The Midnight Diaries of Catty Wampus

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

This is going to be a fun post. Most of us got our introduction to puppetry through the Muppets. We were probably so young that our child brains didn’t even register the Muppets as anything other than living and breathing people, animals, monsters, and whatevers.

One of the great things about the following clips is that they were all performed in front of an audience of puppeteers and puppet fans. This gives the performers an opportunity to play around with the conceit of the art form:

I remember that when I was a kid “He’s got a beard” was just about the funniest thing I’d ever heard.

I love that Kermit is entirely self-aware while Fozzie just doesn’t seem to be able to reach that higher plane of understanding. It’s a wonderful contrast between the two characters: Kermit is smart without trying, and Fozzie just can’t be very smart no matter how earnestly he tries.

This is also a great demonstration of the rhythm that Jim Henson and Frank Oz have when they’re working together. They’re like musicians, trading off the character’s moments, reveals, and stretching out single phrases. Watch how Oz makes Fozzie’s “There is somebody…” into an entire showpiece by separating the words with gestures, repetitions, and pauses. I love that look downward that he does–all of it makes Fozzie such a real, living character… which, of course, adds to the comedy of him being controlled by someone else.

Speaking of contrast in character, sometimes it really can be just as simple as “big” and “small.” And sometimes that can be enough to imply a lot more. This is a sketch commonly known as Java, or The Javas, named after the title of the song performed by Al Hirt. You can see this sketch on the Muppet Show Season 1 DVDs (episode 22), but there are subtle variations in this performance, and I like knowing that it was performed live here:

I wonder how these puppets are controlled. They seem deceptively simple–if you watch them carefully, however, you’ll notice that the big Java does some dance moves that are pretty complicated if it was just a straight-forward puppet. I especially love the way his eyes roll upwards during one section of his dance.

Now, let’s get back to Henson and Oz. Here they are again, riffing off of each other:

While Kermit’s and Fozzie’s relationship shows contrast between smart and not-as-smart, Kermit and Miss Piggy’s relationship is a little more complex. Piggy has a big contrast within her own character: She sees herself as elegant and classy, but she’s actually crude and selfish. One of Kermit’s big flaws (and it’s a great one) is that he always buys into Piggy’s own image of herself until he recognizes and remembers her true boorish (not boarish, though) self. The comedy in this clip, for me, doesn’t come from Piggy as much as it comes from Kermit’s growing discomfort. Kermit is a great straight man, and he plays his part perfectly here.

Finally, a bit of fun that shows off how innovative Jim Henson and his team were when designing their puppets and thinking of new ways of performing. The puppeteer you’ll see here is Carol Spinney in a costume/puppet he designed himself in order to make Oscar the Grouch more mobile. Think about where his arms are as he performs here–you might need a second guess:

The end of this clip is a perfect way to go out. I am very taken with the way that Jim Henson talks about his role in the history of puppetry. There are so many labels that could be applied to Jim Henson: entertainer, entrepreneur, innovator–but all of these fall below his personal satisfaction as a puppeteer. Most puppeteers won’t achieve the notoriety of Jim Henson, but they all belonged to the same fabric of tradition he belonged to. And he belongs to the same fabric of tradition as anyone who picks up a puppet. There’s something incredibly humbling and charming about that, isn’t there?

This concludes my series of posts and thoughts taken from “Here Come The Puppets.” I hope you’ve enjoyed seeing this material. The posts will continue to be accessible through this blog, specifically in the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Feel free to read and comment–I’d love to hear what you see in these puppets as well.

Cheers!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

One of the things that fascinates me most about puppetry is that the puppeteer, in addition to the puppet, is part of the performance. Some techniques call attention to it more than others; bunraku puppeteers dress in black and are in full view of the audience, while the Muppets are and marionettes tend to have their puppeteers work from off-stage. But whether you see them or not, there’s a part of your consciousness that’s aware of the puppeteer in a way that an audience is almost never aware of an animator.

In 1982 Bruce D. Schwartz opened his show, “The Stage That Walks.” The entire show was performed while Bruce was encased in a mobile-puppet theatre. Even though his body was completely out of sight, this helped keep the audience aware that this was all just one man performing everything they saw before them.

In this first example, I have to admit I have no idea how he’s pulling it off. Clearly one hand is in each puppet. His fingers must be working the puppets’ hands on their recorders. What I can’t figure out is how in the world he’s performing the music!

I love watching the interplay between the two characters. Even though they are roughly the same size and in practically the same pose as each other the entire time, you get the idea that one of them is a practiced musician, old and steady, while the other is equally talented but much more inclined to let the music carry them along into dancing. Another wonderful example of movement demonstrating the main contrast between two characters’ personalities.

The duet is a fun little piece, but what I really want to examine is this next clip from ‘The Farmer’s Wife’:

This clip makes me think about the idea of ’status.’ Now, as shaky as I am about the ground I’ve covered before, I’m even more of a novice in the area of acting and scene negotiation. But I’m going to try to analyze this scene the best I can, and if you feel like jumping in to add, or correct, or completely disagree, I welcome you to do so.

It’s been said that every scene is a negotiation for status. Not necessarily a negotiation for high status, but a status change. And it seems to me that there are many different types of status that you can examine. There is professional status as exists between a boss and an employee, there is moral status as exists between Superman and Lex Luthor, and there is intellectual/philosophical status as exists between two opposing participants in a debate. There are probably many other types of status that I can’t even think of, but this should be a good enough place to start.

We start off here with The Farmer’s Wife, who we’re told is a bit of a shrew. She is low status but thinks of herself as high status. How do we know this? Her attitude clearly suggests that she believes that she is a better and more worthy person than her husband, The Farmer: we can see that she believes her personality status is high. But we can tell that she is a bit of a complainer and possibly not very nice of a person: as an audience, we know that she is pretty low status. Also, since she’s doing her husband’s bidding, it’s clear that her status in her marriage is also low. The comedy is that, despite the fact that the audience knows that she’s low status, she acts high-status because that is how she thinks of herself. This gets even funnier later.

