From: Angusson-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:36:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Baird, Frank Paris, Howdy Doody



In a message dated 11/15/96 6:35:43 PM, David Adams wrote:

>Sadly, I never got to meet Rufus Rose, he was gone by the time I finally got
>around to going to festivals.  Nor Paul McPharlin (though I did get to know
>Marjorie Batchelder McPharlin fairly well) who was really "responsible" for
>my ever getting into puppetry. 
>I was always interested, but there was nothing and I MEAN nothing in the
>libraries at the time to help a floundering 12 year old !  So, when I read
>an article (in Compton's encyclopedia, I think) about "marionettes" and it
>was signed "Paul McPharlin, Birmingham, Michigan", I sat right down and
>wrote myself a letter -- errrr, wrote a letter to him with that as the only
>address.
>Happily he GOT it and surprise !  he ANSWERED it !  

The Puppet Theater Handbook by Marjorie Batchelder was my only textbook for
years and much of what I learned from it, I applied to my work in
"legitimate" (what does that really mean?) theater. So much of the
information within its covers has stood the test of time. Lots of great
"gems" inside.

I think Paul McPharlin alone must be credited with bringing people together
to form the association we know now as the PofA. He published dozens of
pamphlets, books and the Yearbook, PUPPETRY, which for years was a record of
goings-on in the world of puppetry. Not only here in the US but
internationally as well. And always packed with photographs. I did much of my
early "homework" through these publications.
Paul maintained a huge correspondence with so many puppeteers and friends of
puppetry both here and abroad. The organization certainly would have come
into being without him but when? His publications influenced many performers
and before the advent of festivals let puppeteers know they weren't alone. 

Yet, in 1946, when he registered at the festival held in Waterford,
Connecticut,  hosted by the Roses, he listed himself as a "fan".


The names of Edith Flack Ackley, Helen Haiman Joseph, and Bessie(?) Ficklin
bring back such memories. Even now, when I thumb through any old puppet book,
I'm reminded of the excitment I felt then about the "possibilities". I'm
transported back and still, even with my somewhat "jaded" mind, can recall
the joy of these early experiences.  

No one has successfully explained away that phenomenon of being "bitten"by
the "bug".  Margo said that when she first picked up a marionette made by her
sister, Dorothy, and made it move, she was "smitten" and knew then, what her
life's work would be. Watching my first marionette show by the Roses did it
for me. I don't recall which show but I remember that something "grabbed" me
and it was all over. Can't explain it. Who can? The power (magic) of
puppetry. 


>I spent quite a lot of time with Margo at Board meetings and other
>times and she is a great lady !  One would never think she was also a really
>great puppet artist as well.  Of course she gave ALL the credit to Rufus and
>I'm sure that he did all of the "carpentry" aspects of construction, but the
>faces and costumes were all Margo for sure !

Margo has always emphasized that their's was a team effort. Each had great
respect for the other's abilities and Margo was quick to praise Rufus'
contributions to the art. Their approach was a true collaboration. There was
discussion, disagreement, compromise: each brought their best to the work. In
rehearsal, Rufus "directed" and Margo "shushed" him so she could hear the
tape. One wondered how and if they could ever give a show. Yet, in
performance, what one saw was perfection.  She described his manipulation as
"enthusiastic!"
Margo has said  "...we just DID shows!  We never knew we were famous." They
didn't think of themselves as artists.  Anyone who has seen the Rose
marionettes would find it hard to believe that she had described some early
efforts as "pitiful" and "...best forgotten."  Recently, when asked what all
the "fuss" was about, she said "I dunno!."


>Am I mistaken or is the "Martin Stevens" marionette construction design
>really a combo of his and Rufus' ?  I think that's right.  And of course you
>see a LOT of Dwiggins influence in his/their work as well.

[Here again Paul McPharlin was influential in disseminating the work of
another great innovator: William A. Dwiggins. In 1939, Paul, through Puppetry
Imprints, published  Dwiggins' method under the title of "Marionettes in
Motion. 
I don't know when Rufus first became aware of Dwiggins' and his puppets.
Hingham, Massachusetts wasn't that far from Waterford. Dwiggins' first
theater was up and running in 1933 using a simpler style of marionette
construction.  According to my search, the "counter-balanced marionettes"
designed under the "Puterschein Authority" came into being with the advent of
his new theater around 1937.]


The Roses and the Stevens had a long association which began at the first
puppetry conference in 1936. So I think over the years they borrowed the best
ideas from each other, refined them and finally put something down on paper.
I've never examined a Steven's puppet so I'm not familiar with Steve's style.
The S/R method provides a fairly basic approach to building a good, >working<
marionette. I think the Stevens/Rose diagram was designed to get someone
 >through < the process of building their first >successful< marionette and
then to depart from there.  With basic skills, it would be a relatively
painless approach.
Rufus was influenced by Matt Searle, Tony Sarg's company manager, and I'm
sure some of that rubbed off. He later used Dwiggins' "counterbalanced"
marionette method or a variant of that style. Rufus was an innovator and his
son, James mentioned that Rufus never felt obliged to repeat an approach just
because it worked. He always looked for a better way to build a puppet. Rufus
spent several summers with Matt Searle building new shows for Sarg and at
that time developed his well-known string method for casting heads in
plaster. A time-saving method which produced multi-part molds in one step.

I worked with Margo and Jim Rose this past June teaching a marionette seminar
at the National Puppetry Conference at the O'Neill Theater Center in
Waterford. We used a body style similar to the Stevens/Rose plan and it
worked out quite well. We used 2X stock and built up the chest and hip areas
with Styrofoam. The heads were Styrofoam shapes covered with glued  Kraft
paper. 

During this conference, Jim asked his mother what legacy Rufus and Margo Rose
would leave to the art of puppetry. She thought a bit and said: "Well. We
made GOOD puppets."

Fred Thompson
 



  --- Personal replies to: Angusson-AT-aol.com
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu