to think or how. I am
>> offended by a "show" that is all black and white in its thinking and
>> presentation: an "either you are with us or you are a demon" attitude.
>
> I am wondering what shows by what artists you have seen that draw you
> to this conclusion?
> My experience is that the shows I have seen (and I have seen quite a
> few examples over the years. Bread & Puppet, SFMT, Provisional Theatre,
> Welfare State, etc). In all instances a good story and excellent
> production and high entertainment value was the underpinning that held
> the audience as well as delivered the content.
  Since you sited them, I have seen several Bread & Puppet productions 
and found them to be pageantry, passion, and preaching a point of view 
and not much compelling story. That's my take. I know there are many 
who love their work. I don't, but I am not putting them down either. 
Just not my cup of tea.  I have seen other productions of other 
companies who's names I don't recall (convieniently) but for the most 
part the shows were either political or religious in nature and short 
on story. Or the message was so far out in front that I no longer cared 
whether there was a story or not. From chatting with others who saw the 
same show at the same time as I did there were quite a few who were 
held more by the desire not to be seen walking out than by the content.

>
>> ... I could go on, but I don't think this position really interests 
>> many on
>> the list and I would only end up writing a sermon of the kind that I
>> would be preaching about. Basically it is this, I am not a pig to be
>> led by a ring in the nose to some trough of thought. Entertain me with
>> a good show that also makes me think and perhaps even points me in a
>> direction of thought, but I am capable of forming my own thoughts and
>> conclusions. Sometimes it turns out that as I grow I find I as wrong 
>> or
>> I need to change my position, but I am not afraid to be wrong or to
>> change my position if or when my opinion changes.
>>    BTW, most of the shows I present are classic tales that have a
>> strong moral message.
>
> I would often equate a "sermon" with a "moral message" and "black and
> white"  and "either you are with us" in many cases.
   Too many times this is the case, not only with shows but also with 
religion and politics and, truth be told, many other things in life as 
well. I am involved in both religion and politics, though not heavily 
with either, but no more like being preached at (rather than to) in 
church or at a political meeting than I do in a show.

> Personally I'm a
> big fan of Aesop, but I know a lot of adults who are very threatened by
> a "and the moral of the story is" approach.
   Good example. There are actually several morals in most of Aesop's 
tales, even though they are very short. But if the emphasis is on the 
moral or morals rather than the delivery of the story most people, 
adult and child alike, turn off to the presentation. The point of the 
stories was to illustrate proper or improper behavior. One need not 
belabor the point to get the point across. Same holds true with other 
shows and presentations, be they political, social, religious, or 
whatever.

>  On the other hand many who
> describe themselves as religious believers accept or even rely on being
> told what to think and believe.
   I would agree. Same holds true with many things in life. Religious 
followers, political followers, marionette style followers, etc. I 
mention marionette followers not only to bring this back to puppetry 
but to illustrate the point as well. Not that they are the only ones 
but how many times have you come across someone who insisted a 
particular style of puppetry was the only right way to do that style 
and/or that style was the chief among types of puppets? At some point 
they were told or came to believe that particular line of thought was 
what to believe and pass on that "gospel truth"nas the only possible 
choice. Ugh.

> Perhaps I am not understanding your argument.
  No argument. I am just not that passionate about it that I think it 
worth argument. I may disagree and discuss but when the arguing starts 
I've better things to do. Of course if you are using the term 
"argument" to mean simply taking a side or view in a discussion, okay. 
But yelling (even over the internet), finger pointing and calling of 
names (or inferring of them) and I'm done. I'm not that old, but I 
don't have time in my life for arguments. They are rarely won since 
there is little listening being done by either side. Whoever shouts 
loudest and/or give in last "wins". Not. I just use the delete button.

Christopher

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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005