By the way, all of this talk of the wife being low status isn’t to say that we don’t enjoy her. She is not an annoying or bothersome character to the audience. We like her enough to laugh with her, instead of at her. Her little dance after the horrible “missing link” pun is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. Even though we know she deserves a bit of a comeuppance, we’re delighted when she treats others as if they deserve one. Which leads us to…

The Devil. Now, the Devil is arguably about as high of status as you can get in every way but morally. (and even the morals in this play may be on his side) So when he is treated as low status, as a sausage or as a cow, by the actual-low-status-but-thinks-she’s-high-status Farmer’s Wife we get even more comedy.

As a brief side note, consider again the contrast in the way these two characters move: The Farmer’s Wife is frantic and moving all over the place, and the Devil is very still and calm and his gestures are sharp and direct. To tie it back into status, look at the calm, sure way he nods when the Farmer’s Wife notes that “It’s as dark as Hell down here.” Think of this moment taking place with the Devil nodding quicker–the literal meaning is the same, but notice how that would change the context and the character. It makes me marvel at all of the little choices that have to be made in order to realize a well-rounded performance.

So the Devil puts up with all of the Farmer’s Wife’s nattering on and on, and even tolerates his nose being tugged almost clearly off of his face. He finally loses his temper (but not his manners: he still calls her “good woman”) when she won’t stop slapping his shoulder in jest. And then there’s a moment that I love: the Devil makes the entire earth quake. This is a wonderful use of Schwartz’s one-man stage. In a conventional puppet theatre there may be some effective ways to shake the earth, but somehow having the entire set, puppets, and stage itself stomp and jump around adds a power to this moment that I can’t imagine being equaled any other way.

This earth tremor is the first thing to really stop the Farmer’s Wife from moving about and feeling so cocksure of herself. You can see her shaking in fear. Up until this point, we knew that the Devil was high status and the Farmer’s Wife was low status, but the Farmer’s Wife believed herself to be high status and the Devil (in her mind, the cow) to be low status. This is the first moment when the audience and the Farmer’s Wife are both on the same page about who is in control. And the Devil takes this moment to calmly (again, always patient and calm–even though he’s shaking with anger, I almost wonder if he doesn’t feel somewhat ashamed of having lost his temper briefly) explain who he is.

But after a moment’s thought and recognition, the Farmer’s Wife appeals back to the audience and regains some of her own high status by making a joke of the situation.

Back and forth, back and forth, the characters seem to say to each other “I have the status” and “No, I have the status.” It’s left up to the audience (or the performer, or the playwright, or all three) to decide where the status really lies. But what makes the scene interesting is what the characters believe about their own status in the scene, and how successful they are at achieving or maintaining those beliefs about their own status.

I could watch this scene again and again. And I have. I love it. Bruce Schwartz is clearly a master of his craft. He is still around, though my preliminary research seems to indicate that he doesn’t do much puppetry anymore. As talented and renowned as he was, it appears that there came a time when he decided “That was fun. Now I’m going to do other things.” As funny as it sounds, I really like that way of thinking about things. I know that it’s easy to fall into the trap of wondering how much wonderful puppetry we’ve been deprived of, but I really like the idea of being really good at something and not running it into the ground.

The most recent information I came across tells me that Bruce Schwartz is now a yoga instructor with his own yoga studio in Southern California. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he still had some puppets that he brought out every now and then, even if only for close friends and family. In any case, I hope that he is happy in whatever he is doing right now. I hope that much for everyone.

Next week: the big finally to the Here Come The Puppets posts. You won’t want to miss it!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

I wasn’t around when Fran, Kukla, and Oliver J. Dragon were entertaining American children on television in the 1950s and 1960s. This video was my first introduction to them, and remains some of the only examples of Kukla and Ollie that I’ve seen except for a YouTube clip here and there. Fran, an actual human woman who would interact with the puppets on the old tv shows, didn’t appear for the 1981 appearance. Burr Tillstrom operates Kukla and Ollie by himself. Have a look:

I’m going to take a break from talking about animation and talk a bit about comedy.

Recently, a friend and I have been discussing how comedy works. E.B. White is credited with saying “Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested, and the frog dies because of it.” But if you happen to be one of the few who are interested, and don’t mind risking a dead joke or two along the way, it can be a fascinating subject.

There’s a general theory that says that comedy comes from breaking the expectation of what’s supposed to happen.

“Knock, Knock”
“Who’s there?”
“Interrupting cow.”
“Interrupti–” “MOO!”

The more jokes you’ve heard the easier it gets to predict their punchlines. We already have our expectations set up by our foreknowledge of the typical knock-knock joke’s structured. (no knock-knock joke would work if you told it to someone who had never heard a knock-knock joke before) In the case of this particular joke, we expect to get all the way to “Interrupting Cow Who?” When we don’t get that far, one expectation is already broken. The second part of the punchline hits us when we recognize that the “Moo” is coming from the cow and, as a matter of fact, is a demonstration of the information we already had–i.e., this cow interrupts people. In a nutshell, that’s why this joke is funny.

Let’s go back to this Kukla and Ollie clip. There’s really only one joke in here, but it’s a good one and I laugh every time I see it. Most of the performance here is the joke’s set-up: Ollie likes to bite Kukla’s nose. The set-up is long and meandering, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I say it’s meandering because it takes us a little bit to even establish that Ollie wants to bite Kukla’s nose. It comes in during part of the conversation, when Ollie stops speaking and poises himself to bite Kukla’s nose.

The animator in me feels compelled to speak up here to mention the composition of the frame. It’s no accident that Kukla is leaning backwards and occupies only a sliver of the available puppet stage here, while Ollie is leaning forward and dominates almost the entire space. This helps us understand these two characters’ personalities–Kukla is easily intimidated by the dragon, even though they are friends. And the dragon is large large large, even though they are technically similar sized puppets.

Continuing on, we get a little mini-joke when Ollie denies that he wasn’t thinking about biting Kukla’s nose, when he clearly was. But we still haven’t had any big laughs. Part of this, I think, is due to the rather clumsy interaction between the character’s. Most of Kukla’s and Ollie’s performances are improvised, and I’m not always sure that’s helpful–it feels like the action stumbles a bit here because of it. “Let’s go down memory lane in dignity,” in particular, I feel comes out of nowhere. It could be a reference to something that happened earlier in the performance (before this clip began), but the whole idea of “going down memory lane” seems like Kukla was searching for something, anything, to say.

