Cratemen

Something about this reminds me of an aspect of our aesthetic.  Recycled materials, humanoid forms and transforming the mundane.  Also reminds me of an image (below) I found inspiring in my initial research for the show.  In that we might be addressing storage and puppets constructed from found materials, I wanted to share.

The Puppeteers meets Legal Snarls

Are These Puppets? 3

Found here.

Is This a Puppet? 2

Found here.

7 Stories

There's a popular theory that supposes that for all the entertainment we've created over the course of human history, all the songs we've sung and tales we've told, there are but seven stories in the world.  (Here you can find an article that purports to list them.) We just synthesize and deconstruct and borrow and graft elements of these same seven (or six, or nine, depending on who you ask) stories over and over again.  I don't know if I hold to this particular theory, but it's an interesting idea when approaching the raw stuff of story-building.

In the spirit of story-building, I'm thinking about what role The Wizard of Oz and other Oz stories in general might have in our construction of a show.  Taken to its core elements, it could be said to be a story type that involves traveling to a strange land, changing the land and you forever, and returning home.  I'll list other stories of this type below.  Please edit this post to add your own:

1. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass
2. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. The Time Machine
4. The Odyssey
5. The Lord of the Rings
6. Pinocchio
7. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory (Dahl sort of specialized in this type of "children's story")
8. 
   

Plastic Bag Ballerina

From YouTube user oceanchildd.  Note that the ballerina's feet are actually the puppeteer's big toes.

Is This a Puppet? 1

Found here.

Kim W. on "Raised by Puppets"

Kim is amazing and research-crazy and I've asked her to contribute information to the 'blog.  She's also responsible for the study guide content ETC produces.  She also has some 'blog access problems so, for now at least, she post through me.  Below is a sort of response to my post of October 27.


Puppets.  Jeff pointed out how this lead to AVENUE Q -- part of how that came about was a sort of meta-commentary on shows LIKE "Sesame Street," which sought to teach kids using puppets.  The creators of AVENUE Q were speculating on, "well, what would it look like if someone used puppets to teach more adult concepts like 'how do I handle an adult relationship' or 'how do I figure out my life's purpose' or 'what is the Internet'?"

Plus, there's something titillatingly subversive about puppets - something that culturally we all think of as "kids' stuff" -- singing songs like "The Internet Is For Porn".  ...Although, AVENUE Q isn't even the most "adult stuff with puppets" that's out there -- there's also the all-marionette movie made by the guys who did SOUTH PARK -- called TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE.  This was a spoof of action films, complete with a "love scene" that would have been graphic enough to flirt with an NC-17 rating if it were real people.

Found here.  Warning - some disturbing puppetry at link.

Then there's something called MEET THE FEEBLES, a very early film by Peter Jackson.  (In his Oscar acceptance speech, he briefly mentioned it, only to thank the Academy for turning a blind eye TO it.)  It's kind of a cult classic now, and....well, the person who showed it to me described it to me beforehand as "Imagine a cross between THE MUPPET SHOW and HOLLYWOOD BABYLON."  ....That's not too far off -- I'd say it's more like, what THE MUPPET SHOW would have looked like if they were doing a burlesque show rather than a vaudeville one, and Jim Henson had done an internship with PLAYBOY MAGAZINE.  It's...quite something.  (I hesitate to recommend it to you for research purposes, for fear of really skewing the show in some unforeseen way.  However, once you've opened the show, maybe see it then, for amusement's sake.  And have a bottle of something very strong by your side when you watch.)

I suspect that this is another aspect of having grown up with puppets -- it's so much a part of all our childhoods that the idea of taking something so "of childhood" and putting into an adult realm makes it subversively funny.  And I wonder if we may be the first generation for which this would have worked; don't forget, the very first season of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE had Muppets in the cast.  But the audiences then -- all of whom would have been little kids in the 60's -- didn't really seem to go for the idea, and the writers also loathed working with them.  (An early writer on the show came up with an oft-quoted response when he was asked to write a sketch for the Muppets for one episode -- "I don't write for felt.")  So the Muppets were retired after that first season.

Then again, shows like HOWDY DOODY and KUKLA, FRAN, AND OLLIE were on in the 50s and 60s, which seems to kill my theory.  Perhaps the media saturation was not as great?

Just What Do We Think We're Doing: Part 1

The following is a summary I prepared for all involved behind the scenes of The Puppeteers.  It expresses pretty well what the show is going to be like, and represents an enormous step forward in the process.  The usual reminders apply - ALL IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE - but enjoy some somewhat concrete details below:

We are looking at a story set in the current day wherein three characters who do NOT communicate well become trapped together in a superintendent's basement apartment.  There is the resident of the first floor (Heather), who is a frightened and excitable middle-aged woman whose family used to own the house before economic concerns forced them to break it up.  There is a young woman who is a computer/Internet junkie (Elizabeth), hyper-kinetic and absurdly "connected."  And finally there is an aged superintendent and fix-it man (Conor) who used to be a puppeteer.

