The "Fantasy" of Puppetry

[Fozzie Bear]

Thanks, Phantom. Like I said, it doesn't stop me but pushes me more.

As far as the realism of characters, what's your opinion on that?

 

[DannyRWW]

First of all I loved the Muley Superman video.... I wish I could make something that looks even remotely proffesional. As for makeing your puppets seem real. In one of the books I have it describes how Jim Henson would do a presentation with Kermit and then casually take him off and put him in a crate. At first glance this seems as if he didn't treat the puppet as if it was real.... the magic of it is that Kermit seemed real and alive when on his hand and he was that great of a puppeteer that even taking kermit off in front of people did not spoil the magic.
I find myself often running around with one or more puppets on my hand at a time these days (setting up a performance or 'testing' new puppets it) the thing that amazes me is that even some adults (including my boss) tend to talk to the the puppet instead of me, even though I'm right there. I think people want to believe in the magic of puppetry. I think if you can create a character and make him seem real and alive to your audience that is a gift. I don't pretend to be at that level but I certainly think it is not something to criticize.
Oh on the subject of lame names.... Big Bird.... I mean who would of thought that would fly. Muley sounds ok to me.

 

[Super Scooter]

This is a quote from Jimmy Dean's autobiography:

"I treated Rowlf like he was real, but he was real to me, and I think that's one of the reasons he made such an impression on everyone. Jim Henson himself said it was the reason Rowlf was such a hit...Rehearsals with Rowlf and his handlers were done in my office, and we'd always have a lot of fun clowning around. My secretary Willie loved Rowlf and would come in regularly to watch us work with the writers. Sometimes Rowlf and I would act like we were fighting, and on one occasion when we were joking and having one of our scuffles, I smacked his head and one of his eyeballs flew off. Well, when I did that, Willie screamed and ran out of the office, and you'd have thought that I'd mortally wounded somebody.

Henson and I not only had a good stage rapport with Rowlf but we enjoyed each other as friends too. One of my most prized possessions is a miniature Rowlf that he and Frank Oz made and gave me for Christmas one year. The puppet stands about twenty inches high, and when you lift him off of the stand, there's Jim Henson standing there with his hand straight up in the air. It really is a well-made piece, and I wouldn't take anything in the world for it."​

 

[Phantom]

For me, one of the appealing aspects of puppetry is that for a brief moment the puppet is ‘real’…as real as anything. Under manipulation, it has all of the aspects of what we see as ‘existing’—movement, voice, personality. Perhaps because it seems alive, we (being children at heart) allow it to be alive. This is, of course, more easily achieved with a puppet that has personality before the puppeteer ever picks it up, but like I said, part of the illusion is that we allow the puppet to live in our minds.

I’ve learned, as I grow older, that the happiest moments in life involve a child-like fascination and an ability to shut out the ‘realities’ of life. I remember the Friday after 9/11 my family and I met some friends (as we did every Friday back then) at the drive-in to see The Princess Diaries. After a week filled with anxiety about the global future, I found (to my pleasant surprise) that for two hours that the world was a shadow and the ‘reality’ involved a teenage girl unwillingly thrust upon the world stage. (Besides that it was a really cute movie.) The movie in no way changed history or the events that were about to unfold, but it did offer a time for escape, but I digress.

One other aspect that I think applies to this is the skill of the puppeteer and his ability to 'become the puppet'. It’s just like the skill of an actor to become the character. Instead of seeing Jimmy Stewart, we see George Bailey. Puppeteers do this, too, to a degree. Their outpouring of skill in this area helps sustain the ‘reality’ of the puppet.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

All great insights.

Now, when reading comic strips or comic books/graphic novels, how do you feel about those characters? I mean, we obviously realize that they aren't real at all--but, I feel for Charlie Brown and feel like Snoopy could live right next door. In my imagination they are as real as anybody I've never met but talked to on the internet, you know?

What do you reckon?

 

[Phantom]

I think one thing humans do is humanize or at least familiarize things around them which have a perceived personality. Calvin, Snoopy, Dilbert and (my new favorite) Frazz are obviously not real, but we can get a sense of their personality and character by reading the strips. This allows them to become more “real”.

We do the same thing with animals. Of course animals are real, but we allow them to become like little people when we know their personality. Lassie for example has a personality and she is a real dog, but on a certain level she is to us more like a person.

Here’s another idea that I’ve stumbled into: Benjamin Franklin was a real person with a real personality, however, he is not of this day and age so how can we relate to the person that was Franklin. We’ve seen him portrayed by actors, animatronics and animation which allow us to know him as if he was our next door neighbor. But in a certain sense, is he anymore ‘real’ than Scooby Doo or Sherlock Holmes? Yes and no. Now, I’ve never met Ben Franklin (my wayback machine is broken) or Scooby Doo yet I know them both. This is where our fascinating brains kick in. We know Ben is real and Scooby Doo is not, but what gives them value in human terms, what allows us to know them is the same and that is our ability to relate to them because they have a persona. I think in general we have to (or at least want to) look at things real and unreal that demonstrate personality in human terms so that we can relate better or at least understand better.

