Folder Contents

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:54:07 -0400 From: Robert Smythe <robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org> Subject: Re: PUPT: Mamet, Blair Thomas and N Y Times stupidity No, he wasn't writing for puppeteers, but a general audience, one primarily based in New York and others who read the Times to keep a finger on the pulse, as it were. However, (and this is not a criticism of anyone but the Times writer, so just everyone resist the impule to hit "respond") it is very disappointing that of all the work the Henson family has given to the American theatre world, still the only connection this writer can find is to the Muppets, and not the Henson Festival of International Puppettheatre. Some of the best and most exciting stuff to visit our shores, and this guy can only make a television reference. That is disappointing, because it seems to indicate that all our paranoia about puppetry getting no respect is justified. The writer makes the point (I think it is the crux of the article) that theatre like the Ta'ziyeh tradition has no place in the elite world of cultural audiences who have been trained to view theatre as an intellectual pasttime, one that requires no emotional involvement. These NY audiences are no longer capable of doing that, of getting viscerally involved. So, the question is, "Is the Henson Festival getting through to people? What can be done to ensure that the journal of record, the Times in this case, pays attention to what is reported in its own pages?" Over the past 15 years here in Philadelphia we have witnessed a major change in the way that critics and reviewers regard the work we and other puppeteers make. Then, it was enough that puppets looked alive. But now, with lots of puppets appearing in many different ways at many different companies, there is a kind of discernment taking place in the pages of the newspapers. Critics are aware of all that has passed before and use that context to judge new work. So, I don't give in to the paranoia. I choose, instead, to see that audiences in NYC (which is not the center of the world), playwrights who make movies, and big corporate entitities like the NY Times are having a problem adjusting to a movement in theatre that a lot of us have known about for a while. Puppetry depends on audiences making emotional connections between audiences and performers. WIthout that connection, the puppeteer is just waving around blocks of wood or, as Jim Henson said, "wiggling the dollies." I believe puppeteers know that good theatre has always depended on a visceral (that's "gut," to you, PUPPETHEAD) reaction, and that's what we base our work on. I think this is the point Mamet tries to make, but I don't like his examples. He wants the emotional content of the finished third, but I do not believe that is what Beckett offers. I'm also not sure that Mamet, in referring to the "trash of performance art," says that all performance art is trash. It can be pretty bad, and hard to find the good stuff. Perhaps Mr. Mamet would change his opinion if he attended a few puppet festivals, and saw work liek Blair Thomas's. The favoritism Mr. Mamet shows toward other playwrights like himself is evident in his dismissal of those who create and perform their own work without waiting for the holy writ to come from the scribes. >on 8/3/02 9:16 AM, John Bell at John_Bell-AT-emerson.edu wrote: > >> Here's a >> tradition (Ta'ziyeh) which is profound, beautiful, and many centuries old, >> and whose intense, spiritual, martyr plays reflect basic human emotions. >> The fact that a writer for the Times can only connect the puppetry of this >> theater to American television puppetry of the late twentieth century is >> astoundingly lame. We puppeteers all know that puppet traditions do not >> begin and end with the fine work of Jim Henson and his associates. > >But then he wasn't writing for puppeteers, was he? Though I agree it is a >very shallow connection, how many of his readers have even less puppetry >intelect? Yes, he should have done better, but IMHO he was writing for an >audience that in general could not make much of a leap in regards to >puppetry. Just imagine how "wonderful" it could have been had his article >been written for the NY Post instead. -- Robert Smythe Artistic Director Mum Puppettheatre 115 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-2000 robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org http://www.mumpuppet.org

HTML VERSION:

No, he wasn't writing for puppeteers, but a general audience, one primarily based in New York and others who read the Times to keep a finger on the pulse, as it were.

However, (and this is not a criticism of anyone but the Times writer, so just everyone resist the impule to hit "respond") it is very disappointing that of all the work the Henson family has given to the American theatre world, still the only connection this writer can find is to the Muppets, and not the Henson Festival of International Puppettheatre. Some of the best and most exciting stuff to visit our shores, and this guy can only make a television reference.

That is disappointing, because it seems to indicate that all our paranoia about puppetry getting no respect is justified. The writer makes the point (I think it is the crux of the article) that theatre like the Ta'ziyeh tradition has no place in the elite world of cultural audiences who have been trained to view theatre as an intellectual pasttime, one that requires no emotional involvement. These NY audiences are no longer capable of doing that, of getting viscerally involved. So, the question is, "Is the Henson Festival getting through to people? What can be done to ensure that the journal of record, the Times in this case, pays attention to what is reported in its own pages?"

Over the past 15 years here in Philadelphia we have witnessed a major change in the way that critics and reviewers regard the work we and other puppeteers make. Then, it was enough that puppets looked alive. But now, with lots of puppets appearing in many different ways at many different companies, there is a kind of discernment taking place in the pages of the newspapers. Critics are aware of all that has passed before and use that context to judge new work. So, I don't give in to the paranoia. I choose, instead, to see that audiences in NYC (which is not the center of the world), playwrights who make movies, and big corporate entitities like the NY Times are having a problem adjusting to a movement in theatre that a lot of us have known about for a while.

Puppetry depends on audiences making emotional connections between audiences and performers. WIthout that connection, the puppeteer is just waving around blocks of wood or, as Jim Henson said, "wiggling the dollies." I believe puppeteers know that good theatre has always depended on a visceral (that's "gut," to you, PUPPETHEAD) reaction, and that's what we base our work on.

I think this is the point Mamet tries to make, but I don't like his examples. He wants the emotional content of the finished third, but I do not believe that is what Beckett offers. I'm also not sure that Mamet, in referring to the "trash of performance art," says that all performance art is trash. It can be pretty bad, and hard to find the good stuff. Perhaps Mr. Mamet would change his opinion if he attended a few puppet festivals, and saw work liek Blair Thomas's. The favoritism Mr. Mamet shows toward other playwrights like himself is evident in his dismissal of those who create and perform their own work without waiting for the holy writ to come from the scribes.

>on 8/3/02 9:16 AM, John Bell at John_Bell-AT-emerson.edu wrote:

>
>> Here's a

>> tradition (Ta'ziyeh) which is profound, beautiful, and many centuries old,
>> and whose intense, spiritual, martyr plays reflect basic human emotions.
>> The fact that a writer for the Times can only connect the puppetry of this
>> theater to American television puppetry of the late twentieth century is
>> astoundingly lame. We puppeteers all know that puppet traditions do not
>> begin and end with the fine work of Jim Henson and his associates.
>
>But then he wasn't writing for puppeteers, was he? Though I agree it is a
>very shallow connection, how many of his readers have even less puppetry
>intelect? Yes, he should have done better, but IMHO he was writing for an
>audience that in general could not make much of a leap in regards to

>puppetry. Just imagine how "wonderful" it could have been had his article

>been written for the NY Post instead.

--

Robert Smythe
Artistic Director
Mum Puppettheatre
115 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-2000

robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org
http://www.mumpuppet.org

--- Personal replies to: Robert Smythe --- List replies to: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Admin commands to: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Archives at: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons

File spoon-archives/puptcrit.archive/puptcrit_2002/puptcrit.0208, message 32

HTML VERSION:

Driftline Main Page