Eisenstaedt – Children at a Puppet Show, 1963 - WEEKLY DISCUSSION #14

<p>I've always considered photojournalism to be one of the highest uses of photography. Not so much for the photo I picked. Its just a lightweight story about a puppet show. But in this case, the photographer doesn't point his camera at the show - we don't actually see it. Rather, he points his camera at the audience and it is through their reaction that we discover how interesting and suspenseful the show is.</p>

<p>Here's the photo: <a href="http://life.time.com/culture/behind-the-picture-children-at-a-puppet-theater-paris-1963/#1">http://life.time.com/culture/behind-the-picture-children-at-a-puppet-theater-paris-1963/#1</a> </p>

<p>I chose this as an example of the indirect way of showing something. Most photographers, assigned to cover such an event, would probably photograph the puppet show itself. If you were the editor of a publication, would you be pleased if your photographer produced only a viewpoint like this? Or would you rather have the more traditional direct shots of the show? Does the type of publication matter?</p>

<p>I had a hard time singling this out from three photos. My runners-up were 1) Ed Clark's photo of Chief Petty Officer Graham Jackson playing accordian during FDR's funeral procession, and 2) Eisenstaedt's photo of banquet-room waiters lined up at the windows, watch Sonja Henie's skating practice. These are also powerful examples of the same technique, but I finally went with the puppet show because it is just plain fun to look at.</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

<p>(ps. Thanks to Fred G for his behind-the-scenes work keeping the "Weekly Discussion" going.)</p>

<p> Eisenstaedt could always be counted on to find the best way to tell a story. He did it every day.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Another great one from "Eisie". Anyone who does not believe in the concept of a 'decisive moment' should study this picture. While it is true that there is no total 'universality' of childhood, this kind of excited intensity seems to be a natural characteristic of children everywhere.</p>

<p>"Its just a lightweight story about a puppet show."</p>

<p>Eisie new how to turn a statement like that on top of its head. </p>

<p>His capture of the varied and natural expressions of the children is a whole lot more. A truly fine image of humanity. Thanks for showing it, as it was once seen (Time-Life photo series?), but forgotten.</p>

"<I> If you were the editor of a publication, would you be pleased if your photographer produced only a viewpoint like this?</I>"<P>

 

"This is a nice photo of children but where is the puppet show you were supposed to cover? Oh, I'm supposed to tell the readers that the kids are watching the puppet show but there are no shots of the actual puppet show itself? Tell you what, from now on you shoot what I send you out to shoot and leave the writing to me."<P>

 

 

I'm sure there were also plenty of photos of the puppet show itself that the editor could have used as he saw fit so the above scenario is rather moot. <P>

 

 

 

The most famous photo of Babe Ruth saying farewell to the fans is the one taken from behind him showing all the photographers in front. Different perspectives work although in that case it was "forced perspective" as the photographer couldn't find room in front and had to go behind.

<p>What gives the photo so much life, in great part, are the gestures of the children, so important to so many photos and often so lacking in duller ones. From left to right, we see the boy boxing his ears, the girl just behind him holding her hands to her mouth, the girl next to him whose hand is in blurred motion, a photographic result of movement that is also a gesture from Eisenstaedt, the girl behind and above her with arm raised, then the girl all the way over to the right with hands to cheek. We also seem to have a pair of twins in the foreground on the right whose eyes tell a story of their own. I notice how the kids gesturing the most, all in a clump except for the last girl mentioned over on the right, are wearing dark clothing and so have a darker tonality against the rest of the sea of children who are lighter. The stars of the show (of the audience) really do get top billing.</p>

<p>This photographer did not make himself a bystander, but rather got right in there and joined the crowd, even while facing them.</p>

<p>In the OP, Bill made an interesting point about the perspective and about making the subject of a frame something different from the subject of the overall scene. A good story-teller does this with the kind of ease (and confidence) seen here. He not only tells the story he's assigned to tell. He creates stories of his own or, if you prefer, at least finds others to tell as well.</p>

<p>Speaking of those twins, and their expressions and even odd posture against each other, in Eisenstadt's hands they blend into the crowd even as they offer a somewhat more mystified and awkward look than the rest of the children, completing a well-rounded story. Imagine what Arbus might have done with these two! [Which is why, for me, it's a matter of creating as much as if not more than finding.]</p>

<p>It was an open-ended, unpredictable entertainment and the kids responded accordingly: simultaneous shock, delight, bafflement, confusion, and fright that Eisenstaedt saw and captured literally at their level. Saw very similar reactions last summer to a puppet show devoid of the usual known characters that surround kids, push product, and lighten their parents' wallets.</p>

The secret charm of Eisenstadt's photography is his unpretentiousness and willingness to be charmed by life. Think about

the darkness he went through: a very intelligent and smart man, a Jew who was an artillery soldier in the German

Imperial Army in WW I, wounded in the last year of the war, a button and belt salesman in 1920s Germany, who did

become a working photographer till he was thirty, witness to the rise of Hitler, the Nazis, and other anti-Semites, an

immigrant forced to flee his country or be murdered, ...

 

I think he truly loved life and wanted for that love to come into his photographs as unimpeded by the intellectual baggage

of "art" as possible.

<p>It is entirely possible the actual puppet show was cheesy, the puppets were ragged and the photo possibilities nil. The photo of the kids is a fine photograph.</p>

<p>Excellent photo! Great choice, Bill! Talk about the decisive moment! I can almost hear their shrieks!</p>

<p>And I'll second your thanks to Fred G. for managing this very interesting series of images and discussions!</p>

<p>Even though the puppet show is not shown, one can guess what sort of thing the children are watching and reacting to - a puppet show we're told, but it could be a clown, or someone with a snake, or something similar. The show is implied, and its exact character is not so important. If the assignment was to cover a puppet show, it's hard for me to imagine a better shot than this, despite the lack of puppets in the scene. A short title fills that gap.<br>

<br />The two girls in the foreground on the right might be a bit younger than the rest and are processing the show at a slower pace, which might account for their different expressions. I imagine the one on the left is showing a delayed reaction to St. George spearing the dragon, whereas the others in the audience are already relishing the victory. The girl on the right may have lost interest in the story and is more curious about Eisenstaedt and his camera. The range of unfiltered expressions make this a wonderful photo. </p>

<p>Thanks, everyone, for the comments. I just love Eisie, but I guess it would be more precise to just say that I admire many of his photos.</p>

<p>I have a related story that may lead this thread off track, but it's fun to talk about so what the heck! James plays on the editor's possible reaction, "This is a nice photo of children but where is the puppet show you were supposed to cover? Oh, I'm supposed to tell the readers that the kids are watching the puppet show but there are no shots of the actual puppet show itself? Tell you what, from now on you shoot what I send you out to shoot and leave the writing to me."</p>

<p>This is not too far off from a story in a book about various Life Magazine photographers. Not too long after Eisie had quit his job selling belts in favor of doing freelance photography, he says, "I was attached a little bit to the Associated Press..." then...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...my second assignment was to go to Assissi, north of Rome, to photograph the wedding of Boris of Bulgaria to Sophia, the youngest daughter of the King of Italy.<br>

...<br>

When I arrived, I was fascinated by all the goings-on. There was so much pageantry. I saw Mussolini strutting by and King Ferdinand of Bulgaria - he had the longest royal nose in Europe. I was very happy. I photographed everything. When I came back to our office in Berlin, they said, "But where is the bride and groom?" <br /> "What bride and groom?" I said. "I haven't even seen them." They thought probably I'm crazy. The man in charge of the AP in London said I had to be fired. But they couldn't fire me - I was a free-lancer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So maybe he was establishing that he photographed what he wanted to. Or maybe he just didn't want to be a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>Sometimes, Bill, the best story is told indirectly - by implication, by metaphor, by imagery. That's why there's such a fine line between prose and poetry. </p>

<p>The gestures of the children, to be sure, are key elements of the photograph. But their facial expressions are equally as important; I see sheer joy, laughter, amazement, awe, and maybe even fear. I conclude from this that the puppet show must have been quite amazing.</p>

<p>Beautiful shot that I did not know before. Thanks Bill.<br /> The show can still be seen in France in the traditional "guignol" theaters throughout the country. The biggest is in Paris in the Luxembourg garden, with room for almost three hundred visitors: small children and their parents and "nannies" (au pair girls, mostly !). You can see it <a href="http://www.marionnettesduluxembourg.fr/acceuil.html">here</a> (look at the short video). The children's reactions haven't changed since Eisenstaedt passed by in the 60's. Same amazement. They are dressed differently, for sure.</p>

<p>The marionettes of (the garden of) Luxembourg are amazing and timeless in their appeal to young children, as no doubt are the smaller puppet or guignol (Punch and Judy show) theatres throughout France, as mentioned by Anders, and in other European countries. They may have existed to some lesser degree in North America, I'm not sure, but if so they have virtually all been swept away by TV and film. Too bad, as they have great charm. I remember visiting British friends of my brother in Victoria (Canada) a couple decades ago and who built and composed puppet theatre for their children at Christmas. When I then bought an old Quebec french colonial house near Quebec city they sent me a puppet size priest and a nun as a gift, and I guess in order to bless my questionable restoration and house opening.</p>

<p>The Eisenstein photo shows the magic of childhood. I wonder if it was of the guignol of the father of Monsieur Desarthis in the Jardin de Luxembourg, the son or grandson who keeps the tradition alive. Eisenstein was probably aware of fellow photographer Edouard Boubat, who made magnificent photos of the magic of childhood in the same gardens. Today, the percentage of children with parents or nannies in the gardens is amazing and adds to the atmosphere of this almost sacred place. A must visit in Paris.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Michael L] Sometimes, Bill, the best story is told indirectly - by implication, by metaphor, by imagery. That's why there's such a fine line between prose and poetry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the comment Michael, I never had such a realization about poetry until I just looked up "prose vs poetry". All I knew about poetry was that I didn't like it (except perhaps e.e.cummings because he freely ignored rules about capitalization and punctuation, etc.). Now I see that there can be a lot in common between poetry and the method of indirectly telling something in photography. So I have a new outlook on poetry (can't say I like it, but will have a better appreciation.) Thanks again.</p>

<p>Anders, thanks for the link (and the comments). When I first looked at your post, I guess I read the words without understanding. I hope you don't mind that I repost your link to be more obvious, for other readers like me. The video is an interesting view of the theatre operations:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.marionnettesduluxembourg.fr/acceuil.html">http://www.marionnettesduluxembourg.fr/acceuil.html</a></p>

<p>I would certainly want to visit if I were in the area. One of the unfortunate things about being an adult is that you are not expected to want to see such things. So if you don't have children of your own, you may have to "borrow" someone else's children so that you'll fit in better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Arthur] They [puppet shows] may have existed to some lesser degree in North America, I'm not sure, but if so they have virtually all been swept away by TV and film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm in the central U.S., but have never seen any such shows (that I recall). There HAVE been some television shows with puppets, though. (Even Kermit the frog, although he's technically a muppet?)</p>

<p>ps: thanks to everyone else who commented, I've read it all but didn't want to fill up half the thread with thank yous. So I hope this will suffice.</p>

<p>Bill you can enjoy en example of such shows below:</p>

<p>

/> It is for children between 7 and 77 years of age !!<br>

By the way, you don't need to be accompanying children to see such shows. You can come all alone, They are for all ages, but children have the right, by tradition, of the first rows.<br>

<br /> Sorry if I confuse you by writing English with a foreign accent :))</p>

<p>Alfred Eisenstaedt - one of the four original LIFE staffers, 2,500 assignments for the magazine, 92 covers. Not much to argue about there, PNers clearly feel, having granted him the accolade of being twice chosen for the Weekly Discussion (and without referencing his possibly most famous shot of "VJ Day, Times Square, 1945"!). AE of course had a great eye for a picture, a sincere feeling for humanity and the kind of liberal attitude that fit right in at LIFE. I too love his work.<br>

