Production - Stop Motion: Passion, Process and Performance - page 295

Live puppetry often involves multiple performers for one character, but then they have
probably been rehearsing together for weeks. It amazed me when the puppeteers for the
Muppets had their hands high in the air inside the character, but would be looking down on
the l oor at a monitor. To be able to perform like that, at once intimate and removed, must take
some skill. Many of the amazing Henson creatures require several operators, with technology
enabling the puppeteers to be removed from the actual character. They manipulate it using
sophisticated contraptions as joysticks and gloves that are wired to translate the puppeteers'
movements into appropriate movements for the creature. The performance must come from
rehearsal and a brilliant overseeing director. I doubt there is total spontaneity. Likewise, I i nd
marionette performers amazing as they, usually, only get to see their characters from above,
although they too probably have monitors. A stop motion animator sees the whole of the
puppet and can touch it, and from a decent perspective. The point of this, and probably the
point of this topic, is that whatever technology does to improve the performance of a puppet,
and I am surprisingly embracing this technology, we must not be careful not to lose the
connection between the human performance and the puppet. Stop motion, in the animation
world, has probably the most direct connection to the artist. It is this peculiar relationship
between puppet and puppeteer that keeps me enthralled.
Framing
The traditional shape of television screens used to be 3:4, which is probably the ugliest shape
possible. Decent compositions are hard in that shape, with landscapes looking squashed
and undynamic, but it is a framing perfect for talking heads. There is neither room for
other characters nor scope for face-to-face conversations without reducing the scale of the
characters. This framing allows for close-ups of characters thinking, but most screens now
are at least 9:16, which is a more elegant composition, encouraging movement. Landscapes
can look exciting and wide, and are nearer to what our own eyes see. There is more scope for
drama with characters reacting face to face, and using foreground and background together.
Characters can relate to each other, rather than just cutting back and forth between isolated
talking heads. A schedule, though, often needs close-ups of a particular character shot
together and by himself, saving time on camera set-ups or allowing other characters to be
used elsewhere. This leads to a sequence that does not l ow, as there is little action to overlap,
or the presence of the other character is missed. It helps to have part of the other character in
shot, but if not, then a signii cant movement can be engineered to motivate the cut back and
forth. Ideally, there should always be a reason to change a camera angle. If we are looking over
a shoulder of a character about to speak, let the character show some signs of anticipating this,
such as straightening the posture or raising a hand. As you cut round to the other angle, carry
on the action, and the cut will be invisible, which is always the aim. The sequence will l ow so
much better than a series of nodding heads if you can overlap the action. I am uncomfortable
with news interviews conducted with one camera i xed on the subject, zooming in
and out for variety. With the subject later gone, the interviewer blandly reacting to
nothing is cut into the interview, killing any spontaneity. Worse still is the shooting
of a l oor assistant's shoulder as she wears the interviewee's jacket. Very cheap
television, as the two people are not seen to relate. An infamous scene in Just a
Gigolo saw David Bowie supposedly chatting to Marlene Dietrich, except that they
were shot in dif erent studios, in dif erent countries. Clever editing and the use of