Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:32:34 -0400 From: Mary Horsley <mphorsley-AT-earthlink.net> To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org> Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Dealing with tragedy and tragic shows Mathieu, you will be a good parent one day...... Mary H. On 10/28/08 7:55 PM, "Mathieu René" <creaturiste-AT-primus.ca> wrote: > I agree that we should not overprotect our children when it comes to > exposing them to, or letting them be exposed to, threatening/scary/tragic > situations and ideas in shows or stories. > > I was a very innocent and naive child, and while it lasted, everyone was > good and nice in my eye. > What a comfortable life it was! > > I grew up on Disney versions of the fairy tales, completely unaware that > there were original versions that were very different, and much more > substantial. > > When I got betrayed for the first time, it all crashed down and I was > disenchanted about the whole world. > For a painful little while, I became suspiscious of almost everyone, fearing > another betrayal and the accompanying outrage, confusion and pain. > > Then I started reading, really reading for my own education, around age 11. > I read a lot. This mind required answers and explanations about life. I > quickly got bored with children and teen books, so I asked for special > atuhorization to access the adult section at the Library, at 12. I turned > to books about science, religions, paranormal phenomena and abilities, > Fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, horror), fairy tales (the originals, when I could > find them). > My whole perspective changed. It became multi-faceted, just like life. > Reading horrible and terrifying events from horror masters such as Clive > Barker around 12 years old did not turn me into a murderer or a deranged > psycho, (as far as I know, gna ha ha). I re-read one of his book about two > years ago, and realized my younger self had not grasped all the concepts and > events in the story. It still was fascinating reading back then, only made > richer by my more experienced perspective later. > > I have a compilation of the Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales, translated directly > from German, and uncensored. > Yikes! What a difference from the weak dilutions we have been exposed to! > > I believe that kids will discover their paths to discover life on their own > time and efforts. > We can encourage and guide, but we can't and shouldn't monitor them at all > times. > Maybe the public should be dealt with in a similar manner. > Not treat them like babies, while not bombarding them with gratuitous > pointless horror. > Sure, we should keep an eye on what our kids (or public) get exposed to, but > at some point, we must trust them to make their decisions. They may be young > (some crowds younger than others, no matter he age average), but they are > still people. > > I regret not having had the choice to watch horror movies as a kid. I never > experienced the fun of real fear from those, as I only started watching them > as a late teen. By that time, I was more cynical, and they just seemed funny > or just like a regular suspence movie to me. > > > > > > > > > I learned about human nature second-hand, but it prepared me for the real > thing. > I > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Hudert" <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com> > To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:20 AM > Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Dealing with tragedy and tragic shows > > > > On Oct 27, 2008, at 10:09 AM, puppetpro-AT-aol.com wrote: > >> I would also add that most great stories have substance that lasts >> beyond the sadness or horror or tradegy. > I would add that most great stories also have substance that lasts > beyond the joy and laughter, and that there is - more often than not - > a mixture of all of the above which is a large part of what makes them > great stories to begin with. Rarely can you have a decent, much less > great, story that does not contain various levels of emotion. The > contrast and journey from one to the other draw us in. > >> We all have different things we remember -- and really great stories >> keep being remembered on different levels as we age. >> >> Childhood isn't all sweetness and light, and children know this. > Gee, just childhood? Life is not all sweetness and light (nor is it > all sour and darkness), but if we learn this as children we'll be > better equipped to deal with it as adolescents and adults. >> >> Years ago I told a story that included Baba Yaga to a friend's >> children, ages 4 and 6. I purposely left out the part about her eating >> children, though I did mention that she sharpened her teeth -- at >> that, the six year old asked if it was because she ate children? >> >> I simply nodded. >> >> Her father was aghast that I would tell such a tale to his children! >> Like the Buddha's father, he wanted to protect his children from all >> things sad, ugly, and evil. >> >> But introducing children to the "truth of human behavior" is much >> safer in a fairy tale than letting them find out later in reality. > I firmly believe in using what I call a healthy fear in shows. It's > far different than the use of gratuitous or graphically violent scare > tactics, or undue exposure to dangers or evils. Bad things happen, and > a healthy fear is one that creates suspense and teaches that there are > dangers and threats in the world, AND that there are consequences in > how you deal with them. There is learning in dealing with them properly > and wisely, and learning from the mistakes of dealing with them > incorrectly or foolishly, and even learning from ignoring or not > dealing with them. There is a fear for the safety of a character we > care for, and the fear of the character representing the threat. In my > mind it is far better to learn many of these things through stories > than to be exposed to them firsthand. When we sanitize a story too much > (usually because we fear it will harm the child, or that someone might > object) we remove the threat and often the whole underlying point of > the story. This is counterproductive, because not only do we not teach > how to deal with problems, but we also leave the threat loose in the > world as it has neither been defeated nor redeemed. We (not just > children) want to feel that the thing we fear has been conquered and > will no longer be a threat - at least for a while. We want, dare I say > need, good to triumph over evil, even if that means that the good guy > dies as well. He/she dies a hero, but has still vanquished the evil. > To coddle a child, to attempt to keep them from all harm - real or > imagined - is to do them great harm as not only will there be a rude > awakening one day, but they are unprepared to deal with problems in a > healthful way, have not learned alternative solutions from other's > behavior (real or in stories), and have no real resistance to the > infection of the evils of life which exist. How do you even teach a > child right from wrong if they are "protected" from all aspects of life > that may be sad, ugly, or evil? How will a child take chances and > risks, and push the boundaries in life, if they are not even allowed > near the fence? They will have a very limited ability to use their > imagination to create anything with such a "safe" existence. If they > don't do it as a child, they surely won't do it as an adult, so they > won't have solutions to problems, creative or otherwise, much less come > up with the next great invention. > And I think it is important to impart that sometimes the bad or sad > thing is a matter of perspective and understanding nature. When talking > post show with children about some of the threats in the stories that I > perform, I try to stress that the threat and danger is often a natural > one. For instance, the wolf is not being mean when he eats the duck in > Peter and the Wolf, he's doing what he would naturally do to survive - > eating a small animal - and that it is not safe for Peter to go into > the woods because the wolf wouldn't see him as a kid, but as a small > animal and therefore potentially a meal. Yes, it's sad for the duck, > but wolves do have to eat or they will die. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The Independent Eye <eye-AT-independenteye.org> >> >>> What do you all think about taking an audience through such a sad >>> ordeal when there is nothing hopeful in the telling? Is it jerking >>> an audience around? It is one thing to read a sad tale and another >>> to take an audience there. I really just don't know what to think. > Nothing hopeful in the telling? I would venture out on a limb and say > that there is then not much of a story. True, it can end in tragedy, > but is there nothing hopeful to learn in the tale? Is there nothing > hopeful in the end of "Romeo and Juiliet" or "West Side Story" (same > tale, different time period)? Can we not learn from their attempts to > overcome the evils of prejudice? Can we not take hope in the fact that, > although they suffered and died, they were able to overcome that evil, > and that just perhaps, we too might be able to do the same if we tried? > Is there nothing hopeful in the struggle of the lead character in most > tragedies? Few really good stories are (IMO) truly defeatist, sucking > the spark life out of the audience at the end of the show. Is there no > hope in the life, stories, and plays about Anne Frank? There is no hope > in her ending, but there IS hope in the story and the telling of it. > Does telling or performing such a tale jerk the audience around? I > think not if it is well done, but hopefully it does move them to > another place both emotionally and intellectually. > >> Really good question. I think it's always been difficult, but >> probably more so in recent years. There are just periods in dramatic >> history when tragedy is accepted, and others where it isn't. Oddly, I >> think there's been a reversal between film and theatre audiences. >> Used to be, in the movies you'd have to tack happy endings onto >> everything, whereas theatre was "more serious" and we could deal with >> the immense sadness of the finale of DEATH OF A SALESMAN, for example. >> Now, it seems that anything goes in film, but in theatre >> you either have to add a final uplifting chorus (e.g. the end of >> SPRING AWAKENING) or make it some other race in a kingdom far away. > I don't know if I agree with this. I think that often we line our > wagons up in a row, following the ones before us that have been > successful. The happy ending