We don't have a specific scenario yet, but what we're looking at is a story wherein the three have to deal with vast generation gaps and trying to manipulate one another to fulfill their various wants and needs.  In their efforts to communicate/manipulate - and just to keep their spirits up - they begin to puppeteer with both true puppets and improvised ones from various objects and furniture collected in the super's seemingly vast dwelling, eventually becoming puppets and puppeteers themselves.  They tell stories, imagined and from their pasts, and both.  There's an element here of The Wizard of Oz - a story about being plunged into an unfamiliar world, and searching for reunion.

So - that's where we're aiming.  That's the general idea.  Of course remember, for all this lovely conceptual language, this will be an ecstatic physical comedy.  Some specifics:

Research:  There's a few different ways we're approaching puppetry in this context.  The commedia connections and Drake's design are specific to Punch'n'Judy, which is great, but we want to if not use than at least be informed of every variety we can.  I'm thinking of approaching it with a similar philosophy as we do to commedia itself - approaching it as a "living tradition," something interconnected that never left but evolved and continues to inform contemporary forms.  I've put some links to research on puppetry forms on the 'blog already, but it would be nice to consolidate or organize that kind of thing in some accessible way.  And we're always interested in history, of course, both global and whatever might be specific to North Eastern PA.  Perhaps the vaudeville circuit had some famous or local ventriloquists?  And just as a possible side note, Baum wrote a lot of Ozian and non-Ozian things as well, which might yield some interest.

Marketing: Everyone, please refer people to the 'blog and talk about the show as something anyone can be involved with in its development.  I hope for the month of December to have up Twitter and Facebook Puppeteers accounts linked directly to online ticket sales.  We may also send out Puppeteers holiday cards, if the theatre approves.

Set:  I wish you guys could see it now, but hopefully we'll have an image up on the 'blog soon.  Drake and the cast had a meeting about it, and it's an exciting sort of abstraction of a seaside Punch-n-Judy tent, with a human-sized "puppet" stage to match the real-size version.

Lights:  The theatre is somewhat limited in equipment, and I defer to the lighting designer entirely.  I always love actor-controlled lighting sources, as well.  Maybe after next time I'm in Scranton (12/10-12) we'll be able to say a bit more about this.

Costume:  Some commedia dell'arte character analogues to consider: Conor as a crafty (literally) Pantalone, Heather as a painfully shy Isabella (a contradiction, I realize) and Elizabeth as a sort of eager servant (Pedrolino/Columbina) or an innamorata.  It might be helpful if they all dressed somewhat of the period of their youth (E: contemporary, H: 60s/70s, C: 30s/40s or older) and then we could transition them to more commedia accents as the show progresses like we discussed, but obviously I'd want to hear our designer's ideas.

SMS! SMS!!!!!

Just had this insane idea that I had to put down.  What if we can make Elizabeth's "iPhone," or whatever, actually a TracFone and put the number in the program?  This way, the audience (both present and after they've seen the show) can interact with the action of the story.

I think I just had a glee heart attack.

Process is Change

Those who remain.  Photo by Jeff Wills. (Yup; all my fault.)

Well, in the past month we've had some changes with The Puppeteers.  I've said "all is subject to change" before, and I meant it.  During October it became clear to Todd - due to changes in his situation and in spite of our best efforts to circumvent it - that participating in the show wasn't going to work.  Not this show, not this time.

It's easy to write that, and it does make me feel better to write it.  But of course, losing him from the show is a major loss.  Todd's talent is enormous, and he's a fellow founding member of Zuppa del Giorno, and it was an absolute joy to work with him again.  We'll miss him.  There are no hard feelings.  (If anyone understands the amazing effort and sacrifice it takes to commit everything to a theatre show, even without living thousands of miles from the theatre, anyone would be me.)  The truth is, too, that he'll be in the show.  He can't help it.  His work has already influenced The Puppeteers in very significant ways.

We have another comfort, too.  Todd's absence is being filled by Zuppianna (sp?) extraordinaire Heather Stuart.  I can't say enough good things about Heather.  She's been my creative partner-in-crime for all things comic for six years; we've worked on five full-length shows and created three of those, as well as two shorts, together.  Together she and Conor are arguably the most popular actors in Scranton.  She's funny and smart and, best of all, true.  This is going to be fun.

And so we bid adieu to one member of Zuppa del Giorno, and welcome the participation of another.  It's kind of wonderful for me, actually, because I get the pleasure of working with two of the old guard on one process.  The process itself is all about change - finding what works is important, but so is finding what doesn't.  To bid dear Todd a fond farewell, I present one of my favorite improvisations that he created with Elizabeth and Conor at our first developmental meeting:

Bring a Puppet

Our next developmental meeting is this Sunday, and it's short one, so I have asked our actors to do a little homework assignment.  I present the assignment  here for your admiration or ridicule.

Bring a puppet.

