Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:02:16 -0500
Subject: PUPT: right on Q - or not
From: "Christopher H." <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>


I am finally finding some time to reply to the Avenue Q inspired thread. It
is a rather long reply so feel free to scan or delete.

>
>on 1/29/04 8:13 PM, Mary Robinette Kowal at maryrk-AT-earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> I had a recent string of thoughts that I'd like to share with you all.  One
>> of the understudies for "Avenue Q" left the production (to do a show for
>> Nickelodeon) and the producers replaced him with an actor with no puppetry
>> experience.  They narrowed it down to two potentials and ran both of them
>> past Rick Lyon who said that one was trainable.
>>
>> My immediate reaction to this was one of disappointment and anger.  After
>> all, if they decide that puppetry is an easily acquired skill then they
>> will be less likely to hire one of us.  I would have been less upset if the
     <clip>
>> All of this leaves me with this question as well- The new understudy went
>> through intensive puppetry training to be ready to go on.  At what point
>> does someone who learns puppetry for a role become a puppeteer?
>>
>> I think my answer is the same as it would be for singers; one is a
>> puppeteer when it becomes natural; when it ceases to be a tool that needs
>> to be thought about to be used.  Puppetry needs to be as natural as
>> breathing, just like a song.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Mary Robinette
>>
 Sometimes (many times?) there are other factors involved beyond the basic
skill set needed to fill a position, especially in a big business slot like
a broadway show. I think back to the Clown College application I filled out
for Ringling and some of the seeming irrelevant questions on it, and some of
the clowns that were hired for the road. Physical size, disposition, and so
on sometimes meant as much or more than the talent. I am not saying this is
100% right, just that it is a reality and that some of the more talented
people that were less suited for the lifestyle didn't last long on the show.

 There is also the aspect of having to train out certian inappropriate
skills or learned techniques (I am avoiding just labeling them as wrong, as
they might be right for one situation, but wrong for the situation at hand.)
before training in thedesired ones. Sometimes it is easier and less time
consuming to start with a relatively clean slate. Thus the choice of
training an actor to be the kind of puppeteer you want in a situation rather
than retraining a puppeteer for the same thing. This may or may not be part
of the situation here.
 So when does one become a puppeteer? I would say once one begins performing
with puppets. That may be a far cry from being a "real" puppeteer, which
takes time and experience. I don't know that it is when it becomes as
natural as breathing. In an ideal world it would be that easy, but in the
real world many of us have to work at it. It is the truely gifted ones that
make it look so easy and natural dispite the hard work. And of course those
people make it look so easy that people think "oh, anybody can do that".
While it may be true that anybody can do it, few can do it that well and
gracefully. Sometimes the works aspect is so natural and insepperable for
some people that they forget it is really a part that many neglect. Mary, I
feel sure you are one of these people. It's one of the reasons I admire you
and your work. I KNOW the work is there, and yet you make it look like it is
not work at all. Like you just pick it up and do it. Maybe there is less
work now, but the foundation is solid and you continue to build. Wish I had
that much drive and disipline.

>on 1/30/04 9:02 PM, Bear Town at beartown-AT-bear-town.com wrote:
>
>> I'm going to take this in a bit of an erratic and philosophical direction
>> here, but does puppetry ever become completely natural for anyone anyway?
I would say that depends on your definition of puppetry. For me the puppet
part is pretty natural. So are many of the other parts of the show. But
there are also many parts that I have to work hard to make look natural -
design, singing, dancing. Yikes! Even with gobs of experience behind me,
when I have these things (among others) I know I have work to do.

>> When does a puppeteer decide that they're good enough?
Good enough? Good enough for what or whom? I guess there are times that we
all decide that "that's good enough" and I'm sure that there are people who
decide that they are good enough. I decided long ago that I am good enough
in and for many things but that I still have lots of room to grow and
improve. In other word, good enough that I won't be embarassed by what I do,
but not so good I can't get any better. Of course, IMHO, there are people
who decide they are good enough that have decided not to grow past their
current level. I am reminded of the fellow student who was flattered when
the teacher told him that he had taught him all that he could. The student
took it to mean that there was no more to be learned. The teacher of course
meant that the student had learned all that he was open to and had stopped
learning.
 I think that most things may be good enough at some point or they will
never be done. As Terry would say "Finished is better than perfick". Most
everything can be improved, and sometimes we will continue to work on
something in phases even after it is "good enough" in an effort to make it
better. But at some point you have to quit diddling with it and let it be
good enough for now.

>> And what if someone consciously rejects the art form's generally accepted
standards and chooses
>> to beat themselves a completely new path?
Hmm, you mean like Jim Henson? I would say he is a prime example. I think
that about 98% of modern tv  (and movie) puppetry follows in the trail the
the Henson family blazed, and continues to blaze. There are other who have
chosen to go beyond the standards and blaze new (though maybe not completely
different) paths as well.

>> I think after ten years I am not bad, but I'm am constantly analyzing what I
>> do, trying to learn new things. I think my brain has wrapped itself around
>> the basics of puppetry, but I hope I never get to the point where I've
>> learned everything.
You will never learn everything. There is just too much to learn in this
field for one person to learn all of it in one life time. You might,
however, learn everything you wish to know. There is nothing wrong with that
if you can manage to keep applying what you know in new ways and find ways
to keep it fresh. If not, perhaps it will be time to look at something else.
But that's just my opinion.

>> I've noticed many puppeteers get to a certain point and then start to "phone
>> in" their work or at best they just don't feel the need to challenge
>> themselves anymore. But the best puppeteers I've seen are never completely
>> comfortable with their puppetry. They are always pushing, testing,
>> challenging. It's a never-ending quest for them.
 I have not noticed many puppeteers that "phone in" their work. Some, yes,
but many? Really?
It may be a matter of semanitcs, but I would say most of the best puppeteers
are completely comfortable with their puppetry. I think they have to be to
make it look natural/easy. They may not be completely satisfied with it,
always feeling there is something new or some improvement they can make, but
they are comfortable with it.

>on 1/31/04 12:24 AM, Mathieu Rene at uubald-AT-magma.ca wrote:
>
> Typical cliché of mine: "Oh, I'm not the puppeteer, I make the puppets for
puppeteers".
> Some might call it a lack of self confidence, which it definitely was at the
> source, in my case.
> I realise I'm using the begginner card as a shield, a crutch even, to avoid
> assuming the full weight of my chosen career. Although I intend to maintain
> a healthy amount of uncertainty, of unsatisfaction, to keep growing.
It seems to me that if you only make puppets at this point and do not
perform with them, however amatuer or basic that performance may be, you are
not a puppeteer yet. You are, as you say, the puppet maker. The person who
makes costumes is not the actor. The person who builds the plane is not the
pilot. All right, they may be both, just as a puppet maker may be a
puppeteer, but one does become a puppeteer by simply making a puppet anymore
than one becomes a brain surgeon by making a surgical knife. The puppet is
the tool or instrument of the puppeteer. The more tools the puppeteer has at
his/her disposal the better off they will be and hopefully will be a better
puppeteer. Experience, training, and practice in acting, singing, voice
work, dance, carpentry, sewing, etc. etc. etc. only make a better performer.
I have never heard anyone honestly say "Oh, learning more has made me a much
lesser performer. I wish I had never taken those classes. If I could only
forget how to dance I would be much better off today."

>on 1/31/04 11:46 AM, BFall at bfall-AT-toledolibrary.org wrote:
>
>> Hi, Mathieu:
>>
>> I think you're on the right track here!  I'll bet that you are by far your
>> own toughest critic.  Your comments remind me of a couple things:
>>
>> 1. When I was in college I took a course in radio, just for fun.  I used to
>> worry about all the technical errors I made, but I discovered when our
>> teacher gave us tapes of our shows, that those errors were barely noticeable
>> (The flatness of my voice, however, was something to work on!).
>>
>> 2.  I used to belong to a storytelling group.  Often we'd begin our stories
>> with, "OK.  I just started trying to learn this . . .".  We made a rule --
>> No disclaimers!
>>
>> I guess it all just comes down to "Just do it".
>>
 To me, what it comes down to is this: if you have to appologize for what
you are about to do, DON'T DO IT! Even if you are just begining, get as
prepared as you can and do your thing. At the end you can thank the audience
for coming and, if you want, express your hope that they enjoyed it. If you
appologize you are setting a negative tone that you will have to overcome.
If you absolutely feel you MUST inform the audience that this is a new piece
or that you are new to the art, exclaim it with a possitive like "This is a
brand new story for me and I'm sure you will enjoy it as much as I do. I can
hardly wait to begin..."
 There is nothing wrong with being your own toughest critic, unless you
believe and put too much weight on what a critic says. Ideally a critic is
expressing an educated even-handed opinion, but that is not always the case,
especially with our own work. Finding the faults in your work in order to
improve is a good thing. Finding fault in your own work (or anyone else's
for that matter) to tear it down, belittle and devalue it is wrong and self
defeating. I think there is a big difference between honest self evaluatin,
navel gazing, and self flaggation.
 Oh, I could go on and on about this as it is one of those peeves I keep
caged out back. When it gets loose it is hard to get it back in the cage.
Better stop now.

>on 2/2/04 12:43 PM, Robert Smythe at robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org wrote:
>
>>> When I used to be involved with auditioning actors for black light puppetry,
>>> we took a lot of perverse glee in trying out pretentious "capital A" actors
>>> who looked down their noses at puppetry. An hour of them fumbling through
>>> our routines usually left them with a lot of sore muscles and a new
>>> appreciation for the artform.
>>
>>
>> Why is it that the technical aspects of puppetry make it an artform?
>> Surely, then, weightlifting would outrank puppetry, based on that
>> criterion. Technical proficiency does not an artist, nor an artform, make.
>>
>> While you decry the "capital A" actors who look down on puppetry,
>> aren't you practicing reverse snobbism here?
 I think the key word in the above was "pretentious" and not the "capital A"
actor. I admit it is somewhat gratifying to see someone unduely pretentious
brought down a notch. It's not pretty (and in fact it is petty), but I guess
it brings out a base instint in all of us. I guess perverse glee is the
proper term. Like like watching an agressive driver in a fancy car slide off
into the ditch. You hope they aren't seriously hurt but pray that their ego
and wallet are badly bruised and that they suffer a wake up call. Sadly
though, you know that they will shake it off and go on as if nothing
happened, just like that pretentious actor.

>> Let's not drive a wedge between different groups. But consider this:
>>
>> an actor (or dancer, or other performer) is hired to perform with a
>> puppet and is able to pick up the needed skills in order to perform. So
>> what? When movie stars in the old studio days needed to learn how to
>> dance, they picked up the steps and made a movie. I'm sure that put
>> some dancers' noses out of joint, but does any one really mind that
>> that star was in that movie? There is that extra something in a
>> performance that is greater than the sum of its parts. Puppetry's great
>> magic is due to that: a number of things contribute to an experience
>> that cannot be duplicated. It is not enough to just wiggle the dollies:
>> depending on who's doing the wiggling there is a real difference in
>> what happens between the performer and the audience.
 I think that was a point of Mary's original post. Why not hire someone who
knows the artform rather than train someone to fake it well? I would liken
it to having an actor learn how to ride a horse for a movie about a rodeo
rider. Riding a horse does not make one a rodeo rider. In the movies they
have the advantage of doubles and multiple takes. On Broadway that is not
the case. I don't know who auditioned but it may have been, in the casting
director's opinion, a matter of choice between training an actor/singer to
become a puppeteer or trying to train a puppeteer to be an actor/singer of
Broadway quality. In my opinion a good actor/singer has a greater chance of
coming up to passable speed as puppeteer in a few short weeks than many
puppeteers have of coming up to speed as an actor/singer in the same time
frame. Darn it. Now I have the image of trying to train a rodeo rider to be
an actor in the same amount of time as training an actor to ride and rope. I
think I'd rather just saddle up and ride off a cliff.

>> I've been reading this thread and noticed that some would set puppetry
>> apart from theater at large. It isn't separate: it's a subset, as
>> watercolor and oil painting are a subset of two-dimensional art.
>> Puppetry is a technique, not an artform. It has no generally recognized
>> aesthetic that is separate from its parent, theater. In the discussions
>> that have raged over this board for years no one has yet come up with
>> any kind of system for evaluating work with a puppet that is any
>> different from evaluating dance or theater. In fact, it is interesting
>> that the only discussions that attract a lot of contributors are about
>> the objects and how to make them: very little time is spent talking
>> about what is done with the objects after they are made.
Really? So what would you call what we are doing now? I think there is a lot
more discussion about the technical aspects since the artform, oops - excuse
me, techinque, requires the object of puppet to be performed. On a acting
forum would you not get lots of discussion about the merits of different
techniques - Misner, method, and so on?
 I disagree that puppetry is not an artform. No generally recognized
aesthetic that seperates it from its parent? Hello? What is the puppet? Not
seperate? That must be why the general public thinks of puppetry and theater
on the same level. Must be why they leave the children home when they get in
their tuxes and long dresses to come to my puppet shows. Just as the paint
and brush are used in a particular style and technique to create a certian
art, the puppet is the tool used with a particular technique to create art,
therefor puppetry is the artform. Yes, puppetry is a large branch (with many
smaller branches) on the theater tree, but it is definitely a seperate art
from people theater. At times the branches cross and get tangled and people
theater and puppet theater feed off of the same stock and roots, but they
are no more the same than brain surgery and proctology. Yes, one can do both
but unless you have your head up your wazoo you don't want one doing the
surgery the other should be doing. I can agree that puppetry is a subset,
but only if one conciders people theater as a subset as well. As in the
painting analogy, you have to add opera, dance, and other theatrical arts to
the greater picture and then it emerges that both are subsets or branches of
the same mighty oak. And if you really go back it might just emerge that
people theater is a subset of puppetry and that the puppet was the acorn
from which the oak sprang, but that is another discussion.

>> Jean Claude Leportier has made the point that puppetry is like music
>> and requires a performer (with musicality) an instrument (which is
>> appropriate for the skill level of the performer and the piece to be
>> played) and a score (which is worth playing). Very often, I think,
>> puppeteers focus too much on the instrument.
 Works both ways. A fine instrument can make a better performance from a
talented performer, be it puppeteer, singer, violinist, or surgeon. An
inferior instrument can mean the exact opposite - the most talented
performer must work much harder to pull off a decent performance using a
piece of junk. Granted there are exceptions to both examples, but the rule
applies for the majority of times. A good instrument makes my job easier and
I can concentrate more on the performance. Or should I say concentrate less
and let it flow nice and natural, like the song of a bird.
 Could some of this discussion focus thing be that we are, for the most
part, puppeteers talking with other puppeteers? The instrument is much
easier to discuss on a e-forum than many of the other aspects of the
artform. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are discussing direction, acting,
singing, and so on in other arenas. As for myself, I would rather discuss
most of those live.
 Robert, you are free to begin a discussion on any other area of the art,
er, technique you would like. I might even chime in. As one of my acting
teachers used to say "When you are ready and not before. Go!"

>> Just my two cents.
>>
Just my Dollar Thirty Eight, plus tax where applicable.


  --- Personal replies to: "Christopher H." <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>
  --- 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