Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:35:08 -0500
From: Hobey Ford <hobeyone-AT-gmail.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Review of "Fantastic Mr. Fox"


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Bell, John <john.bell-AT-uconn.edu> wrote:
> - Puppets are objects: wood, plastic, projected light, leather, paper, etc. =A0It 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.

I am sure that I know nothing about Stanislavsky, Adler or Strasburg.
I have learned much by watching great puppetry.
As puppeteers we are effective when our creative impulses and
manipulations meet with the imaginations of the audience in the
imagined life of the puppet.  Thus in some way the audience becomes an
essental part of the creation.

When I sat and watched Wayland bring Madame to life and dispense with
ventriloquism it floored me.  Even seeing him there performing a
puppet, it wasn't really even possible to see her as anything but
alive.  The problem with actors being puppeteers is they tend to skip
past the puppet and can't help but want to be the focus.  That was
evident in Ave Q because they broke certain rules of focus sharing the
role with the puppet instead of letting the puppet be the character.
Also true in Lion King where the puppets are dual aspects of the
character. All of these dynamics affect how and where the audience
experience the "life " of the characters.  And in both productions I
thoroughly enjoyed the experience, though had to qualify how much was
due to actual puppetry.

In Wayang Kulit we don't actually see the puppet.   We see shadows
created in part by  the dalang but also a product of the element of
fire light.  The element of synchronisity comes into play.  The
representations of Gods.  And in the imagination of the audience who
bring their understanding of these stories something comes alive and
it isn't George Cluny.

As for Frank Oz, I heard him speak a couple of times about puppetry
and on both occasions he seemed a bit embarrassed by his association
with the art and alluded to his preferred career as director.  He was
very good at being a puppeteer none the less.  I once asked his father
Mike what he was like as a kid and the answer came immediately.  Frank
was Grover.  I don't think he became the puppet.  I think the puppet
became him , but more importantly we imagine the life of that charming
character to be real in the puppet.  Like any great puppetry, when
done well it is irresistable.









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