From: Matthew Nicholls <meenie-AT-magna.com.au> Subject: RE: facial expression Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 23:55:07 +-1100 1. What most commonly decides which facial movements are given to a puppet? Is it the size of the budget, the time available or the demands of the script? I believe that typically it is the size of the budget that constrains the complexity of the facial movements. IMHO this is a shame, as surely the script itself should dictate what is required. For instance, even if only a little gadgetry is required, the temptation to make the puppet bigger and better, is very difficult to withstand. And in the case of a very complex puppet, the costs can overrun. 2. How much of the effectiveness of a puppet is due to the puppet maker and how much to the puppeteer? Can a good puppeteer turn a bad puppet into a good one? I would go so far as to say that the majority of the effectiveness is due to the puppeteer. Granted that a puppet can be so "bad" as to make it unworkable, but in the main very few puppets would fall into this category. Consider Frank Oz's performance of Miss Piggy. Absolutely no animatronics there, and also no eye movement, or any other mechanical facial feature. Basically you have one moving part on the entire face - her mouth - and yet despite these restrictions, she has personality, and she appears to have expression. How does he do it - I would say through the relationship of the puppet with others and the character she exudes. He appears to cheat facial expressions with the use of her hands and simply the motion of her head. On the other hand, over use of a characters "animatronic" features is almost enough to make puppeteers cry. The reason - the puppet begins to look like a puppet. The illusion is lost, and we all know that we are only watching a sock running around the screen (an expesive sock, but a sock no less!) 3. Puppet technology has improved enormously in the last ten years. Is there still a place for the basic glove puppet? I use glove puppets in my one man shows, and for that arena I would argue that there is no better type of puppet. In film and TV, I would also say that "basic" puppets still have their place. Given character and good performance, a basic glove puppet can be more effective than ten animatronics. Don't get me wrong, I love animatronics, and in the small amount that I've worked with them, I have grown to love the intricaces. It all depends I guess on the level of realism that you are trying to obtain. 4. Puppets work very well on TV and film because of the ability to stop and start the action and cut the film. Can they be as effective in live performance? I would say yes - but then I use them live, so you'd expect that answer >from me. Again it comes down to the performer and whether they can pull it off live. You don't have to sacrifice any of the performance, but this is by far the easier approach. What I mean is, a lot of performers when they are working live, seem to give into the lip sync demon, and just tru to keep the show pacy - I think that both are possible. Matt Nicholls AppleCore Puppet Theatre Sydney Australia For Bookings by email please mail to meenie-AT-magna.com.au with the word booking in the Subject line. --- Personal replies to: Matthew Nicholls <meenie-AT-magna.com.au> --- List replies to: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Admin commands to: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005