• Can consist of 1-3 items
• Must read from stage (something that occupies more space than just a hand)
• Must have a mechanic; a plunger won't work, but a plunger with a cracked suction cup that flaps (mechanic) will
• Must be untraditional (e.g., NOT sock, paper bag, classic marionette, stick puppet)
• Must have:
• Distinctive voice
• Three repeatable signature movements (think Muppets/commedia characters - this is how this guy nods, runs, plays the fiddle)
• Ability to monologize
• Does not have to have:
• Life history
• Smooth or finished look
• Immediate recognizability (this is a man, this is a dog, this is a furry monster)

The ideal way to make this puppet is to find it, utilize something extant to its full absurdity.

Two Contemporary Puppet Shows

Discuss.  (Fair warning: the second of these can be a bit, well, terrifying.)


Interactive Puppet Prototype with Xbox Kinect from Theo Watson on Vimeo.


"The Narrative of Victor Karloch" Trailer from Kevin McTurk on Vimeo.

A Conversation

Yesterday Heather Stuart and I got into an accidental little discussion about the show, which resulted in some useful ideas.  It went a little something like this:

---

Jeff Wills	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:56 PM
To: Heather Stuart
One of the ideas we were playing with was to introduce new characters when the base characters are in altered states, such as drunk or hypnotized.  Black Books references will abound, in that case.

---

Heather Stuart	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:08 PM
To: Jeff Wills
or possessed.  I like the idea of a rotating puppet master that can induce these states on a whim.

---

Jeff Wills	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM
To: Heather Stuart
Me too.  Although I also like the idea that we can't be sure who is manipulating whom, especially from a comic stand point.  In the case of hypnotizing, maybe the hypnotizee is faking it to manipulate the hypnotizer.  Or someone pulling a Marion with a drinking contest.

---

Heather Stuart	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:25 PM
To: Jeff Wills
Yes, and I don't know if this is possible, but can we toss the manipulation to the audience? or a plant?

---

Jeff Wills	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM
To: Heather Stuart
Absolutely (he said without having tried it yet).  Let's try to think of ways to make that "puppeteering" grounded in a concept, though.  I'm not immediately opposed to supernatural conceits, but I think it will play smoother and more interesting if we can justify it in relatively real-world scenarios. This reminds me of a sketch they do on SNL, where two folks (Kristen Wiig is one of them) come on the news pretending to have rehearsed a bunch of songs, then make them up as they go, one basically trying to simul-copy the other.

---

Heather Stuart	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:34 PM
To: Jeff Wills
that might be a fun game. ala ventriloquist and dummy? Yes, I'm with you on the groundedness. Supernatural is hard to pull off and ultimately less funny, I think.  (That is if funny is what we're going for) :)

---

Jeff Wills	Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM
To: Heather Stuart
See, I need these simple, brilliant connections made for me now.  VENTRILOQUIST AND DUMMY OF COURSE!

Paul Zaloom

More random dialogue...

"Have you ever been falling asleep, and quite inexplicably been woken with a twitch? That's the puppetmaster, plucking a string, telling you you're not done with the day."


"What does it mean?"
"What does what mean?"
"The story.  Punch and Judy.  What does it mean?  He gets away with everything, tricks and murders everyone in sight, and laughs right through it all.  There's domestic elements, supernatural elements...what does it all mean?"
"Nothing.  It means nothing."


Running gag: "Go see if it's still raining."  Exits, torrential sound, returns.  Pause.  "It is, yes. Frogs now."


"Don't touch my puppet(child)!  S/He's mine!"


"I'm automatonophobic.  I'm serious.  Don't bring a doll or mannequin near me, seriously.  I will pee.  Involuntarily.  It won't be pretty.  Don't even sweep with that broom like that.  If you so much as suggest anything anthropomorphic about anything at all, I'm likely to pass out.  And pee.  Involuntarily."

Raised by Puppets

Well, we were.

The actors and I are all around a certain generation that, generally speaking, experienced two things: 1) Television as babysitter, and 2) lots of shows and movies that involved puppetry.  We could call this The Age of Henson without getting into terrible trouble, but that would also be leaving out some key players from our youth, such as Fred Rogers, Captain Kangaroo and H.R. Pufnstuf.  And it of course goes back farther in television history, to Lamb Chop and the earliest children's television, Howdy Doody.

Maybe it's just me, but the traditional Punch'n'Judy tent even reminds me of those old rolling-cabinet television sets (er, um: vice versa?).  Big thing full of unseen doings, made as portable as possible with a really rather proportionally small viewing area in which the face of the entertainment takes place.  All of this shape descends of course from proscenium staging, hence our proposed set design of a delineated proscenium, as well as archways and masked areas where unseen goings-on go on.  It's a bit ironic that the commedia dell'arte staging could practically be defined by a lack of this framing, by open-air and fourth-wall-destroying address.  Then again, those "households"; defined by what?  Doorways, if nothing else.

The point is, we were raised by puppets, which led us to accept some rather strange tropes and conventions. It's still strange for me to see the Muppet puppeteers below their creations, their arms raised in frozen exultation, and I don't even think twice about being asked to accept that a doll tossed across a screen is actually Gonzo or Grover in flight (dangerous to be blue in Henson's world, it seems).  For that matter, experiencing puppets through a T.V. comes with all those television conventions we take for granted, and make sense of in our subconscious: theme music, cuts, asynchronism, and the camera as character.  Our generation has gone on to create Avenue Q, a musical that emulates the Muppets with adult lifestyles, and exposes the puppeteers as part of the performance.  And even in that show, at one point at least, we're reminded of the camera-as-character when we're granted an overview "shot" of two of the characters in bed.

Found here.

It also means we identify with puppets very immediately, even beyond the usual stuff of simulacra and pareidolia.  This is interesting to me too, because it's pretty specific to the puppets to which we've been exposed, I think.  For example, if you just put a couple of dots on a glove of felt, I'm quick to say, "Hey, neat minimalist puppet."  I'll bond with the little guy, maybe even name him if you don't beat me to it.  But I can look at the gorgeous shadow puppets of the Wayang Kulit for several seconds before I even recognize them as something more than intricate paper art.  I wonder about the uses we can find for both responses.  Will people bond with a puppet before finding out it's not actually a puppet?  "That? No, that's my laundry bag. Puppet's over here..."  Can we also shock people with the discovery that something on stage is actually a puppet, like a pile of cardboard boxes that animate and contribute to an ongoing conversation?

How do you think your early exposure to and relationship with puppets has influenced your responses?  To objects?  To entertainment?  To bearded dudes wearing colorful headbands?

Found here.

Laughter

Excerpted from a lengthy (and very crudely "adult," but intelligent) online post I read recently about one man's two-year stint in a prison.  One of the things he lists as being the best part about finally being out:

"Laughter 

"No one laughs inside. You might occassionally fake a laugh when someone does something stupid, or gets what they deserve. But inside you laugh at straight up irony. Nothing is really funny when you're locked in a concrete bunker with seemingly no hope of getting out. 

"When I went inside, my favourite things were horror movies and violent video games. But now I can't stand the thought of them. I've seen too much real violence for one life time. 

"Instead I've burned through three seasons of 30 Rock. I haven't laughed so hard in my entire life. I find myself laughing at s&%$ that a couple of years ago I would have been too jaded and cynical to laugh at, or thought that it wasn't cool to laugh at. Now I find myself cruising through Metacritic for the funniest films of the last two years. I liked to think that I used to be funny, but now, I realise I'm not. That I look in the mirror and there is this kind of grimness there. 

"So don't take laughter for granted. It can actually be taken away quite easily."

In Spite of It All

I don't think this one is exactly one to research, but someone who's better at research may have better results than I.  What I'm thinking about are the ways in which we combat and in some cases overcome times of hardship, even if it's just for a little while, with some sort of folk or home-spun entertainment.  The first examples I can thinks of are the harmonica and the "jig doll," which I always associate with the Dust Bowl for some reason.  In fact, that form of dancing doll dates back to 18th century London, and an even earlier form, incorporating a string, goes back to...well, what do you know?  Italy, in the 1500s.

Obviously, these home-spun entertainments lend themselves to puppets, but I think other things as well.  The point is that people devise entertainment from what is cheap and widely available - we could even consider the Internet itself to fulfill these requirements for vast numbers of young middle-class westerners. Taking it back to pre-computers, however, some forms that initially come to mind:

• Music - singing, beatbox, varied percussion, jug band, cigar-box ukulele, berimbau (capoeira), whistles and flutes
• Storytelling - simple, formal, theatrical, visual/painted, collaborative, sung, danced
• Sports - improvised balls, war games/skills, tug-o-war, dance competition, combat, gymnastics, races
• Games - checkers, chess, tidily-winks, pick-up sticks, jacks, card games, gambling
• Craft - whittling/carving, pottery, sculpture, weaving
• Practical jokes

So how do these things elevate our minds and spirits, help us to carry on through tough times?  I find it interesting that all of these things thrive in contemporary situations of deprivation, such as prisons or true rural communities.  What does it mean to overcome trying circumstances?  Is it a material victory, or a more personal one?

"Hamburger"

Check out this incredible video (incredible both for its content, and its presentation) featuring an interview with Del Close:

Lots of what he has to say resonates for me.  Some highlights:

• Improvisational theatre gets a much better audience buy-in when it's referred to as a sport or game, even if what it's doing is more akin to performance art.
• When what you're engaged in takes concentration, there's no time to work at entertaining an audience.
• Collaborative art is very sincere art (this is something I extrapolate).
• Everything that's said or done contains emotional intention - it might be a good idea to be as paranoid as possible on stage.
• The audience comes to see reactions and discoveries (unexpected synchronocity?).

I'm reminded in particular of the "hamburger" improvisation you all performed.  There was so much intention there, and the sense of game I mentioned in our discussion was extremely clear.  Elizabeth, I think this was also the improv in which you explored this idea of a techno-savvy internet-savant.

PS Characters . . .