We also get a tiny laugh when Ollie admits “I spent a lot of money on therapy to get over that.” This isn’t a real joke, but I find it interesting because it’s one of several examples from this PBS special of puppets making reference to going to a therapist. I think that this must have been a big topic at the time, the late 70’s and early 80’s. Sure, people go to therapy these days, but the way it’s referenced here almost seems like a quick tap into a sort of ‘community joke’ that you don’t really need to set up or give a punchline to–we just laugh because that’s what we’ve been conditioned to do with the subject. These days you might bring up Brittany Spears or 30 Rock and get a similar reaction: we know they’re funny (in different ways, admittedly), and good for a quick audience reaction.

Still, this gets us to the song, and that’s what this is all leading up to.

Clearly, a song like this isn’t likely to be improvised. As an audience, we know this and we can even recognize that its simple structure is the kind that is likely to lead to a punchline. Like a knock-knock joke, or a poem that begins “There once was a man from Cape Cod…”. We know where the punchline will be, so we can prepare ourselves for it. Not only that, some joke structures are so old, we begin to anticipate where they’re heading. We know that we’re probably going to get four lines of song here, and the fourth line will rhyme with some other line in the song and will contain a punchline.

We’re already stocked up with the knowledge that Ollie is trying to refrain from any nose-biting tonight and now we’re given a song where we expect a joke at the end of it. By the time we get to “sweet as a rose,” you can already hear some audience member’s chuckling because they’ve anticipated the joke. “It’s going to be something about nose-biting,” they have deduced. The song slows down long enough to give the entire audience time to catch up to this idea, and await the final line–it will be clever, but the audience will already have a pretty good idea of it already.

And that’s when we get the real punchline: “You can see it coming, can’t ya?”

With that one turn to the audience, Ollie gets a bigger laugh than he could ever have gotten if he had simply finished the song. (and really, was there any kind of finish that would be remotely funny as the last line of the song?) It’s the breaking of two expectations that brings the house down here:

Expectation #1: We will hear the end of the song and it will rhyme with “rose.” (we don’t, and it doesn’t)

Expectation #2: Ollie doesn’t know that we have already figured out where the punchline will be. (he does, and we haven’t)

This is an incredibly satisfying punchline. We have followed all of the set-up very carefully; so carefully, in fact, that we believe we know exactly what road we’re on and we’re probably feeling a bit of an inflated ego about it. We believe we’re smarter than the people on stage. When the character finally tells us “Yes, I’ve led you right to the place I wanted you to be and I knew it the whole time,” we get a great release for being shown that are actually aren’t smarter than the people on stage after all. The joke is on the audience, and we have foolishly walked ourselves right into it.

I love this kind of comedy. Even given the clumsy improv part, Tillstrom successfully implants the idea of the nose-biting into our minds without calling too much attention to it. His performance never screams “This will be important later! Try to remember it!!” He simply places it in a prominent point of the characters’ interaction and lets things move along from there.

Another of my favorite uses of this type of implant can be found in Greg Behrendt’s “Crybaby Spiderman” bit. You can find it on YouTube with a simple search, or on his comedy CD or DVD, Uncool. I won’t say anything about the routine for fear of giving anything away. But if you get to check it out, you’ll see the same kind of implant happen–and again, you won’t recognize it has happened until the end because of Behrendt’s skill at telling a story and only giving you as much as he wants to give you at any particular point along the way.

More about puppetry, animation, story, and performance next time. See you then!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

I studied some classical Russian literature when I was in college. And at the risk of stereotyping, once you hear the plot of this piece there’s just no denying its culture of origin. It’s as Russian as they come.

It’s also a brilliant performance by Sergei Obraztsov. Here’s the video, with discussion to follow:

The thing that stands out the most to my eyes is the way Obraztsov separates his actions in order to tell the story. As animators, it’s always a good idea to keep this motto in mind: One Thing At A Time. Meaning that you don’t want to confuse your audience by trying to communicate two different thoughts at once. You want them to see one gesture and then see the next. It’s not nearly as easy as it sounds sometimes, and I really like how clearly Obraztsov communicates everything the audience needs to know in his character’s performance. Just breaking down the introduction, we can see the story unfold in a very point-by-point way.

Here is a glass.

It is empty.

This is me. I am the main character.

The empty glass belongs to me.

Notice that if we hadn’t had those first two actions, this shot might simply introduce the idea “I am a man with a glass.” There is absolutely no emphasis on the glass being empty here, and it would be easy to overlook it if it hadn’t been clearly shown to us directly a moment ago.

Here is a full bottle of vodka.

Again, notice how clearly we get the message of this gesture, largely because the man is not a part of the image. All we see here is the vodka and the empty glass. In addition to being a strong way to introduce the vodka, it also serves as an anticipation for the next gesture.

I will fill the empty glass from the bottle.

Each idea presented simply and clearly, and it helps the audience understand the story naturally. You can see this sort of thing done throughout the entire performance, with each gesture introducing a new important idea that helps enrich the story and/or move it forward. Even if you don’t understand the language being sung, you are able to follow along.

Sergei Obraztsov died in 1992. The theatre company that bears his name is still running in Russia, and in 2001 it celebrated Obraztsov’s 100th birthday with puppeteers from around the world performing in his honor.

By the way, if any of my readers out there speak Russian and would like to offer a translation of the snippet of the song sung in this piece, I would be happy to include it in this post.

Stay tuned next week for some classic American puppetry!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

For today’s installment, we’ll be looking at a little snippet from the Mermaid Theatre, which I’m pleased to see is still operating and quite successful. If you’re ever up near Nova Scotia you should check them out. As a matter of fact, their website lists some tour dates in the United States and South Korea so they may be coming to your town. Here’s a look at what they were up to back in 1981:

In the last post in this series, I talked a little about how contrast between two characters can help make an interaction more compelling. Here we have two characters with several visual distinctions that are immediately obvious: one is large and the other is small, one is darkly colored and the other is brighter, one is dressed in decorative robes and feathers and the other is hardly wearing anything.

You can also tell from the way the characters act that they are pretty different. The larger character is mostly silent and contemplative, and the smaller one is more of a bombastic little motormouth. If I asked a stranger to guess which of these characters prone to meditation and which was prone to tantrums, I doubt anyone would ever confuse the two.

The bigger issue to point out in this clip, however, is the way that the larger puppet is able to communicate and act even though the face stays in the same expression the entire time.

Eyeline is a huge deal when it comes to characters interacting with each other. The smallest move of the eyes can mean the difference between a character looking directly at a friend or a thousand miles into the distance over their shoulder. Where CG animation is concerned, it’s not always as simple as placing an eye target at the place you want your character to look–sometimes the eye target will be spot on, but from the camera’s view the character will be looking in the absolute wrong place.

When you’re performing on stage, you have an audience in place of a camera. I have heard that actors are often directed not to look directly at each other but rather to turn 45-degrees and look forward, essentially facing as if they are both addressing a third person. To the actor this must feel incredibly awkward, but the audience will see the two characters addressing each other naturally.

The same thing is going on here with the large character’s eyeline. Especially with a character that doesn’t have the ability to move its irises (most puppets don’t, after all), the head angle is all you have to rely on. And yet, look at how clearly this character addresses his focus:

The puppeteer, Donald, also mentions that subtle gestures in the hands are an immense help for getting the character to clearly illustrate his dialogue and the context in the scene. The use of hands and fingers is a subject which is way too broad to begin to explore at the moment, but if you watch the video again, you can see how clearly even the tiniest moves of the fingers can be read, even though the fingers are as thick as Twinkies on the ends of those gigantic hands.

To be perfectly honest, however, my favorite thing in this clip has nothing to do with puppetry. My absolute favorite thing in this clip is what happens when Donald takes off his puppet’s head. Check it out:

What a smile!

From an animator’s perspective, I love the way he has that “O” shaped mouth indicating “Boy am I glad to be out from under that sweltering head!” and then it becomes this big toothy grin that takes up almost the entire bottom half of his face. But even if I wasn’t thinking about animation at all, it’s a wonderful smile that is warm and charming and it seems to radiate that this is a genuine and friendly guy. Wherever he is these days, I hope he’s happy and still smiling.

Next up: Master Russian puppeteer, Sergei Obrotzov. Stay tuned!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

After a large positive response to the previous puppetry posts, I’ve decided to continue with some of my other favorite pieces from the ‘Here Come The Puppets’ special. This post will focus on the second highlighted performance from Peter Waschinsky (see the first piece here), a selection from his performance called “Earthworms.”

In animation terms, this piece is almost entirely about line of action and timing. Let’s talk about the timing first.

A friend of mine recently said “It seems like a lot of animated movies have similar pairs of characters in them: a lot of the time, it’s just a big round fat guy and a tall skinny guy. Is that because that’s the only thing that works in animation?” She wasn’t being sarcastic, she was legitimately curious if having those two character types are the only way to make animation interesting to an audience. I understood where she’s coming from. After all, it seems like “Big and Little” are everywhere in animation. Have a look at Mike and Sully, or Woody and Buzz, Shrek and Donkey, Dori and Marlin… heck, even Lightning McQueen and Mater.

My initial reaction was “Well, they’re not all paired up as big and small, or fat and skinny.” But the question remains, why are there so many that are? And the answer is: Contrast. The visual contrast in two characters’ design help us separate them in our minds. This isn’t just limited to animation. Just taking the “Short and Fat vs. Tall and Skinny” example, you could point to Laurel and Hardy or Abbot and Costello. Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza. If I were being a little more pompous (which I’m clearly going to be, so hang on), I might even bring up Falstaff and Prince Hal… but to be honest, I haven’t read any of the plays Falstaff is in. I just know that he was a big, tubby guy and Hal was probably a little more on the lithe side.

It’s not always “Big and Small” that creates visual contrast, however. Two of my favorite characters from animation are Futurama’s Fry and Bender. Human and Robot. How about the Lethal Weapon franchise, whose two main buddies are Black and White. Or any number of movies that pair up a woman and a man for a thrill-ride adventure, like the recent Transformers or the Indiana Jones movies.

Of course, it’s not just the visual contrast of two characters that we respond to. There has to be a difference in their personality. One is dumb and the other is smart (Pinky and the Brain, perhaps?), one is cool as a cucumber and the other is a ball of energy (Jay and Silent Bob, right?), one is neat and tidy and the other is a boorish slob (Felix and Oscar, from The Odd Couple). To call out one of my other favorite television shows, LOST has Jack Shepard whose entire personality is rooted in science and fact, and John Locke who is a dreamer and willing to follow the mystic side of things because his world is based in faith. Heck, look at fairy tales: The Country Mouse and the City Mouse!

This kind of contrast really starts making its presence known when the two characters are placed in the same situation with each other. Any two characters put in a situation and will react differently. Typically, the more different two characters are, the more extreme their reactions will be from one another.

Now, puzzle this for a moment: what if your two characters are nothing more than two fingers? In fact, they’re the same finger from opposite hands. They look exactly alike, so you can’t rely on any kind of visual contrast in their design (except maybe “This one’s on the left and the other one’s on the right). They don’t talk, so you can’t rely on one screaming and shouting while the other speaks in only a whisper. Your only tool is this: how they move. To put it another way, their timing.

Watch the clip again and notice how the worm on the left moves with slow and cautious gestures, while the worm on the right is much more jumpy and quick when moving from pose to pose. Even when Left Worm starts moving more quickly there’s still a slowness and a grace to its movements, while Right Worm slows down, but still has much more quick timing in its movements by comparison. This is contrasting timing in its very essence. And I’ll bet that if you go watch any of your favorite comedy duos, you will see that they move very differently from one another–just like Waschinsky’s simple finger-earthworms. This is what we’re responding to.

Now, let’s talk a little bit about line of action. I did a little side-by-side comparison here:

Admittedly, this is an almost comical exercise since the line of action should be pretty clear from Waschinsky’s fingers. But sometimes it helps to separate things out in a clear graphical space as if it were an animation line test, instead of seeing the details of skin, joins, and fingernails. The important thing is that you can clearly see where each character is looking, and more importantly the attitude that is conveyed through their poses.

