File puptcrit/puptcrit.0810, message 383


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005