PS When it comes to characters and relationships that are interesting to me, I like the generational gaps that develop because of technology. A pre-teen hooked into the web and game boy (or whatever it is these days). A know-it-all kid always teaching his parents info because of what he read on the web. The difference between people building and playing with their hands: real craftsmen vs. everyone being able to do everything because we can all just learn it on youtube (as Todd mentioned). And also, the gap (which my father's blog mentions) between kids fiddling with things until they get it right versus their parents who sit down and read the manual from front to back.

Blog-A-Blog-A

Wow! I can't believe it has been almost a week since we first met. And I have to say, before I get into more detail, how much fun it is playing with my co-collaborators. Which, as it turns out, brings me to another theme that we talked about and which has been resonating with me lately: PLAY! Play in theatre, play in education, play in the work place, big companies bringing in improv peeps to remind them how to think creatively and communicate with one another. Games as life. Play as learning.

Now, I LOVE games: Pictionary, Scrabble, Settlers of Catan, Frogger, Taboo, Scene-It. You name, I'll play it. I've always loved them, and think that this idea of PLAY taking over the world and transforming the ways we think about learning and being and interacting is an exciting place to develop from. What if the recession weren't a serious economic travesty, but instead a "Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Collect $500.00?" What if as you move through the game of "Life" or "Zuppa" you get stuck in certain roles, as certain characters and have to PLAY your way out of them? What if PLAYING is the only way to escape oppression, repression, pain, stupidity? Is our character defined by us, or by the 'roles' we play in world?

Now, here's a thought in my little rant: does the idea of play then become puppet-like? Might play shift to a do-a-good-trick-to-proceed-to-the-next-level way of thinking? What if the world turned so dark that even the idea of play was about success, approval? A darkly competitive puppet world . . . I mean, isn't play competitive too? Where and when does play time turn to a capitalist jungle gym? What is the relationship between play and money and entertainment and money? And what sort of fearful place are we operating from if even playtime becomes scary and in need of external approval.

Some of these questions are things I notice myself asking or struggling with and some are inspired by my father's blog, a blog on creativity, in our schools and in the workplace.

(http://billwilliamsblog.blogspot.com/)

I'm not quite sure where I am going with all this except that: we are doing a PLAY, we like to PLAY, we PLAY roles, and for us this is the WORK that we do for a living. And I love it, I would not change my career for the world. However, I also recognize that a battle I have in myself is moments when PLAYING becomes scary because it suddenly seems that my livelihood is on the line. I experienced this, this past weekend during the clown interview exercise. I didn't even know what I was interviewing for in this completely imaginary set-up and my clown was terrified and yearning for approval. And then Jeff said, "Do you want to get this right?" Timid and scared, my clown nodded yes. Don't we all want to get it right at a job interview these days? And then is it really still PLAY, or does it need to be redefined all over again, to try to finally "get to the next level."

Oirlend

I'm off to Ireland today for some reason or another. I'm sure I'll find something to do or something.
So Jeff as far as characters that we were interested in so far, I liked the zanni-like superintendent guy that ruined the Feng shui session. I was kind of basing it on the guy who fixed things in the Bog apartments, though with much less obscenities.
I'll be on-line to a certain degree in Ireland, but I won't be crying if my hotel doesn't have a future box.
AAAAAANd I'm out.

Simulacra & Pareidolia

sim·u·la·crum  (smy-lkrm, -lkrm)

n. pl. sim·u·la·cra (-lkr, -lkr)

1. An image or representation.

2. An unreal or vague semblance.

---

[Latin simulcrum (from simulre, to simulate; see simulate) + -crum, n. suff.]

Found here.

pareidolia  (ˌpæraɪˈdəʊlɪə)
	the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist, as in considering the moon to have human features
[C20: from para- 4  + eidolon ]

Found here.

One of the ideas I mentioned in our first discussion about themes for the show had to do with these two concepts - our tendency to "recognize" faces in objects, and our tendency to create objects with a "face" of some kind, even such objects as don't require one.  I think these are intrinsically related, and that both are pretty ancient aspects of human behavior.

First, simulacra.  I'm sort of assigning this word to the phenomenon of building faces into things (borrowing from the gnarly Skull-a-Day 'blog), when in fact now-a-days it actually refers more to poor imitations.  If someone can find a better word, please be awesome and share it.  I think we put faces on things for three basic reasons: subconscious patterning, a craving for identity, and finally a creation/recognition impulse:

1. In terms of the patterns in which we think, some of our first acts of comprehension come from those faces thrust inquisitively into our cribs.  In other words, our earliest and best-framed visual interactions are with faces.  Those interactions are even coded, by facial expressions, and it's the first code we get to crack.  That becomes a recognizable pattern which we reinforce throughout our lives, trying to figure people out, so when we make something ourselves we tend to include a design that incorporates a similar pattern of some kind.
2. Identity is very important to us, whether we contemplate it consciously or not.  Every time we make something, we want to sign it, put our stamp on it, say we were here.  One of the first drawings any of us learn is the circle, lines and dots of a face.
3. When we make something, we're recreating an act of parents and gods.  It's a natural impulse that lives in all of us - to create - and along with it comes the idea of a piece of ourselves travelling out past our influence, having a life of its own.  It should share our features in some way, be made in our own form.  It should recognize us as its maker.