Not in any way to detract from this, but oddly AE's camera craft did occasionally let him down - in the kids picture, the gesture of the girl in the center has just beaten his shutter, and the apparent overexposure of the frame indicates that he could have doubled his speed and caught the movement better. It seems that his picture editor thought so too - PNers who have not done PJ work may be unaware how hard picture editors hack into pictures if they don't immediately like what they see. There are versions of the kids pic on-line where this has been cropped using only the left-hand side to make an upright and de-emphasise the blurred girl (sadly in the process losing the 2 wondrously woolly-hatted kids on the right of the pic).<br>

In the book "Witness To Our Time" there are more examples of this - there's one picture which looks like FDR on a navy ship which is spread over 2 pages and is way out of focus - also consider the "skating waiter" story, where AE has got some great background shots (waiters in a line being addressed by maitre d, rookie waiter being helped back up by colleagues after falling over, waiter serving customers) but somehow could not nail the crucial shot of a waiter skating at around 20 mph (this shot is in the book at full-page size and is way out of focus).<br>

It is things like this that make me laugh when people express a yearning for the good old days of PJ with Leicas - the kids picture would have much better if auto ISO had let AE go 1 shutter speed up and 2 stops down, the waiter shot would have been a breeze with autofocus, motor drive would have let him shoot more frames of FDR quickly if he knew he had been jostled, and so on. <br>

These are of course relatively minor points beside the fact that AE provided a mountain of excellent visual material which plays a major part in determining how we feel things looked in a large part of the 20th century.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Anders] Bill you can enjoy en example of such shows below...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks again Anders. I have to confess I enjoyed the previous link much more. I think it is the behind-the-scenes setup, and inside view of the operation that I like best. The racks of pupputs, and the painting of backgrounds, the puppeteers walking around, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[David B] Not in any way to detract from this, but oddly AE's camera craft did occasionally let him down...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I certainly agree, there are a number of his photos published in books that make me cringe a bit, on a technical basis.</p>

<p>In the photo being discussed here, though, I'm perfectly satisfied and barely notice all the little flaws. I think the bit of blur adds to the effect. When I look at the photo, my attention just immediately goes to the different faces - how everyone is reacting - and it makes me grin.</p>

<p>If I had been the photographer, on the other hand, I would be a little dissatisfied. I'd be wishing that I had focussed a little further back, and that the sides of the photo could go a little wider for a cleaner crop, and things like that. I wouldn't dwell on it too much though, when there's that much going on you just do your best.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...PNers clearly feel, having granted him the accolade of being twice chosen for the Weekly Discussion...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the photo I really wanted to show was Ed Clark's shot of Chief Petty Officer Jackson, tears running down his cheeks, playing accordion at FDR's funeral procession. It's another example of the indirect storytelling, but I wasn't sure if the tears, and the effect, would come across so well on computer monitors. Since the puppet show discussion seems to have largely played out, I'll try to sneak in a second photo and hope Fred doesn't get mad at me. (We still have half a week before the next person has a turn.) </p>

<p><a href="http://life.time.com/history/death-of-fdr-in-a-classic-photo-the-face-of-a-nations-loss/#1">http://life.time.com/history/death-of-fdr-in-a-classic-photo-the-face-of-a-nations-loss/#1</a></p>

<p>If anyone is still following this thread, did I made the wrong choice? One makes me smile, the other makes me feel sad, but both in the same vein of telling a story indirectly.</p>

 

<p>In each case we don't have a direct connection with the event. That of the puppet show watching children seems to me to be more powerful on our emotions because we can more easily assume that what they are seeing is something unfolding and essentially new for them. In the case of the American soldier, if we do not have a connection with the event, as is visually obvious, we can share with him or be curious as to his grief, but the fact we have no inkling (from the photo) of its cause is I think more important. He is also playing an accordeon which in popular experience is usually an instrument of folk or nostalgic music, so we may wonder why he is sad (one or two others in the background are obviously feeling the same), whether it may be his own personal recent loss, that of a local tragedy, or whatever.</p>

