From: "Bell, John" <john.bell-AT-uconn.edu>
To: "puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org" <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:48:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Review of "Fantastic Mr. Fox"


- Puppets are objects: wood, plastic, projected light, leather, paper, etc.  It does not diminish the force of this wonderful art form to say we do not "become" the puppet, but that when successful we use the puppet to do what we want.
- In other art forms related to puppetry we do not prize above all the idea that the artist "becomes" the object they are working with.  We need not say that B.B. King "becomes" his guitar, that Richard Serra "becomes" a metal sculpture he makes, that a great chef "becomes" the dish she cooks, that Frida Kahlo "became" her painting.   I would argue that as a means of creating great art, it is not necessary for Kevin Clash to "become" Elmo, for Jen Barnhart to "become" Mrs. Thistletwat or the Bear in "Avenue Q", for Andy Serkis to "become" Gollum in "Lord of the Rings", for Jim Carry to "become" the digital Scrooge of "The Christmas Carol"; or for a great dalang to "become" any one of the many characters he or she performs in the course of a wayang kulit show.  Bertolt Brecht thought about this too, as he considered Chinese opera and German fairground entertainments as "distanced."
- Part of the problem is that George Clooney's connection to the Mr. Fox character is not simple: he only supplies the voice.  Who built the puppets?  Who actually moved the puppet?  Wouldn't those folks have an even stronger connection to "becoming" the character than Clooney, who only supplies the voice?  In bunraku theater, three people operate a puppet, and a chanter to the side provides the voice.  Does the chanter "become" the puppet?  Do the three puppeteers "become" the puppet?  Is the performance valuable only if (thinking of Zacharek's review of "Mr. Fox") one of these people achieves this "becoming"?  Clearly not, because the dynamics and aesthetics of bunraku do not rely on this particular interpretation of what I would call the Stanislavsky tradition.  
- I am not saying that strong connection to a puppet is wrong or impossible, and I love and honor Stanislavsky as an artist and innovator.  But I do think that puppetry resists the simple application of one version of Stanislavsky technique as analysis, and it would be more instructive if critics such as Zacharek might delve into the ways that puppetry is not like acting.

Apologies for length of response!

jb

Dr. John T. Bell
Director
Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry
University of Connecticut
6 Bourn Place Unit 5212
Storrs, Connecticut=A0 06269-5212
office: 860 486 0806
cell: 617 599 3250
www.bimp.uconn.edu

To make a contribution to the Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry, please go to
https://secure.ga4.org/01/uconn_foundation_giving, and select "Ballard Puppetry Museum" from the "Purpose" list.  Thanks for your support!


-----Original Message-----
From: puptcrit-bounces-AT-puptcrit.org [mailto:puptcrit-bounces-AT-puptcrit.org] On Behalf Of Alan Cook
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:01 AM
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Review of "Fantastic Mr. Fox"

Becoming a puppet character:

George Latshaw pointed out that an actor to some degree has to look the part, but a puppeteer can play young, old, male, female and other variations through the puppet.


_______________________________________________
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