brings in bucks as people go away feeling > good. I think you can end in tragedy and still have people feel good > (though clearly not the same kind of feeling good as a happy ending). > Some of my favorite tragic shows end that way. I don't recall a happy > ending being tacked on to the end of "One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest" > but it has been a while since I watched it. And although I did not care > for "Titanic" I recall people coming out of the movie crying, yet going > back to see it several times. I would agree that, due to the personal > and present nature of theater (it's happening here and now, and we are > sharing in it as an audience), we are more likely to want to experience > something that is uplifting in some way than a tragedy. But there are > lots of shows that are tragedies in live theater and are successful > (though admittedly for shorter runs than the fun musicals). I think an > audience allows the separation of the screen (be it big or small) to be > an insulation from the action and will watch something more tragic than > they will on the stage. I think that the ending of a good tragedy - be > it book, stage or screen - leaves us feeling moved, challenged, and/or > cleansed in some way. > As for making it some other race or in a kingdom far away, audiences > (and storytellers of all kinds) throughout the ages have used the > device of plausible deniability ("They're not really talking about US!. > See, it's a kingdom far away.") to get the message across. No one likes > the accusing finger of truth, particularly when it is an ugly truth, > pointed directly at them. Those receptive to the message will get it, > those who are not, well, at least we hope they are entertained and > maybe some of the message will sink in eventually. > >> Most of our own recent work has involved very dark journeys with >> redemptive endings, because right now for me the challenge is to try >> to really *earn* those endings. How indeed can we make resurrection >> credible and not just frosting over the cow-pie? And I have to say >> that even so, I have friends who really don't want to see our work, >> even the comedy, because the journey itself is just too rocky. >> >> But I don't actually think it has to do with the uplift of the ending. >> It's a question of what *is* energizing about the piece. When it >> works, the act of the telling itself can be redemptive: in its energy, >> its skill, its depth of perception, its shared humanity - certainly >> that's what operates in any of the Hans C. Andersen stories. If we >> have a strong sense of the presence and the "voice" of the teller, it >> can hold us in its embrace the way I held my kids when reading them a >> bedtime story - and I read some hum-dingers, and they survived. > To me the most engaging stories and characters are ones that are full > of flaws (as I can identify because I know myself to be full of flaws), > but that also allow for the hope of victory and/or transformation. > However, they need not be painful to watch or listen to. The stories of > H C Andersen are based on a common idea of redemption through the > struggles and suffering of a journey to a higher place. They don't all > end in happiness, other than obtaining the transformation to that next > plane. Yes, it is the shared humanity (even when it is shared with an > ugly duckling or tin soldier) and the hope of their victory that brings > us along in their suffering journey. > > I don't think the idea of performing a tragedy is to put the audience > through the wringer and hang them out to dry, nor is it to manipulate > them into feeling the tragedy. To me it is more about taking them with > you through a somewhat treacherous, and perhaps even a bit torturous, > journey on the way to redemption, conquest, and a measure of defeat. > Often it does not end well for the lead character or characters, but > the tale leaves the audience someplace other than despair. > > However, I think this tumultuous time - economic, political, and > otherwise - may not be the best to attempt to sell a tragedy to an > audience or a sponsor. I just can't see "Hey, come see a really sad > show. You'll be glad you did." as a big selling point right now. > > I have a couple of tragedies on my "To Do" list, but I think they > will start out as vanity projects when I can afford the time and money > as I can't see my current client and audience base as the target for > those shows. Somehow I don't see a K-5 and/or family audience going in > big for the tragic tear jerker. I can get by with a heart warming tear > jerker, but I think it would require a more mature audience for the > tragedies. > > Well, that's about enough from me on this for now. > > Christopher > _______________________________________________ > List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org > Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit > Archives: http://www.driftline.org > > _______________________________________________ > List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org > Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit > Archives: http://www.driftline.org _______________________________________________ List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit Archives: http://www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005