Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 00:38:54 -0500
Subject: Re: PUPT: puppetry of the penis




>> I agree with Spence-
>> I don't see how Puppetry of the Penis is any different than either the body puppetry of Hugo & Inez or the hand
>> shadow puppetry of Prosanna Reo.  Bending and shaping a body part to create a character.
>> Serra
>>
I hadn't planned on wasting time on Puppetry of the Penis--  a truly
stupid show-- but if you think that "bending and shaping a body part to
create a character" is what Hugo and Inez is all about, well, Jumpin'
Jiminy, SOMEBODY has to take a stand!

There are a number of ways in which "Puppetry of the Penis", differs
from either the work of Hugo and Inez or the quite different work of
Prasanna Rao.

Firstly, in Puppetry of the Penis (hereinafter referred to as POP),
there is no dramaturgy, no story.  It is, more or less, a series of
tableaux, of the sort which might be amusing for five minutes if you
were at a fraternity kegger without a date. There is no conflict, so
there can be no theatre. I suppose there IS a certain amount of
suspense, but it is not of the dramatic sort-- only the kind of kinetic
tension you'd get from, say, stretching a rubber band.

Hugo and Inez are all about story, and they tell complete, if brief,
stories without any need for words. Prasanna Rao tells stories, too.

Rao also has some short novelty pieces (for example shadow silhouttes of
famous people) which might fairly be compared, in a quantitative way, to
the bits in POP. Qualitatively, of course, they are worlds apart. The
success of his shadows is owed not merely to the years of practice which
give a completely relaxed naturalness to his work, but to the gentleness
and sly humor which pervades the entire show. There is nothing I saw in
POP which couldn't be learned to perfection by any man with average,
uncircumcised genitalia in fairly short order (that is, quickly).

Hugo and Inez are performing something which they've created, and, at
its best, is their response to the human condition, expressed in a very
original way. POP, on the other hand is espressing nothing beyond the
extremely obvious, and furthermore is auditioning people, franchising
the operation in a number of cities. Are they auditioning puppeteers?
Actors? Prestidigitators? Alas, no, because the only real requirement is
that one be hung, appealing and need the work..

Another difference, I suspect, is that the owners of the POP franchise
will become filthy rich. If they really were doing interesting puppetry
(penis or no), I would merely be jealous. As it is, I could care less,
and wouldn't have written about them at all except for the slight to
Hugo and Inez.

Andrew Periale

HTML VERSION: