Sam Hale Interview Part 9
Sam Koji Hale is an illustrator, sculptor, puppet designer and builder. He has a master of fine arts in illustration from Academy of Art University in San Francisco and has designed and built puppets for a variety of film, video and theatre productions. His credits include Elf and Playhouse Disney's “Clay,” as well as Ahoy Captain Sid, which earned him two regional Emmy nominations. He received The Kennedy Center Award for his puppet design and construction on The Inland Emperor's New Clothes. Hale recently designed and built puppets for a Triumvirate Pi Theatre presentation of The Fox's Lantern (Kitsune No Chochin), a project he co-created and will puppeteer in.
Hale is Adjunct Professor of Theatre Arts at California State University San Bernardino. I asked him to share his thoughts on puppet design.
PJ: You've designed puppets for several theatrical productions. What do you take into consideration when designing puppets for the stage?
SH: How a puppet reads from a distance is very important. Big shapes and bold colors help a puppet read well for the audience. Lighting contributes to readability, and the stronger the shapes in the character’s face, the easier it is to read the face from a distance, even in bad lighting. How you color the character can also aid in readability -- again, bold, contrasting colors work great. In Japanese theater, actors’ (and puppets’) faces are painted a stark white with black eyeliner and red lipstick. Theater came way before electricity, so performances happened by candlelight, and the only way to see the performers was to paint their faces brightly and boldly!
Another thing to consider is what the production’s puppet needs are, versus building an all-around good puppet for general use. When I first go in to planning a build, I look at the script and start a list of all the actions that will be needed from my puppet. Then I start planning how to build “specialists.” The more specialized the puppet is, the better it can perform its tasks. If you need a puppet to climb out of the scene, a “climber” puppet works better than a generic one. Even if it means more building, I prefer having more puppets that perform specific tasks than a few generic ones. For example, if you only see a puppet from the waist up, why give him legs?
Also, building something tough but simple is better for theater. If a puppet is going to go through a lot of rough handling, it’s better if it holds together well. The fewer moving parts there are, the less likely it will break and need repair. On a TV or film shoot, a damaged puppet could cause an inconvenient loss of time for repairs, but in live theater there’s no time for repairs. The better built the puppet is, the better it is for the show. Simplicity is important -- the fewer moving parts, the less likely it is to break. Again, I say build more specialists to do specific tasks and reduce the need for repairs along the way.
Ease of use is also something I’m constantly trying to perfect. I hate it when someone builds a puppet that’s heavier than necessary or has triggers or mouth palettes that don’t move well or that tweaks your wrist or arm to even get it to move. If it doesn’t work well, the performer has to struggle to make it work or, worse yet, hurt him- or herself to make the puppet move well. I really try to work toward practical solutions that make the puppet and performer both look and feel good.
I once did a show where I was squat-walking most of the time because I was performing hands on a modified bunraku-style puppet held at waist level. My knees have never been the same. Was it necessary to torture the puppeteer thus, or could the puppet have been designed differently? Could the director and builder have come up with a more performer-friendly design? Of course there is always some level of difficulty performing a puppet becasue it puts you into all kinds of strange contortions, but since I’m a performer too, I try to minimize that as much as possible. I sympathize with the poor saps who have to deal with my inventions onstage in front of a bunch of people.
Hale is Adjunct Professor of Theatre Arts at California State University San Bernardino. I asked him to share his thoughts on puppet design.
PJ: You've designed puppets for several theatrical productions. What do you take into consideration when designing puppets for the stage?
SH: How a puppet reads from a distance is very important. Big shapes and bold colors help a puppet read well for the audience. Lighting contributes to readability, and the stronger the shapes in the character’s face, the easier it is to read the face from a distance, even in bad lighting. How you color the character can also aid in readability -- again, bold, contrasting colors work great. In Japanese theater, actors’ (and puppets’) faces are painted a stark white with black eyeliner and red lipstick. Theater came way before electricity, so performances happened by candlelight, and the only way to see the performers was to paint their faces brightly and boldly!
Another thing to consider is what the production’s puppet needs are, versus building an all-around good puppet for general use. When I first go in to planning a build, I look at the script and start a list of all the actions that will be needed from my puppet. Then I start planning how to build “specialists.” The more specialized the puppet is, the better it can perform its tasks. If you need a puppet to climb out of the scene, a “climber” puppet works better than a generic one. Even if it means more building, I prefer having more puppets that perform specific tasks than a few generic ones. For example, if you only see a puppet from the waist up, why give him legs?
Also, building something tough but simple is better for theater. If a puppet is going to go through a lot of rough handling, it’s better if it holds together well. The fewer moving parts there are, the less likely it will break and need repair. On a TV or film shoot, a damaged puppet could cause an inconvenient loss of time for repairs, but in live theater there’s no time for repairs. The better built the puppet is, the better it is for the show. Simplicity is important -- the fewer moving parts, the less likely it is to break. Again, I say build more specialists to do specific tasks and reduce the need for repairs along the way.
Ease of use is also something I’m constantly trying to perfect. I hate it when someone builds a puppet that’s heavier than necessary or has triggers or mouth palettes that don’t move well or that tweaks your wrist or arm to even get it to move. If it doesn’t work well, the performer has to struggle to make it work or, worse yet, hurt him- or herself to make the puppet move well. I really try to work toward practical solutions that make the puppet and performer both look and feel good.
I once did a show where I was squat-walking most of the time because I was performing hands on a modified bunraku-style puppet held at waist level. My knees have never been the same. Was it necessary to torture the puppeteer thus, or could the puppet have been designed differently? Could the director and builder have come up with a more performer-friendly design? Of course there is always some level of difficulty performing a puppet becasue it puts you into all kinds of strange contortions, but since I’m a performer too, I try to minimize that as much as possible. I sympathize with the poor saps who have to deal with my inventions onstage in front of a bunch of people.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home