Look at the first picture: with Left Worm just peeking out of the ground, and Right Worm pretty aggressively observing him. Things change pretty quickly in the next panel as Left Worm approaches closer and Right Worm has an almost complete reversal in the base of his pose–it’s clear that he has gone from being in charge to being startled. The third panel pushes this idea even further.

You can even see in panels 4, 5, and 6 that Left Worm’s upright position conveys a message depending on what angle he’s at. He’s not merely “standing upright,” but he is at one moment inviting, and then confident, and then happy.

Panel 7 shows Left Worm in a wonderful anticipation, while Right Worm is now striving forward to get closer. I admit I can’t tell exactly why, but I can tell almost just from that single frame that Left Worm’s line of action isn’t recoiling in fear like Right Worm did earlier. Perhaps it’s the base of his pose, which is still slightly leaning forward.

Then finally, in panel 8, we see both worms supporting each other, being affectionate. Again, you can tell that this is affection as opposed to being belligerent or standing guard or anything else. It’s clear because the lines are so relaxed and calm (they’re not struggling against each other), and they are just barely giving each other a soft little touch–literally a kiss–where they meet.

As much information as a character’s line of action can give us, I believe there is even more information when we see two lines of action playing off each other. It’s almost like the two form a Line of INTERaction. I’ve always had more fun animating two characters reacting to each other–even if one character is completely silent during the entire scene, I find that simply having them there for the other character to talk to, or talk at, or avoid talking to can help draw the audience into the personal dynamic between the two. And the line of action always helps me define where each of my characters’ attitudes are coming from.

By the way, aside from all of this cool theory and observation, I just want to point out something that might not be apparent because of the darkness of the video: Peter Waschinsky performs this entire story (and I can only imagine there’s more even after the video cuts off) while lying on his back! The “stage” is nothing more than one leg crossed against the other with a black sheet draped over it. This is a quick overlayed sketch of what’s actually going on:

One of the things that separates puppetry from animation is that the puppeteer has the choice over how much the audience is aware of their presence. Sometimes you want the audience to only see the puppets and relate to them as characters, and other times you will incorporate yourself as puppeteer into the audience’s awareness, even if you don’t participate in the story at all. We’ll get into this in a later post, but I thought it was worth noting here.

Next Friday, when we return to Here Come the Puppets, we’ll take a look at a troupe from Northern Canada. See you then!

(note: this post is part of the Here Come The Puppets category here at the Midnight Diaries. Be sure to check out the full category for other selections from this spectacular program)

Jim Henson’s voice introduces this clip, part of a performance from Peter Waschinsky. I’d like to take a brief side-step from the puppetry talk to call attention to the statement that “Waschinsky is from the German Democratic Republic; East Germany.” This was 1980, remember. I’m just old enough to remember that it would be years and years before the wall dividing East and West Germany was brought down. Before that point, East Germany and West Germany were two separate countries. It was rare for East Germans to leave the country, and rare for anyone else to enter into it. I am, sadly, pretty ignorant about world politics but it seems very much like the difference between North and South Korea.

I mention this because in my lifetime, my very short lifetime, Germany has been unified once again into one country from the two halves it existed as for so very long. This kind of world change blows my mind, and I find it somewhat inspiring that things this big can still happen in our modern age when we tend to see the world as set in its ways. In my basement sits an atlas that was mine as a child; not only does it include East and West Germany, but the entire U.S.S.R. I’m sure that there are dozens of other changes that have occurred since then–countries have expanded and contracted, have been created and destroyed. ‘Twas ever thus and shall ever be. There’s a kind of hope in that, as I see it.

In any case, back in 1980, this is why Henson says “This was the first time many of us in this country had seen [Waschinsky's] work,” and why he says it with such awe. It was a rare treat. Have a look:

What stands out to me the most in this clip is Waschinsky’s use of timing. He knows exactly when to let an action linger, when to let it pounce, creep, amble, or freeze. Watch when the Leopard appears. He hangs there on his tree branch, looking around for any safe haven from his pursuer. Then he sees the man: the Leopard does a take, and then pulls back in curiosity, hangs there a minute and then pops up quickly to look over the tree to where the hunter might be (or perhaps he’s holding himself face to face with his puppeteer–what wonderful philosophical potential there is in that idea!), and then leaps down from the tree into the Man’s path.

Each action is as long as it needs to be, holds as long as it needs to be held, and each action’s timing is varied enough to feel natural and organic. Add to that the beautiful overlap Waschinsky gives to the Leopard when he leaps from the tree, and I could watch this sequence over and over.

Then, watch how the characters of the Man and Leopard come across merely in the speed of their movements. Though the man is initially startled by the Leopard, he is generally calm and casual about the meeting. He appears world-weary, a bit wise from his age, and accepting of strangers. The Leopard, on the other hand (literally–ha!), is anxious and curious. Each of his gestures is like a running stream of punctuation marks: an exclamation point! a question mark? a question mark? a question mark, an exclamation point! He needs to know if this Man is a threat or a friend.

Even when the man invites the Leopard to join him, the Man’s invitation is calm and friendly while the Leopard’s reaction is quick with just a shade of timidity.

It’s interesting to note that there are times when the Leopard moves somewhat slowly and the Man moves somewhat quickly. We recognize the Leopard’s movements as being mostly very fast–these movements help define his character, and his slow actions give us contrast to add into what we know about him. In the same way, the Man is primarily a slow mover, so the times when he moves quickly catch our attention and help to paint those actions with meaning we get from that contrast.

When we meet the Old Buffalo, we see another world-weary character who moves slowly. But unlike the Man, whose slow movement seems to slow from kindness, the Old Buffalo’s slowness comes from being abused for years of hard labor by men.

Pay particular attention to the silence after he declares “Men are ungrateful. Devour him.” This is a wonderful use of silence. That “Devour him” hangs so heavily in the air. When the Leopard and the Man look at each other, you can feel the question mark between the two of them. “Will this Leopard I have helped truly devour me?” “This man saved me from the hunter. Should I believe the Buffalo, that all men are ungrateful?” Notice how there is a (beautiful) half-second of the Man and the Leopard holding each others’ eyes before the Leopard begins to nod. And don’t we, as an audience, feel the tension of this moment–don’t we want to urge the Leopard to be merciful?

