Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 17:46:39 -0400
From: Preston Foerder <slovpete-AT-telesouth1.com>
Subject: PUPT: Why a puppet?



--------------FB2020C3F5CC6989BA947ABF

I suppose it's time I jumped back in here.  I was glad to see that my
posting spurred people on to some other subjects of discussion.  Though
I'm sure there are people cursing my name ("Damn that Preston Foerder")
at the sudden increase in lengthy e-mail clogging their computers.

Why a puppet?  Why, indeed. (The use of the word "indeed" indicates that
what follows will be extremely profound.)  One uses a puppet because it
is the best possible way tell the story or get the message across.   If
your story or message could be better communicated using an actor,
dancer, mime, animated cartoon, trained seal or whatever, then you
shouldn't be using puppetry.  Puppetry should be neither more like dance
theatre nor actor's theatre.  It should be more like puppet theatre.

There are many things unique to the puppet.  A puppeteer is able to play
with scale, fantasy, violence and even sex in ways far more effective
than other forms of theatre.  He or she is able to design characters to
suit their own aesthetic unlimited by the problems of biology and
anatomy.

One can take advantage of the unique relationship of the puppeteer to
the puppet.  There is no such thing as an invisible puppeteer.  (I am
climbing up on my soapbox now.)  The puppeteer is always a factor in the
equation.  Like it or or not you are always there in your show.  Even if
you are hiding behind a puppet stage there is the inherent knowledge
that someone is working the puppets.  ( What is the first thing people
want to do after a show?  Peek around backstage to see how it worked.)
If you are working bunraku-style wearing blacks and a hood, the stage
picture is not of  the puppet in the set, but of the puppet surrounded
by one, two, or three puppeteers in black with black hoods.  If it is a
small puppet, this can be rather disconcerting or used for menacing
effect.   I do not believe that hooded bunraku is a natural stage
convention accepted by audiences without question.  But, rather,
something they need to learn or be informed about and even after that
they are still aware of the puppeteers.  (Anybody who has used the
technique for children's shows without explaining it has heard the cries
of "Ninja" from the audience.) I think if you listen to your audiences
you will hear them say, rather than "I didn't see the puppeteers"  that
they "stopped watching" or "forgot" about the puppeteers, implying a
knowledge of the existence of the puppeteers.   Unhooded bunraku-style
may be a more natural convention, for instead of trying to hide the
puppeteers, we admit their existence and throw attention to the puppets
through the puppeteer's focus.  It also imitates the action of children
pretending through their toys, something children can inherently
understand.  And isn't that what we are really all about anyway.

This is not to imply that one form of manipulation or type of puppet is
better than another.  There are no rules.  (If you ever take a workshop
where someone hands you a list of rules, run screaming from the room.)
Each method of manipulation or type of puppet implies something
different about the message you are trying to communicate to the
audience.  (You are above the puppet maniplating it by strings, you are
below the puppet, looking up at it, you are hiding behind a stage or in
the dark.) The trick is to choose the best possible method to tell your
story, or if you stick to one style of puppetry the best possible story
for that style.

OK, I've written enough for the moment (Damn that Preston Foerder).  Any
comments or criticisms are appreciated.

Preston
www.telesouth1.com/~slovpete

--------------FB2020C3F5CC6989BA947ABF

HTML VERSION: