Puppets and Human Movements by Steven Ritz-Barr

A scene in Quixote, my recent project, revolves around the “hero” marionette getting in a brawl and losing his teeth. The script required him to open his mouth to show Sancho Panza how many teeth he lost in the fight. I included this scene with the express intent to make the puppets feel more human. My reasoning being that with the association of teeth and pain with a puppet the public would regard him with more human attributes. I also liked the camaraderie between the two characters that revealed their trusting relationship.
My collaborator argued exactly the opposite. He wanted to drop anything that made the viewer aware that the puppet was not human. Teeth are in humans; therefore putting a light to this part of the anatomy would strain the credibility of our main character and therefore our story. The viewer would be reminded that they are mere Puppets and disengage their attention from the story. He also felt the scene wasn’t strong enough to merit inclusion in our highly summarized version of the epic novel.
Since I am the final decision maker in this arrangement I was prepared to overrule my partner. But he made me aware of the dance we writer’s make in regard to the Puppets versus Human movements. We don’t see Quixote eating in the film, so teeth are not an issue outside of this scene. If we need to emotionally humanize Quixote because of this scene it is because we have not done so adequately throughout the piece. We can add it later if we feel we have the need to do so. We are on a terribly tight budget and shooting schedule so including the scene may mean cutting another scene more important. So, at this point I am putting the shooting of the scene at the end of the schedule, meaning we probably won’t get to it.

Puppets and the Sense of Smell

Back in 1985, in France, I purchased an old bus that I began to turn it into an itinerant theatre– with bench seats for 30 children to watch a puppet show. While rebuilding the bus, I planned on Smell Lines– Tubes along the upper side where one usually pulls to signal a stop. I wanted a complete sensory experience. And my first show ICARUS, had smells ready to go– sea salt, sweets….
Unfortunetly, the bus never made it up. After several mishaps it broke down bad and needed too many repairs to the engine and the directional system to allow me to keep it. It was old and tired. I had to let go of the entire projects and cut my losses before they buried me deeper.
I am very aware that when a puppet smells things (like flowers) it makes them appear more human. The actual smell would have been great to have, but now I rely on the spectator’s imagination to fill that in.
Perhaps trying to recreate smells is not necessary for the theatrical experience. But the sense of smell is one of the most potent senses we have in regard to memory. As Marcel Proust, the French writer in “In Search of Lost Time”, realized when he smelled the Madeleine cookie, our memory receptors open up to parts of ourselves we had completely forgotten about. The book “Proust was a Neuroscientist” by Jonah Lehrer explores in laymen’s scientific detail how this happens within our brain– smells trigger past memories that had been repressed or simply forgotten.
END

The Great Buck Howard
I liked this film, but I give it a 3.5 out of 5 rating. Actor John Malkavich was great in the lead role, as a nearly washed out ‘vaudeville-type” magician turned Mentalist-Entertainer of the Common People. Broadway Danny Rose (Woody Allen) could have been Howard’s agent (maybe was his agent at one time in his life because the character is based on a real guy). Colin Hanks plays his assistant very well. But I think the overall message they wanted to convey was diluted by their overemphasis on some trivial set-up, allowing less time for the great pay-offs that are near the last parts of the film. So I think the intentions of the writers and filmmakers outweighed their actual filmmaking reality. The writers and filmmakers couldn’t agree if it was a film about Buck Howard or his assistant. Something seemed false in this. The dynamics cancelled each other out.
I experienced a bit of a cat and mouse between like and dislike constantly in the film. The guy is a purely narcistic creep, but also loves to entertain the common uneducated folks. He works hard to please his audiences and the sense of awe and wonder he hopes to instill in his audience is real and genuine (it seems). And the Hank’s character who plays his assistant appears too passive to really root for in this film. He just takes everything in and does very little outside of talking about his conflicts—no emotional arch or catharsis.
This idea of communicating awe and magic to people is Buck’s desire, and is what is important about seeing this film. But there are some great scenes in this movie and they will remind us puppeteers of the need in everyone to experience this awe and magic in their lives… even in our own lives… although this movie didn’t do it for me.

FILM REVIEW: The Great Buck Howard

The Great Buck Howard
I liked this film, but I give it a 3.5 out of 5 rating. Actor John Malkavich was great in the lead role, as a nearly washed out ‘vaudeville-type” magician turned Mentalist-entertainer of the Common People. Broadway Danny Rose (Woody Allen) could have been Howard’s agent maybe was his agent at one time in his life because the character is based on a real guy). Colin Hanks plays his assistant very well. But I think the overall message they wanted to convey was diluted by their overemphasis on some trivial set-up, allowing less time for the great pay-offs that are near the last parts of the film. So I think the intentions of the writers and filmmakers outweighed their actual filmmaking reality. The writers and filmmakers couldn’t agree if it was a film about Buck Howard or his assistant. Something seemed false in this. The dynamics cancelled each other out.
I experienced a bit of a cat and mouse between like and dislike constantly in the film. The guy is a purely narcistic creep, but also loves to entertain the common uneducated folks. He works hard to please his audiences and the sense of awe and wonder he hopes to instill in his audience is real and genuine (it seems). And the Hank’s character who plays his assistant appears too passive to really root for in this film. He just takes everything in and does very little outside of talking about his conflicts—no emotional arch.
This idea of communicating awe and magic to people is Buck’s desire, and is what is important about seeing this film. But there are some great scenes in this movie and they will remind us puppeteers of the need in everyone to experience this awe and magic in their lives… even in our own lives… although this movie didn’t do it for me.

To Administer…

I’m in the process of creating an administration for the non-profit company, Metropolitan Puppet Authority, while at the same time administering, the incorporated, Classics in Miniature. The task is to allow a flow from one source to the other where they can each feed the other. I want the MPA to remain a structure for fund-raising and education: educating Puppeteers to be better Puppeteers and educating the General Public about the Puppet Arts. lapuppet.com should be a place to get classes organized or to find the subject material organized for classes, to provide a platform for information on puppetry arts, and to provide education to the general public concerning the  Puppetry Arts. That means filming behind the scenes of the various sets I will be working on. Also I want to become fluent in the Art of Fundraising. To this end I will allow for donations to any of the Film Projects, to any of the Educational directions, and for any of the Projects around the operations of Steven Ritz-Barr or Steven Barr.

 

Comments about Coroline

     I saw the film, Coraline, just finished the original Coraline by Niel Gaiman (2002, HarperCollins), read and studied Coraline, A Visual Companion, by Stephen Jones, saw/read interviews about the film, and have come to some conclusions about the concept. Gaiman was telling this story originally to his young girls, spontaneously improvising, then rewriting it over a 10 year period.  This was a projected tale, yet a fun, entertaining story meant originally as a connection with his daughters– he achieved that goal. Then, the book got published. It was then purchased, transposed to different mediums and the big film came out- from a humble honest beginning. Gaiman didn’t pretend the story was great, and it is not.

     In the book, no Wybe character exists at all, which makes for a cleaner concept all around. The overwhelming focus rests on the relationship between mother and daughter, the father a mere footnote. The other-mother does not visually transform (except from one angle where Coraline sees her while she is still inside the transitional crawl-space, and realizes it is someone different than her mother on the other side). The upstairs neighbor was hardly present and the 2 actresses and their dogs were fun and not physically grotesque (except in their banter). I liked the book much better. Except for the search to save the souls of the three little ghost kids, I really really liked the book.  That part was gratuitously injected in the concept– Gaiman was playing “the Grimm card” without the substance. Since we had no knowledge about “lost kids” in the book or the film, the fact that they turn up should not be taken lightly, yet it is. She frees them as she does in the film, and they go just go away. The only concrete connection about them may lie in the fact that these kids had died years ago and finally their souls could go to Heaven. Fine. But it is not clear that that was the intention. I think he just added them as a dynamic device to show that Coraline was a real hero and saved ‘her own kind’ and not the just the parents. Fine. But it does not show Gaimon to be in control of his mythology and archtypes– unless I am missing something.

     Had these kids been symbolic concepts for love -caring, charity, warmth, etc– all the things that Coraline had not found in that new house yet, (that she now needed and wanted because her parents were too busy and she had no friends)– their presence would have made sense to me and made for a stronger concept. If she was a child of today, she would have been actively communicating with her friends back home through the Internet — my space, etc… and probably not felt so scared and isolated.

     Also, Gaiman missed the sexual energy altogether. He stayed a man in his interpretation of her needs and her real primal questions about growing up– to physically defeat this bad mother. Evan as a pre-pubescent, she would have wondered about this soon to be reality. This fact was uncharacteristically out of the equation here for a  ’coming of age’ story. But that was not the story Gaimon was telling to his kid. Fine. But this omission takes it out of any comparisons to the Grimm and other of the great old folk tales. 

     His story was clever, fun and the film was entertaining to a mass audience. I wish they could have cleaned up the archtypes and not had to rely on the overly grotesque visuals to transform the other mother into that  physical metal spider (a boy’s dream, not a girl’s). At this point, the film became a Hollywood product, high on style, low on substance.  Remember Howard the Duck? This happens when too many people want to inject their own creative imprint on a story. They got it right most of the time, but in the end, as in James and the Giant Peach, it fell a bit flat. We will see if the film attracts a larger audience than James– which was considered a flop, although I enjoyed it. Since there are so few stop motion films, I hope this allows more to be made. We will see.

So what do you think?

Defining Puppetry Arts

Defining puppetry arts.

Most Puppeteer- grant writers have pondered the definition of our craft because of hit and miss-conceptions associated with Puppetry Arts. I’ve heard Figure Theatre, Image Theatre, Theatre with Puppets, and others… but the trick is just to get the grant reviewer not to get ‘hung up’ on whatever word you invent to replace what it truly is: Theatre. Check to see if other grants given by this Group have given money to Puppet Productions (or other types of alternative theatre).. and find out what they called it. Go on precedence. If there is none, call it something simple, as not to attract too much attention to itself, because in your descriptions of the project you can elaborate, and this part is what will determine if you get the grant or not—not the definition.
In my PR for my Faust film, I say it is a film which uses Puppets as main characters; (which is exactly what it is), but later I added: Faust, Puppenfilm (pronounced poopenfilm, puppen is German for puppet). Not only does this bring a smile to my face because I get to say ‘poop’, I think it may bring a smile to the face of the programmer because it just fits my project. Good luck. ‘Staged puppet theatre’ not only sounds pretentious but it implies that other puppet theatre is not staged—which is false. It is staged but perhaps not staged on a stage—‘Full stage’ is good –but is it a musical? — Full-stage Musical Puppet Theatre (similar to Ave. Q and Lion King).
This is not what will get you the grant but if you title it wrong you may be rejected before they even read any further. This discussion is fun, but it is a Red Herring.
I might add—there is no higher calling than doing birthday party shows for kids, and anyone who can happily do ‘ma and pa theatre’ have already understood all there is to know ever in this universe. I applaud you, most enviously.
-Steven Ritz-Barr

Narration

Use of Narration

 

     Anyone seen the film Blade Runner? There are 2 versions, the studio version, most widely released WITH NARRATION by the lead character. And the Director’s cut (released years later) WITHOUT NARRATION. The studio inserted the voice-over in order to make the lead character more human and more likable because the earlier screenings of the film, without narration, tilted the audience to ‘root for’ the  antagonist, the Rudger Hauer clone character, instead of the ruthless, bounty hunter, superstar Harrison Ford. By adding the narration they achieved their goal of” softening “ the character by allowing the audience into his inner dialogue. If you see the director’s cut, you see clearly how the Ford character appears morally wrong time and time again. I prefer the director’s cut but I understand why the studio needed their audience to like the lead, H. Ford, more than the protagonist, Hauer.  I love this film for many reasons,(not the least of which because it portrays a decayed LA, where I live).

    My favorite books on writing scripts are, the Writer’s Journey by Christopher Vogler, and How to Write It, How to Sell it by Linda Palmer. They deal with screenplay writing but the structure of writing remains the same—it is all storytelling. They also deal more with the traditional archetypal storytelling structure rather than the non-linear, abstract, form that can be self invented (which is more difficult to pull off, but tend to more personal and dreamlike). L. Palmer’s book gets into character development in a great way. They are not formula books. Since many Puppeteers must cut corners—knowlingly or not–  it is often the script itself who gets neglected the most. Big bummer.

Success through Failure

Paul de Man notes that Goethe and Hegel are both authors of works in which consciousness expands through a series of failures. That is how Art is produced. This is part of what I mean when I say ” when you suffer materially, the quality of the art becomes more potent. More profound.” Because you had to rise above your own immediate problems through your escape into the creation of the ART. The process of failure to achieve the satisfaction pushes oneself to more depth. Art is the ultimate theraputic exercise, when times are rough. And it is only through a series of failure, wrought in the zone of personal awareness, that the Phoenix can lift its head to greet you at the end of the day’s journey. That Phoenix is not you, but certainly came through you, and now its existence is not dependant upon your own energy any more. The outside world can come in and see it. Feel it, smell it, and maybe even move it. But most hopefully “the other” can be moved by it. Therefore allowing the profound connection between humans to happen. How does one put a value on this connection? that is for another discussion.

FIRST WEBLOG OF MY LIFE

Today I have jumped into a new paradigm. I have started a Web- a BLOG. This is personal writing shared with any one who wants to read it. Therefore, since I am not attempting to hide my identity, I must be careful with the words in this blog. I will try.

I wanted to communicate my reason for this experiment in weekly Rants and updates as to the inner workings of Steven Ritz-Barr, Steven Barr, and Lapuppet– the metropolitan puppet authority, and the other selves that are me or identify themselves as me.

Steven Barr was born in May 19, 1956, that is over 50 years ago, half a century ago, 50 winters ago, a long time ago.  I was born into a middle middle class American family with 2 parents– a female mom and male dad, and an older brother and an older sister, in a small home in  Columbus, Ohio.

At age 17, while living in California since my 10th year,  I experienced a great shift in my psyche, I learned to love reading books for the first time. This single phenomena was achieved because aging English teacher, Mrs. Goodwyn,  allowed me to do oral presentations after completing a book, instead of written tests. The lack of pressure due to the absence of written tests propelled me into other worlds I had not thought possible to visit. Reading became a preoccupation and the oral reports that surrounded the reading of the books became an important focus of my life.  My favorite books were Papillon and the Exorcist. But that feeling of complete abandon into a story is what I began to experience for the first time;  like I was in the story.  Books  gave me a way to experience the actions, emotions, and  experience of other people. I found an opening into myself through books.

At age 18, I experinced another great shift in my trajectory.