Now, I'm going to move to the shallow end of the pool. This is kinda deep.

 

[Giar Fraggle]

If the character is written well, then yes, it is possible to imagine that they are real. The same goes for cartoon characters and fiction characters. I think this falls in the same vein as puppets in that you've got this character, this personality, and the only thing that's standing between this personality and the world is the skill of the creator. The better puppeteer/actor/artist/writer you are, the more convincing your character will be.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

One of the big factors that play in to how much people will identify with a character is a phenomenon called visual abstraction. Essentially, the idea is that the more iconic an image is the more people can relate to it. For example, a really iconic image is a smiley face. It's not very realistic, but it's a representation of the human face (an "icon" for it).

The reason the "Muppet look" is so popular in puppetry is because the classic Muppets are very, very abstracted and iconic and people respond to that type of design. Because the design of a puppet like Kermit is not very specific (the Kermit puppet represents a frog, but doesn't actually look much like one) when we look at it our imagination kicks in and our brain fills in the blanks so it can accept it as a frog.

So it's much easier to relate to Kermit the Frog than it is to a Ventriloquist Dummy or a traditional marionette because Kermit has a very iconic, abstract and non-specific design whereas the marionette or dummy is usually a much more realistic and specific representations of something and our imagination isn't as needed (the Uncanny Valley also plays a role in this too).

Less is more.

If anyone is interested in learning more about this whole idea, I highly recommend reading "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud which has a really good section on iconic images and visual abstraction.

 

[puppetsmith]

We know Ben is real and Scooby Doo is not, but what gives them value in human terms, what allows us to know them is the same and that is our ability to relate to them because they have a persona.

Excellent observation, Phantom!

On the subject of "visual abstraction", however...

Essentially, the idea is that the more iconic an image is the more people can relate to it. For example, a really iconic image is a smiley face. It's not very realistic, but it's a representation of the human face (an "icon" for it).

Though it's a nice idea, I can't fully agree with it. I've never read 'Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. I'm sure the idea is more developed in the book. But simplification of a character is not the answer to a successful character. I do agree that a simplified character will have a wider appeal, only because of the fact the humans usually look not only for similarities in character or situation, but similarities in physical appearance when choosing whether or not to relate to something or someone. So the iconic image allows them to "fill in the gaps" as it were. I do not think that it determines the success of the character.

I think there is a ratio involved. The more detailed or realistic the character, the more the character must be develop to be accepted or more realistic issues need to be involved. And vice versa. The more iconic or simplified the character the less the characters needs to be developed in order to be initially accepted. Puppetry and puppets in my opinion are the purest imitation of life. The more realistic a character looks the more the character must be developed (in the writing or subject matter) or the more time the audience must spend with the character to accept that the character is "real". The more abstract the character, the more the audience is able to make allowances to accept the character. They are really asked to do so, or required to do so, to be able to get on with the show.

which type of character would be the most successful? It really boils down to message. Using a realistic character to relate a very serious, real idea or thought (such as "death" for example) would facilitate the message much more than an iconic character. On the other hand, a simplified character would be much more accepted in a comedic script or storyline. One really is not better than the other. It all depends on the characters purpose, on the creator's purpose for the character, and on the message as to which one would be the best choice.

I think people respond to the "Muppet look" because they know it. It's like an old friend. I think the look fits the type of material the Muppets do, more comedic in nature. People like the "Muppet look" because they know the "Muppet look". And familiarity is a sure ticket to acceptance.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I did a really poor job of explaining McCloud's theory of visual abstraction in my last post and kind of over simplified it. I don't mean to suggest that realistic characters can't work, just that as the Uncanny Valley states people accept puppets/robots/etc. of varying degrees of abstraction up to a point, but then when things become almost life-like but not quite people tend to reject them until they become perfect representations of whatever they are supposed to be.

I think you made a very could point about choosing what works best for specific circumstances. Even though people generally don't find puppets that are "almost life life but not quite" appealing, for something like a horror movie you really want that effect.

If anyone is really interested in this stuff and getting it from the source the books to read are:

- Understand Comics by Scott McCloud (New York, NY: Harper Paperbacks, 1994)
- The Buddha in the Robot by Masahiro Mori (New York, NY: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1982)
- Making Comics by Scott McCloud (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2006)

They are pretty popular and most good libraries should have copies of them.

Another thing that I think makes Muppet-like puppets appealing - and this is just from a design standpoint and doesn't address performance - is their flexibility. There were visually abstracted puppets long before the Muppets, but one of Henson's great innovations of course was making puppets as flexible and expressive as possible.

And of course if you don't have a good puppeteer, well, then I think even the best looking, most appealing puppet in the world may not be effective.

Great discussion, lots of interesting ideas in this thread!