Many of the same instincts apply to our tendency toward seeing faces in things with whose creation we had little or nothing to do - pareidolia.  We see faces in woodgrain, water stains, toast.  You name it.  Of course we're inclined toward this for a variety of reasons, but what interests me about it are a few possibilities outside the realm of anything logical:

• Maybe we're more inclined to pareidolia when we're lonely, or feel great need of some kind.
• What if, instead of seeing faces because of a need, we're seeing them because we in some way recognize an object in front of us in some personal way?
• What if pareidolia leads to a relationship, the way the supposed recognition involved in "love at first sight" can?

At any rate, these are ideas about human behavior that I find some relevance in when thinking in terms of puppetry, especially with puppets made from found objects.  Plus I've been wondering about how we could maybe extend the Zuppa trends of playing multiple characters and the in-joke of playing scenes with ourselves to include puppets or other inanimate objects.  That's often all a clown piece consists of.  In this scene from Benny & Joon (derived from Chaplin and Keaton) the hat, snot and handkerchief are all scene partners.  In fact, one of the classic Arlecchino lazzi has to do with eating an imaginary fly, who offers all the obstacle and emotional challenge a scene could need.

Some of these ideas of mine have come in the form of "lines" for some eccentric character or other who is keyed in to these concepts in a particular way.  Not dictating anything here!  Just sharing them as a furtehr possibility on how we could go from ideas to actions:

• "You think you're funneling some life into a dead thing, no?  It's a common misconception.  That 'thing' has its own life, without you.  You're just invading it for a time."
• "We see faces in everything.  Why should we be so surprised when one of them sees us right back?"

Meeting Recap: Oct. 2-3 in NYC

The Cast: Todd d'Amour, Elizabeth Hope Williams and Conor McGuigan.

Last weekend we met for the first time as a cast: Todd d'Amour, Conor McGuigan, Elizabeth Hope Williams and I all gathered in Paradizo Dance's studio for the weekend and went through a thing or two.  Here's how we progressed in our first preparatory meeting for our rehearsal period:

October 2nd:
We got a bit of a late start, which was just as well, since it meant that I could catch Conor and Elizabeth up on some basics of acrobalance.

• For roughly an hour we worked on basing and flying angel and thigh-stand.
• Once all met, we reviewed some of the basic commedia dell'arte characters and their physical characteristics, eventually branching out into interpreting them into more modern contexts.
• From there we moved on to some scenario work.  We took one of the Scala scenarios - Flavio's Disgrace, a production of which I had just directed with the students of Marywood - and worked on how to learn a story by the story and incident, rather than by lines or character.  This included:
• Breaking down a story into simple, single actions
• Learning how to memorize simple action sequence
• Learning the sequence from different perspectives
• Varying the basic circumstances of the scenario
• In the scenario work, we examined some style elements; namely:
• "One thing at a time."
• Committed physical choices and gestures.
• Rhythmic unity.
• We moved on to examining clowning from there, including:
• Practicing "just being" with an audience.
• "The Interview" exercise.
• Brief review of "1-2-3" clown types.
• We ended the day with conditioning by working with the commedia animal forms we learned from Angelo Crotti:
• Dog
• Cat
• Frog
• Lizard/Crocodile

At the cap, we had some casual conversation about the show to come.


October 3rd:
The day began with discussion, and moved into exploring themes, largely through improvisation.

• There was much ecstatic dancing to big brass music.
• Acrobalance: In addition to practicing thigh-stand and angel poses, we worked with head- and hand-stands and learned shoulder-sit.
• We began a discussion of themes and ideas for show content.  Some of this content included (Players - please add to this list as you remember; both for new subjects I missed and ones you want to fill in.):
• Vast economic disparity, then and now.
• Spending vast amounts on entertainment in times of great struggle.
• The entertainment people resort to when they're poor.
• Culture gaps between the young and the old, and the conflict that creates.
• Todd's story: Mom finally getting to Yankee Stadium.
• New archetype relationships: e.g., master & apprentice.
• Inherited knowledge as something going extinct; are our brains changing into ciphers instead of strongholds?
• Seeing faces in everything (pareidolia) and making faces in everything (simulacra).
• Puppetry as themes, puppetry as practice.
• Practical actions performed live on stage (i.e., building something, cooking, etc.).
• Possible preference for "base characters"; definite priority for getting in-depth with a character.
• The differences of demeanor when you change who you're around.
• Unexpected transformation.
• We warmed up with a little further scenario practice.
• We applied some of the themes through two basic improvisation scenarios:
• Teaching, Building & Destroying: A master teaches a student something, and eventually an interloper destroys that thing.
• Pizza Making - Master: E; Apprentice: T; Interloper: C (this is also the one that made me realize the WEIRD initial thing)
•  Carpentry - Master: C; Apprentice: T; Interloper: E
• Feng Shui / Painting - Master: T; Apprentice: E; Interloper: C
• Self-Defense - Master: T; Apprentice: C; Interloper: E
• Old, Young & Compromise: An older person and a younger one come into a conflict through a disagreement in culture, and eventually a third enters to resolve the conflict.
• Video Games - Old: C; Young: E; Interloper: T
•  Lost / "Coke Machine" - Old: T; Young: C; Interloper: E
• Math - Old: E; Young: T; Interloper: C
• After a break, we examined acting with objects.  After choosing an object from the room, the performers improvised a scene with that object as though it were new to them, and they were having a dialogue with it that included emotional response.
• As a final action, we did a few things for the video camera:
• Improvised marionette dancing incorporating acrobalance and oral accompaniment.
• Two improvised scenes along the lines of the others.
• We closed out with upper-body conditioning - push-ups, pull-ups and one-minute handstands.