<p>What I am trying to say is that this photo, as such, is not anchored to any event, whereas the photo of the puppet watchers is very much anchored to the magic and honesty of very young children, where it is only of secondary importance to know its cause. In the second photo, the intended impact is only fuly realised if we know the cause. What do Bill and others think, if we take the second photo as such, without any other reference?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Arthur] What do Bill and others think, if we take the second photo as such, without any other reference?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well without its context, I think the CPO Jackson photo loses it's impact. But when you know the occasion, and that it's the same tune he has played for FDR previously, it's a very powerful message, to me at least. He's playing that tune one last time, despite his grief, as a farewell. Even now, 70 years later, it makes me feel sad seeing CPO Jackson's grief.</p>

<p>But by itself, without any explanation, perhaps it only make one wonder why is he so sad?</p>

<p>I actually prefer the second photo, mostly because of the non-confrontational perspective. Though I do appreciate and like very much the first photo, it is so squarely and directly "aimed" at the children and quite in-your-face, even though it absolutely does provide a joyous view of these children. The more angled and therefore more subtle, IMO, perspective of the second photo somehow gives me a feeling of respect toward the mourners, engagement by the photographer but with a softer touch. There's also a political aspect to the second photo which harkens back to the U.S. at that time and focuses on racial diversity as well as roles. In Georgia, the lone black man in a sea of white faces, all sharing a moment, and yet the soldier standing out from the crowd. The way Eisenstadt positions himself so the musician is highlighted by the strong white blank wall behind him is very effective and helps tell the story.</p>

<p>To me, the narratives of many photos are much more than the actual event that may have been happening. Ties to the reality are a vital part of the story and yet there is so much more as well. That I learn of the details of the event through a caption doesn't make the photo any less significant or effective to me. Captions do accompany photos and that's how I take them. As long as I don't feel the caption is trying to make up for a shortcoming in the photo, I'm happy to simply accept photo and caption as a unit. Given that, this photo, along with the caption, expresses something quite moving. Whether or not the photo would be "as good" without the caption is moot and relatively unimportant to me, especially as photojournalism. We often need text to provide background for pj and documentary work. It's part of the genre.</p>

<p>__________________________________________</p>

<p>[A quick note regarding Bill's comment. I have only taken on the role of spearheading these threads and making sure someone posts a photo each week, which I'm mostly trying to do in the order people have responded to the threads from the beginning of the project. I want it to be a communal effort and for their to be shared determination of where it goes, so I have no particular agenda regarding how each thread should proceed. I leave that to the OP and the members who participate. My only desire is to keep it photographic and interesting. No rules in particular and no expectations on how any particular thread will proceed.]</p>

<p>Knowing the context in PJ is obviously important and sometimes crucial to a better understanding of the message. For someone outside the USA and not following the event closely and without the background Bill mentions, the second photo, while a strong one, has a very different impact. I now understand its significance, but would not without the explanation.</p>

<p>The first photo works best for me because it is unusual and universal in message (not that an expression of grief is also that, but we have seen so many photos of grief-stricken persons that that often register mainly as that sort of reformulation of feelings but not unusual), we don't often see such a variety of spontaneous expressions that I think sum up in some manner the human condition and how the human can respond differently to an event.</p>

<p>The National Geographic photographer (Steve Curry) who photographed a poor Afghan girl with the green eyes made an impact on many without the need for an explanation, as we are led to be very curious as to who she is, what is the nature of the culture she belongs to, what is her life and her concerns, what was she thinking during the shot, given her penetrating expression, how unique is she (given her mysterious appearing yet beautiful eyes) within her own culture, what will be her future, and other questions. It is a specific form of quite impressive photojournalism that needs no caption, that interrogates the viewer and is like Bill's first photo, universal in its message. I believe that Curry re-encountered the girl in her later life (decades later) and that she showed many indications of having had a very difficult existence. Sad, in the context of her unsolicited and possibly unknown to her global recognition. But this is a postscripot to the original image. The photo of the soldier says a lot, but mainly I think if one is aware of the powerful context.</p>

<p>We are all living in a very regional context, despite the multiplicity of images and information that circulates the globe and that either supports our thoughts or detracts us from our purpose. What really speaks to me in terms of PJ photos without accompanying text seems to fall under two headings, one being a symbol or insight into the universal human condition, the other being those local or national cultural happenings of significance to me and which I can easily interact with. Photos with text is another category that can also be very rewarding.</p>