The "Fantasy" of Puppetry

[Fozzie Bear]

This kind of applies to cartooning as well, and is related to a post at one of the videos I posted at YouTube.com (the SuperMule in particular). This might sound like I'm starting with a whine session, but I promise it gets into the meat of the question which I hope other creators will reply to, and I wouldn't mind getting some thoughts from folks who are the "audience" to what we creators put up for shows, viewing, or reading.

The Whine:
I find it interesting that the harshest critiques that you'll find on youtube.com are from those who have no personally creative works uploaded on their accounts. On the SuperMule video--which was used as a promotional piece that Muley was appearing at the Superman Celebration in Metropolis, IL, but also for fun--some 21 year old guy posts how it was "tollerably cute" but that he hoped I wasn't planning to make a living with Muley. At the same time, he posted, "What kind of name is 'muley?'" Saying it was, to sum it up, lame.

(By the way, his favorited video was the "Lost" tv series premiere. The funny thing was he critiqued the TV show Smallville in his post about SuperMule stating that it was 'Scooby Doo' meets 'Superman'; but, isn't Lost just a dramatic presentation of Gilligan's Island?) I'm also shocked at people who have nothing nice to say at all: "This is bad, but I think this is how you can make it better..." It's the same thing about art critiques or portfolio reviews.

Finally, in the midst of all this, he states that I strike him as the kind of person who tries to present Muley as being real, and that "Jim Henson was so endeared because he didn't present his characters as being real."

My Thoughts:
Well, I'm thinking: Yes, he did.

Think about the shots he posed the characters in, that if you asked for autographs of characters that's what you got (not "Kermit the Frog by Jim Henson," unless you specified you wanted Jim's signature). Even Disney won't say, "Your Pal, Mickey Mouse by Walt Disney." They leave that point of 'reality vs. fantasy' so people have a chance to pretend.

Nobody says any of those characters are 'real,' but as a creator, don't you WANT to give the impression that they are 'real?' That's the point of puppetry: to bring a floppy sock to life and convince people to feel for this character because of his plight. Quite the same that Charles Schulz did with Charlie Brown--if you watch documentaries you'll see the numerous times he mentions the birthday/valentine/Christmas cards his studios would receive for Charlie Brown.

The Question:
So, creators: in reality we take off a puppet and throw him in a box--well, gently because lots of time goes into building them. When presenting the character to the audience, how important is it to you that the character be perceived as real?

Audience folk: When you go to see a show, don't you want to be convinced that the character is real? Don't you want to have emotional connections to the characters you see in shows?

My Focus:
For me, as a puppeteer (who, at events, walks around with a puppet on my arm who acknowledges the 'wire' from his hand and that 'there's ever only been one arm that I've ever seen') it is important that audiences percieve the character as real. It's why we care about the Muppets. We see Kermit the Frog, and if Kermit is talking, we would watch Kermit, not Jim's moving lips. We have emotional connections to these characters because they are perceptibly real.

As a cartoonist, I try to convey emotions and personalities from the characters that will let someone know the characters better and create some kind of connection to them. It's why we love Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and Lucy.

So, what's your thoughts?

 

[puppetsmith]

Hey Foz! Great thread. First of all, don't let that guy's comments get to you too much. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Second, I think it's the responsibility of every creator of characters (3-D or 2-D) to convince their audience that their characters are real. And, in actuality, the characters at some point become real, in the sense that they seem to develop into a personality that's all their own. It's also the creator's responsibility to protect the reality of their characters (which goes far beyond copyright laws).

Jim Henson, in my opinion, did this almost perfectly. Why were we convinced that Kermit was real? Or any Muppet for that matter? One reason is because we saw the Muppets struggle. Trying to put on a decent show in an old theater on a shoestring budget. Traveling cross-country to Hollywood. Taking down jewel thiefs armed only with a roll of paper towels. Walking into a diner with no money for lunch while trying to hit it big on Broadway. Struggles! Heck, we used to see Muppets struggling on Sesame Street. (And I emphasize the fact that we "used to see" it.) That's one of the reasons why we are convinced that the characters are real.

To take this a step further, and probably raise some controversy in the process, the problem with a lot of the known Muppet characters today(and children's television as a result) is that most of it is fluff - no real struggles. Oscar used to be a grouch. He was really difficult to get along with. If you don't believe me ask Maria. Now he reads bedtime stories to Slimy and tucks him in afterward. Don't even get me started on Elmo. And, oh, Muppets Wizard of Oz?! What was that?! It seems the Muppet characters we were endeared to are mere shadows of what they once were. All we can do is watch old clips of our favorite Muppets to remember who they really were.

What I'm trying to say that even if a lot of effort went into establishing the reality of a character or a group of characters, it can be easily lost if it's not protected. The Sesame Street of today will not have the staying power that the Sesame Street of the 70s has. The Muppets of today will not have the level of devotion from fans that the Muppets of yesteryear have. The characters have not been protected. It's very unfortunate for everyone involved, and I think especially the kids.

Besides if you feed kids fluff - you get fluffy kids. Yuck!

 

[Jinx]

Some excellent points being made here.

For me, the biggest problem with brainless "critics" on youtube is that they are in no way qualified to offer their opinions to the public at large. I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I do not expect that everyone will enjoy my performances, but if someone is going to critique something publicly there becomes a responsibility to both artist and audience.

99.5% of the comments I've read on youtube are from people who obviously feel very self-important by offering their "insights' and "wisdom" when they clearly have not even taken the time to learn how to spell. It is a personal bias of mine, but when I read comments, particularly disparaging ones, riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, I cannot possibly take them seriously.

Any public forum provides easy access to the masses to "publish" and there are many who feel somehow validated by being available for public consumption. Posting an agreeable message would, perhaps, make them feel like a spineless yes-man, and like they don't have anything "worth saying". So, by extension, if they can put something down they believe that it makes them appear to be knowledgeable on a subject.

There are many who readily shoot down any video posted that is in any way cute. If it's a kitten or a puppy it's either "lame" or "animal cruelty". Never mind the fact that kittens and puppies are just plain cute! I suppose they think that it's just "edgier" to not enjoy something as simple and pure as a baby animal, a cartoon or a puppet.

As a performer (actor, puppeteer, magician, whatever) I never expect my audience to take my performance as "real", or even "believable" necessarily. I do want to create a character that is compelling to watch and listen to. And no character that I've ever created is right for every audience. (This is something that the trolls on youtube are certain to never figure out.) But I have an excellent track record of my performances being enjoyed by nearly all of the audiences for whom I perform. There are venues in which I do not perform, because I'm the wrong performer for them. I'm not a bad performer, just an inappropriate one for that particular audience. When people learn that I am a magician I get a lot of requests to perform at children's parties. While there is nothing "blue" or socially inappropriate in my programs, they're just not right for a kid's party audience.

Similarly, someone who "critiques" videos on youtube ought to consider the video's intended audience. I do not believe that this is likely to ever happen.

I think that the compelling nature of performance might be described as being "real". Muley's not real, Garth is not real, Mayberry Melonpool is not real, nor are any of the other puppet characters who were with us there that night at the restaurant in L.A. But you know as well as I that the people who spontaneously gathered at our table would not have ever thought such a thing at that moment. Our characters were warm, friendly and engaging, and even without a script, were compelling.

And that's real enough for me.

 

[SesameKermie]

I think the critics on places like Youtube are mostly the Statler and Waldorf of the online community. They're not criticizing your performance to be helpful, but to get some kind of ego stroke from shooting you down.

As an amateur puppeteer, I know that sometimes I break the realism and need to work on it. I don't want the audience to think I'm 'waving a dolly around'; I want them to see the puppet as a compelling character. I think that same feeling goes for cartoonists, dancers and any other type of performer.

Characterization is characterization. Period. Whether it is a puppet, a cartoon, an animated every-day object, or whatever. Look at some of Pixar's desk lamp skits. You empathize with a lamp!

As far as letting people see behind the scenes, I think it's ok, as long as the puppets are treated with respect. If they are just carelessly thrown in the box when not in use, that makes them 'objects' again and not 'characters who are resting.'

I'm not sure if it's true or not, but there was a story told of Jim Henson in a 'how do I do this without breaking the fantasy' situation. Apparently a young child saw a live performance of Kermit's and noticed Jim. When the little boy was asked who Jim was, he replied "He's holding Kermit up so he can see!"

Ok, I'm starting to ramble, but don't let the B#@$@#$s get you down.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I second the notion that you can't take one person's comments on YouTube to heart Foz. If you post and share your work on sites like internet comments are just part of the deal.

One of the cool things that the internet has done is it's made entertainment in to a two way medium. It's no longer a static thing where stuff gets "pushed" at an audience, but now entertainment is becoming more of a conversation between the artist and their audience. Rather than get turned off by audience participation (good and bad) the best shows like The Show With Ze Frank are harnessing it and turning their audiences and in to an asset.

On the subject of reality, I think the audience knows puppetry isn't real, but it still entertains and engages them and makes them want to believe it's real. That's the magic of puppetry in my opinion.

 

[Giar Fraggle]

I don't really have anything deep or insightful to add, you've already said all of it beautifully. You guys are too cool.

So I guess I'll just answer the question posed to me at the beginning.

Character reality is very important to me. While my characters are extensions of different facets of my personality (Chunk is my hyperactive side, Mark is my rock-loving side, Hybbyt is my senile side), I try to present them as realistically as I can, in an emotional sense. Everyone but very young children could plainly see that they are cloth-and-foam constructions, but usually they're far too engaged in the puppet's actions, words, and nuances.

As for the puppeteer being hidden, I prefer to be hidden, but that's just because I'm very shy. There have been times when I've had to perform in the open because there were no available hiding spots, but I found that it didn't detract at all from my performance or the believability of the character (the kids were treating Chunk like a real dog, petting and hugging him, and even the parents seemed to enjoy him). So I believe that as long as you're skilled enough in puppetry to make a puppet seem alive, it won't matter whether or not you're hidden. I do enjoy the recurring joke of Chunk being completely oblivious to his performer, but that's because I don't like drawing attention to myself (of course, I love drawing attention to my puppets!), and I just think it's really funny.

 

[MrsPepper]

I don't think that YouTube is the place to go if you want constructive criticism. People post on there so that their post count goes up, and it makes them cool for about 5 seconds. Maybe here we're sort of biased since we're already muppet fans, but I think that makes the ideal critiques, since we do believe in the fantasy of puppetry.

Audience folk: When you go to see a show, don't you want to be convinced that the character is real? Don't you want to have emotional connections to the characters you see in shows?

Yes, exactly. What makes it fun and exciting is being able to believe that the character is real; that something so simple and basic can come to life. It's like going to plays - The experience is all-encompassing; you want to believe that the world is real the characters really do exist. The whole illusion of peeking through into this secret world, and actually feeling like something so amazing really can happen, is what makes it so fun.

 

[Super Scooter]

When presenting the character to the audience, how important is it to you that the character be perceived as real?

I think it's very important that the character becomes real to the audience. Obviously, as has already been pointed out, they're not real, and no adult is expected to believe they're actually living, breathing things, but the character needs to become something they can relate to, that they can feel for. Otherwise, how can they laugh at it (if you're doing comedy)? I think it's the performer (cartoonist, animator)'s responsibility to create a character that can become real to their audience. Otherwise, you're really robbing the audience of the experience they should expect to receive.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Oh, no fear, folks. I'm not letting any negative comments get me down. I mean, the Christmas Wish video garnered 100+ views in little over a day! If I did something that was pretty stinky I doubt it would have had so many views, eh? Anyhow, as soon as I can bring it together, there will be more Muley stuff.

I did think this would all create a great outlet of ideas and a good discussion, though.

I was thinking about one statement above and considered what I do with Muley when not using him. I have a large plastic box that I keep him in (folks at the Jim Henson Spaghetti Puppet Dinner in LA may remember the box). When not using him he either goes in that box or into a large bag. After one event that I performed with him (walking around and the audience saw him on my arm and my lips move when he talked--yet, still believed in him) I didn't have either the box or the bag. I just sat him down behind the restaurant's hostess podium. Folks would walk by and it wasn't me that said so, but other folks saying, "Muley's tired and napping, huh?"

One of my aunts is a big Muley fan and I have seen her talking to the puppet on occasion--even though I was nowhere to be found! Ha ha. She's so sweet.

But, yeah, I'd love to get more opinions from the 'audience' folks, too.

 

[Phantom]

Grain of salt, dear Kevin, grain of salt. I wish I could have a nickle for all of the criticism, I've received (even on this very forum). But alas, to steal a few lines from Bunyan...

If my life is fruitless, it doesn't matter who praises me, and if my life is fruitful, it doesn't matter who criticizes me. –John Bunyan