All in that silence, we feel that the Leopard is only slightly leaning towards the Buffalo’s point of view. His nod is slow and tentative; his decision could still turn towards the Man’s favor when the Buffalo pounds through the silence with an even larger question: “Why should you spare him?” And when you recognize that the puppeteer likely has enough control to place his foot softly on the ground, the fact that he disappears the Buffalo with a bass-y “thud” makes the question loom all the more heavily.

Now the Leopard moves very slowly, almost as if he’s been beaten by the heaviness of the question. He was ready to take the Buffalo’s directive, “Devour him”, because he was being told to act. But at the last minute, the Buffalo throws back a question “Why should you spare him?” and this turns the Leopard away from instinct into a more pensive state. He knows why he should spare the Man: the Man saved his life. It’s not an easy decision at all; and all of this is reflected in the Leopard’s slow movement as he crawls on top of the Man’s pack and rests his head to consider things.

I desperately wish I could see more of this performance. I want to see more of this mesmerizing puppetry. I want to know what happens next! Unfortunately, this was as much as the original PBS program showed and so it is all I have to share with you.

Watching each of the characters, it’s very clear how much the contrast of fast and slow actions, of movement and stillness, can give to a performance. It reminds me of Victor Navone’s post about Three Speeds.

I love watching these puppet performances so much. To be honest, I had intended these Here Come The Puppets posts to be merely a 3-part series, this being the third and final part. But I am tempted to revisit other performances from the old PBS special as well, so keep your eyes on this space. There is a very real chance that I will post even more before too long, and I am all too happy to be able to share my thoughts about them. I look forward to yours as well.

Cheers!

This month’s tip can be applied in any number of ways in any number of situations.

I’m going to start off with a demonstration using the graph editor. But first, there’s a small test I want you to take. Below this paragraph you will find a white square with a blue dot in it. All you have to do is click on that dot. Nothing will happen when you click on it, this is just to check your eyesight and dexterity. Ready? Go!

How did you do? My guess is that you either were a pixel or two off of the dot, or you spent quite a bit of time steadying your mouse hand, squinting your eyes, leaning towards your monitor with your neck held stiff, and making sure that nothing shook out of place when you clicked your mouse. In other words, it wasn’t very easy or very quick.

Now, here’s the second part of the test. Do the same thing with the square below this paragraph–this square is shown at 10 times the size of the previous one. And….. go

I’ll bet you did a lot better this time, quicker with less straining, right? That’s because, and I know this will be a shocker, it is easier to see and touch something that you’re closer to.

A friend of mine gave a great example once, using the difference between grabbing a doorknob that you’re standing a foot away from, and grabbing the same doorknob from across the room using one of those extendo-arm things they sell to change lightbulbs in high-ceilinged buildings. As you can imagine, it would be a lot more difficult to be accurate with the extendo-arm from across the room.

Now, I’ll tell you what this has to do with your graph editor.

Let’s say you’re animating a hand doing a simple move up and down, and you are keeping your eye on your graph. It looks pretty good–like a good, smooth curve should look. Something like this:

But hold on, Buster Brown! The truth is that if you were to zoom in on that curve, you would see that it might not be so perfect after all. Check out this quicktime where we push in to see the curve up close:

(For Maya users, you can zoom the graph editor horizontally by holding down the Control and Alt keys while click-dragging with your Middle Mouse Button. Likewise, you can zoom vertically by holding down the Control and Alt keys while click-dragging the Right Mouse Button)

When I get down to that stage where I’m really ready to start polishing up my animation, I’ll go in and look at each individual animation curve throughout the chunk of animation I’m working on. I’ll run through it like it was a roller coaster, starting at the beginning and going straight through to the end, making sure that there are no crazy hitches. The process looks something like this:

(see if you can tell where the curve looks fine from far away but has obvious trouble when you see it in close up detail)

I’ve found my work with the graph editor improved vastly once I started zooming in and getting up close with it. 

Now, I want the hand holding that flower to look clear and natural and to have an appealing pose, right? I’ll need to select each of those finger joints individually to rotate them. From this far away, however, it’s almost a guarantee that I won’t click on the right finger joint with my first try. It’s also unlikely that I’ll be able to see the results of my teeny-tiny rotations in any meaningful way. Remember our boxes with the blue dots? Remember our doorknob across the room? Same principle. 

What’s the solution, then? Zoom in! Get up close with those fingers!

In fact, here’s a little tip: Make a duplicate camera and make that camera orthographic. An orthographic camera has no depth–which means that no matter how tightly you zoom in on your character, you will still see the same shapes you see at your regular camera distance. This is super helpful for maintaining and adjusting your silhouettes!

UPDATE: I have been informed by Matt Gaward that this orthographic trick won’t actually give you a silhouette that’s true to your original one. He suggests this:

1) Select your perspective camera that you want to zoom, and open the Attributes window.

2) In the Film Back section, there are three values you can change:

Pre Scale; setting this to any value above 1 will zoom by that factor.

Film Translate X and Y; these values will then allow you to move your scaled view around the scene as if it were orthogonalI’d suggest doing this on a copy of your shot cam. That way you can zoom in temporarily, move around the scene as necessary working on fine details, and you don’t lose the perspective-ness. Great for to-camera face work on a distant character.

Thanks, Matt!

In addition to that, Jean-Denis Haas recommends the “Zoomerator” tool, available at HighEnd3d.com. Thanks, JD!

To continue:

Up close, the hand looks like this:

Much much much easier to select the proper fingers and rotate them the proper amounts. 

See how much fun this is? But wait, I’ve got one more for ya.

I’ll take two examples based on some shots I’ve seen. First up:

You almost have to squint to actually see what’s going on, don’t you? Without changing the angle at all, we can push the camera in and get the much more visually pleasing: 

See? Now I can clearly see every move this character makes, and the zoomed in camera has the added bonus of making the scene much more congruous with the intense anger this character is expressing. 