All-in-all, a great weekend.  I look forward to the next one in November.  In the meantime, let's collaborate here! Look for thematic posts from me in the coming weeks, and start a little writing yourselves about whatever you will (but be sure one or two have to do with character[s], too).  Avanti!

5 minute.com - So last second..."How to have a Lazy Sunday Picnic"

This was an improvised 5min.com video. Obviously a "bit" tongue in cheek. Nathan just sent it to me out of the blue. Coincidence? I think not.


How to Enjoy A Lazy Sunday Picnic

Games in Everything - Pervasiveness of Technology

Nothing

This was amistake.

My PBS Memories

I always really loved the vacancy of the background on The Letter People. I felt there was a world so much bigger beyond the puppet. Unlike real life where you can see the end of everywhere you look, this show left a black void behind the action. I feel this is much like a theatre. Also this show let me see, as I said to Jeff the other night, the cracks in the facade. People love to see the fingers of the puppeteer. It's like seeing the hands of the creator and they are in on some big secret. Later on, the Letter People, which was from a local PBS station in the midwest, received more money and built sets. It still had a similar feel but not like the early vacancy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzdd0FnVHJQ

Under Pressure

This is such a strangely apt combination of the elements we were talking about last weekend that I had to share. Poverty and entertainment, humor and compassion and ridiculousness. Enjoy.

Never Mind

I got it, I'm subscribed. Hey everyone! Those of you who can, come to the opening for Under Milk Wood on Friday October 1st! It's going to be a terrific show.

Chance Favors the Connected Mind

Ventriloquist with Human Dummy

Here is a link to a ventriloquist who uses a mask on a member of the audience to create a human dummy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyTGwflaNx0

ETC Article: September

See "ETC Article: August" for context.

In Spite of It All
Sometimes, circumstances are so utterly insane that laughter is the only rational response. There are those of us who feel this way about the national economy of the past couple of years (although in fairness, it seems we ought to have found certain fiscal practices prior to the decline more laughable). Now just imagine how the residents of New Orleans feel. Massive flooding with tragic lasting effects, economic meltdown, then oil spill, with tragic lasting effects. For that matter, take a wider view of Scranton in the 20th century: the iron ore runs out and its founding family leaves for grayer pastures, WWII leads to strip-mining the land, and then disaster, dwindling demand, and restructuring the railroad take away even the coal mining industry. Ridiculous. What can you do?
You have to laugh.
I don’t mean to trivialize disaster or economic ruin. Quite the opposite. It’s my firm belief that the higher the stakes of something, the more necessary and natural the need to laugh, at or in it. I think that - particularly in recent western history - laughter has come to be associated with judgment and mockery, but that’s an awfully limited view of a complex emotion such as humor. We also laugh because we identify, or need catharsis, or from involuntary physical response, or from fear, or (and this is the one that’s really fascinating) because it’s the only thing we can think to do.
That’s one of the funny things about working on a Zuppa del Giorno show - the initial conversations almost always end up being geared around serious ideas and concepts. Look at some of our themes: encroaching capitalism and the lust for status, anarchy, lives lost to regret, ambition’s bitter aftertaste, excess in times of struggle, and first love’s tragic demise (granted; that last was more Shakespeare’s than ours). It’s not until we get to the details that we start the incomparable high of making one another shoot milk from our noses. The gags spring from complex and often weighty ideas.
Two weeks ago I was in Scranton working with fellow Zuppa member Heather Stuart to teach the youth of Marywood about commedia dell’arte, and I used the opportunity to meet with our set and costume designers, Drake Gomez and Mary Ann Swords-Greene respectively (and, respectably: the coolness of their names reflects their talents). We talked about different things, with regular interjections from me along the following line: “Now, keep in mind, nothing is set yet. All is subject to change. I mean: ALL.” In spite of that, some exciting ideas were bandied about. Ideas like stages within stages, classic commedia dell’arte characters cloaked by contemporary clothing, and mirrors.
This week the development weblog will go live, and we collaborators will all have a repository for our notions and spit-balling. Each of the actors - Conor in Scranton, Todd in New Orleans and Elizabeth in New York City (a town that has known its own share of upheaval) - will be able to convene online before our first development rehearsal at the start of October. Yes, in spite of great distance and incredibly varied schedules, we’ll start to build a show together. And guess what? You can watch it happen. You, dear reader, can even get involved. Here’s the ‘blog address: http://thepuppeteersproduction.blogspot.com/ Follow us, comment, but remember: all is subject to change. I mean: ALL.
What we do to entertain ourselves during times of ridiculous struggle is interesting. It would be easy to dismiss these entertainments as distractions or escapism, but I find that just by scratching the surface we can find an intense relevance between what we’re challenged by and what we’re making to theoretically offer some relief from those challenges. While we create characters and engineer pratfalls and possibly play with puppets, the world will go on whirling out upheaval and disaster. Maybe that’s actually the cause of our comedy. I won’t venture to guess. But I will say this: You have to laugh. In spite of it all.