Here’s another example:

If I were to see this character acting, I would feel virtually no connection with him at all. Even if you want to show that you can control the entire character, from head to foot, wouldn’t you feel more connection with this composition: 

Or, if this is an intimate dialogue shot, why not reflect that intimacy in the composition by coming in even closer: 

Doesn’t that last picture feel so much more present and alive than the first version? 

Note: The Food Rules are constant, unquestionable, and unimpeachable. As with any rules, The Food Rules may be broken–often to pleasurable sensations. But one must always acknowledge that The Food Rules exist and one must recognize them as true and fast.

#6
CAKE AND PIE

There’s a tradition that needs to come to an end, folks.

For centuries now, we’ve been defining our food by the shapes they take and the pans we bake them in. It has to stop because we are allowing some foods to masquerade as other foods, and I’m certain you’ll agree that there’s something deeply wrong with that.

I’m talking about two foods in particular. I’m talking about cake and pie.

Yes, I know: you like your cake and you like your pie. They’re good and wholesome desserts and you’d think nothing could be simpler, but I promise that if you look closely you’ll find that there are “cakes” which are not cakes and there are “pies” which are not pies.

Let us start by defining what a cake is. A cake is a moist and flour-based treat, often times baked in layers and then stacked and frosted. Other cakes are more rectangular, served in a large slab or sheet. Occasionally someone will even make a bundt cake if they have one of those fancy-schmancy pans with a hole in the middle. But the main thing is that it’s filled with all kinds of miniature air-holes, which is what makes it fluffy and have some spring and give to it when you sink your teeth in.

You know what I’m talking about. A chocolate cake. A birthday cake. Hell, I’ll even let a densely packed Black Forest cake slip under the radar because at its core, it’s still got those little mini-pockets of air that let the cake breathe. Yum, yum, yum.

Do you know what doesn’t have those air pockets? Cheesecake! Ice Cream Cake! They’re simply solid walls of food in the shape of a cake. (more on walls of food in a moment) They are not cakes, and in my opinion, they should leave the rest of the law-abiding cakes on their own. Cheesecake–how dare you even, you know?

Now let’s look at pies. What is a pie? A pie is a delicious treat, surrounded by a crust (which may be open, closed, or latticed on top), and filled with a gelatanous mixture of solids and a soft, gooey medium which compliments said solids. A perfect example would be a cherry pie. Not only are there cherries inside (solid), but they swim in a wonderful cherry-flavored filling (the gooey medium). All sorts of pies fit within this rubric: apple pie, pecan pie, peach pie, blueberry pie, and I’ll even accept shepherd’s pie and chicken pot pie as part of the pie family. (even though, technically, those last two break food rule number 2: pies should be served cold)

With that standard in mind, let’s have a look at the chocolate cream pie. Or the key lime pie. Or (wait for it….) the pumpkin pie. Once again, what we see before us are not pies: they are walls of food baked in the shape of a pie! You heard me: pumpkin pie is not a pie!! I’m not quite sure what it is–though it is tasty–it is not, I repeat: not! not! not! a pie!

Listen, you can’t just go around baking foods in different shapes and naming them after the shapes you bake them in. There are rules, folks. Let me put it this way: if I set a wine glass in front of you, and then dropped in a heaping spoonful of mashed potatoes, could I say “Here, have some potato wine?” Surely you would say “That’s not wine.” That’s logical. I might try to respond “But it’s in a wine glass. That’s what makes it wine.” You’d have me thrown out the door.

Well, that’s exactly the kind of non-logic that cheesecakes and pumpkin pies across the world are trying to get away with.

If I choose to cook rice and vegetables in a casserole dish, that doesn’t make my dinner a casserole.

If I fill those little egg-cups in my refrigerator with strawberries, that doesn’t magically turn the strawberries into eggs.

My mashed potatoes in your wine glass is not wine…

Making a layered dessert that looks like a cake doesn’t necessarily make it a cake!

And for the last time, just because you put something in a pie tin and bake it, that doesn’t make it a pie!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go see if I can get drunk off of water by sipping it out of a beer stein.

By now you should have a firm idea about how rss works and how to use it to your benefit and enjoyment.

(if you don’t know how rss can improve your daily internet activities, read my post here: What You Should Know About RSS)

Okay, so… by now you should have a firm idea about how rss works and how to use it to your benefit and enjoyment. I certainly have my rss reader filled with a heavy load of wonderful blogs and podcasts. I thought I’d share some of my favorites. Hopefully, you’ll find some of them to your liking and discover some sources of entertainment and education. I may even throw in a few non-rss links, too, just for fun. Ready? Here we go:

Blogs / RSS Feeds

JAY IS GAMES
Jay Is Games is a wonderful repository for all of those wonderful and wonderfully addictive casual games you like to play at your computer when you’re pretending to be working. Each game is reviewed, and browsing through the users’ comments can usually help you overcome any challenges you’re having beating a level, or answering a question, or beating your high score. Whether you like action/shooter games, mindpuzzlers, room-escapes, or something more indefinable, this is the place for you!

STRANGE MAPS
This is a growing collection of beautiful illustrations from all corners of the globe, from historical to topographical to absolutely fictional. It’s updated every other week or so, and almost every new map that’s posted pushes me to think about our world from a new perspective.

SWISS MISS
Tina Roth Eisenberg is a graphic designer living in New York City. Even though I don’t do any design professionally, I love seeing examples of really striking designs. This is a great blog for seeing what’s out there that’s worth catching your eye.

FFFFOUND
I’m not quite sure how Ffffound works. I think that users are encouraged to upload their photographs and drawings at any time, as long as they are visually stimulating. And anyone and everyone are free to use their own interpretation of “visually stimulating.” Oh, I’m sure that I could look up the rules and the mission statement of the site, but I’m pretty lazy. Besides, I really don’t care: I just come to look at the pretty pictures.

EBAY
Okay, I know you’re probably already aware of eBay. But I just found out that eBay now supports RSS! This means that you can search for a particular item and eBay will create an RSS feed for that search term. Once it’s in your news reader, any new item matching your search that shows up on eBay will be delivered directly to you. No more visiting eBay every other week, entering in the same searches over and over to see if anyone is selling any new items that you’re looking for. Now you just sit there and wait for it all to come to you.