The Entertainment of Poverty

Been thinking about what happens when people become unexpected aliens - they leave their home, go somewhere new, and don't realize until they're there that they are total outsiders not just because of where they're from, but who they are.  (Maybe the two are indivisible.)  This led me to an un/popular trend lately referred to as "slum tourism."  (See NYT, 8/9/10.)  What's the implication of diving head-first into a blighted or impoverished culture?  What does it mean as a form of "entertainment," and do the divers-in provide anything valuable to the culture...or are they themselves entertainment for the people they think they are being entertained by?

Henson Teaches Puppet-Making (1969)

ETC Article: August

Each month I am writing an article for ETC's newsletter that offers a little detail on our process developing the show. This is an entertaining pursuit, since we don't have a show per se yet, and won't really until production week. I'll share them here on the development 'blog. Think of them as a peek into the director's mind and an effort to keep all the communication open. The first of these:

What’s So Funny

I have a joke with some of my friends that consists only of screaming, “RELAX!” at someone who is already sort of tense.  If the humor of this is lost on you, don’t worry.  It’s probably more cruel than funny, though sometimes it makes the person being shouted at laugh and gain a little perspective on that about which they had been tense.  It’s remarkably difficult to perform this joke on oneself, because A) people will think you’re bonkers if you randomly scream “RELAX!” at seemingly no one at all, and 2) when you’re tense it’s tough to focus on anything other than the tension.  So it’s a real friend who will snap you out of a tense stand-still with a little homeopathic dose of cruelty.

Somewhat to my surprise, Zuppa del Giorno (ZdG) will be contributing another wholly original comedy to ETC’s season this winter (earlier in the year, it had seemed we wouldn’t be able to pull together the resources for this).  Much to my surprise, the show will feature the returns of founding member Todd d’Amour and recent convert Conor McGuigan, who are each hilariously creative and miraculously haven’t made anything together yet.  Almost completely to my surprise, I’m directing the show; my first time in such a position since working on every show since ZdG’s inception in 2002.  We’re in store for quite an adventure.

For those of you who haven’t experienced one of our shows before - and, perhaps, some of you who have but never thought about how these things come about - a few facts:  we start every development process, even those with scripted material, from scratch; the shows are devised and developed through improvisation and experimentation, often based on individual research on a particular topic or theme; the final product is to a greater or lesser extent semi-improvised.  That last fact means the show is always changing, growing and unpredictable, and the only way to do that is to understand the show - not a script or story, but the show itself - in our bones.  And that first fact?  That first fact means we start with nothing: A blank sheet.

I don’t know if there’s anything that can produce a more paralyzing anxiety than a blank sheet.  Writers loathe a block, and painters are famous for disposing of hundreds of fresh starts.  In improvisation, too, we offer “givens” or variables in order to give a performer a few little anchors for their imagination; grains of sand around which we hope to grow a pearl.  That’s exactly what I did in last month’s callbacks for a third cast member - offering up suggestions of a profession, location and object, over and over again - so the actors wouldn’t have to worry about impressing us and summoning a story from thin air.  “Givens” are more a giving of permission than anything else.  Giving “givens” had nothing to do with the good stuff that came out of our auditioners’ imaginations.  That good stuff, like all good things, came from the nothing.

I can’t lie.  (Actually, I’m an excellent liar, but you get my point.)  The blank page terrifies me too.  I find excitement in that terror, and promise, but it’s all always terrifying, and I’ve given us our own anchoring grain of creative sand for this show.  All of our productions have explored the connections between the commedia dell’arte and more contemporary forms of expression, from situation comedy to silent film to the opera and Shakespeare, and in that tradition we’re seeing what we can do with another theme: Puppetry.  I think there’s a lot of potential in this for doing new things with our uniquely creative and physical form of theatre.

We’ll start with several brief development rehearsals in the fall, when I and Conor and Todd - and our new cast member, Elizabeth Hope Williams - will dig around and fall down and find out just what’s so funny about puppets.  I’m really looking forward to sharing this process with anyone who’s curious, and soon we’ll have a ‘blog set up where anyone can contribute a little feedback.  We’re all in this together.  So, if you see one of us walking the streets of Scranton one weekend with an anxious, preoccupied expression on his or her face, please remember to get in our face and scream, “RELAX!”  We’ll thank you for it.