MIGHTY GOODS
Looking for the perfect gift, but tired of the same old same old same old everything you’ve seen in your local stores? Mighty Girl has the solution for you! The Mighty Goods Shopping Blog adds several new items a week that are bound to make your mouth (and wallet) water. She has a keen eye for style and orginality, whether it’s a fashionable raincoat, a footstool, or a new toy for your toddler. You’re bound to find a number of products that will make it on to your “I want that!” list here.

SEXUAL INTELLIGENCE
I think that most Americans are way too uptight about sex. I know I am. Sure, the subject of sex comes up in conversation every once in a while–but the conversation is usually only a few sentences in before turning to little puns and jokes that, to me, indicate an awkward avoidance of the topic. A topic that is wide and fascinating and fun. There should be more serious discussion about sex, in my opinion, and it shouldn’t shame us but enlighten us. The Sexual Intelligence blog is a great place to start if you’re looking for this kind of mature (which is to say the opposite of immature) talk about sex.

Podcasts

CREATIVE SCREENWRITING MAGAINCE
A weekly podcast featuring interviews with the screenwriters of great movies that are in theaters right now? Yes, please! These interviews follow screenings of each film and are held in front of a live audience. The audience is also encouraged to ask questions during the interview. This is a great podcast to listen to if you’re into hearing what goes on behind the scenes of writing movies.

THE BUSINESS
And speaking of behind the scenes, The Business is a public radio program from KCRW. Host Claude Brodesser-Akner delivers a half-hour show filled with all of the current issues at play in the entertainment industry… primarily Hollywood. Through interviews, journalistic reports, and the lighter-themed Hollywood News Caravan, we get to stay up to date with what’s going on in tinseltown and hear some of the dish about how things actually go down from the offices of movie moguls to the studio lots. I make sure that I catch this show every week!

THINK
Think is a intriguing public radio program from Dallas, Texas. Every day Krys Boyd hosts two hour-long shows that focus on just about any topic you can think of. Sometimes it’s political, sometimes it’s entertainment, sometimes it’s culture, sometimes it’s biographical, sometimes it’s environmental–but it is almost always entertaining and informative. If you already know about the topic it hand, you’re bound to get a fresh perspective on it. If you’re unfamiliar with the topic, the show is great for introducing new concepts and ideas to listeners. I admit that I don’t listen to absolutely every show, but whenever I do I always learn something.

RADIO LAB
I heard about this show on This American Life and after a few episodes I was already hooked. I’ll listen to anything these guys put out. Radio Lab is a show that focuses on a singular topic each episode, usually a broad human experience like “morality” or “music” or “our place in the universe”, and then they explore the topic scientifically. But this isn’t your boring old tenth grade science type of science. Radio Lab takes care to explore ideas that make science fresh and exciting–probably a lot closer to how scientists think about it when they are passionate about their field. Through great storytelling and really creative sound design (really creative sound design!), Radio Lab offers brand new perspectives on what science is actually exploring these days. What we know and what we don’t, and how it all fits together.

THE SAVAGE LOVE PODCAST
Savage Love is a weekly sex advice column written by Dan Savage in the Seattle free weekly paper The Stranger. The podcast is just over a year old and is a wonderful extension of the column. Just like the Sexual Intelligence blog mentioned above, Dan Savage approaches the topic of sex as an adult in a straightforward way. Sometimes very straightforward. This is a great podcast to listen to whether you’re simply wanting to eavesdrop on other peoples’ sex lives, or if you’re looking to feel like maybe your own sex life isn’t so strange–to know there are others out there with the same little quirks you have. We all do.

(a note before listening: Dan answers questions about both gay and straight issues, and occasionally gets very vocal against conservative politicians–if either of these things bother you, you may be better off skipping this podcast)

STORYCORPS
Storycorps is a project that is recording oral histories around the United States. In each two or three minute vignette, you meet a new person and hear a story from their lives. It’s like what This American Life would be if This American Life were fed to you in sweet little teaspoon bites. You may even feel the urge to indulge in several all at one sitting. Go ahead–it’s zero calories, and there’s always more to snack on later. Delicious.

Other Links

FABCHANNEL
Did you know that there’s a site on the web that you can go to an watch concerts for free? Full length, professionally shot, great sounding concerts. For free! That’s exactly what Fabchannel is. They seem to lean more towards independent artists than the more mainstream fare, but I’ve already found a few artists that I’m familiar with. Both shows I’ve watched so far were taped at the Paradiso in Amsterdam. I don’t know if that’s an indicator of how these concerts are able to be broadcast, if there’s different international laws, or whatever. It doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that would be coming from here in the states. But whatever. The important thing is that these concerts are great, and you should head on over right now to search for some of your favorite artists.

THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES DAILY ONLINE CROSSWORD
Boy oh boy do I love crossword puzzles! There’s no better way to make yourself feel very smart, and there’s no better way to make yourself feel very dumb. The Chicago Sun-Times crossword is the best online crossword I’ve found. Its interface is clean and simple and allows for easy entries and easy corrections. There’s even a timer if you’d like to challenge yourself. In regular daily crossword tradition, the puzzles get more difficult as the week goes on, ending with the Saturday Stumper. I think I may have successfully completed one Saturday Stumper in the 10 years I’ve been doing this crossword. It’s pretty hard. You can also print out today’s puzzle, or any puzzle from the archive–which is great for when you have to travel and you know you’ll be without internet access for a while. You can always have these great crosswords at your side to tease your brain.

LOST: MISSING PIECES
So you’ve been waiting since last May for LOST to come back on the air. You’ve got all three seasons on DVD and you’ve watched them all at least twice now. You’re itching for more, and the wait until January 31st is just about over, but you want something now! Even if it’s a tiny bite, it would hold you over. But you don’t want any spoilers for the upcoming season–you just want new LOST stories! Well, well, well… did you know that the producers of LOST have been releasing small weekly mini-episodes via Verizon Wireless? And did you know that one week after each mini-episode airs to Verizon’s customers, it is available to watch on the official LOST site? Go and get your fix right now and I’ll join you in front of the TV on the 31st when LOST returns!