Man of theatre

... And who puppeteers the big guy? :)

Good question... the industry or perhaps the really really big guy in the sky.

This is either a terrible picture of a good "man of theatre" or it's a good (editorially commenting) picture of a terrible "man of the theatre." The man draws all the attention to himself, making the puppet a sad, limp afterthought. Good theatre men disappear into their creation; they don't upstage it.

Excellent photo. It has a great sense of proportion and balance between humanity and the theater humans make. It has a sense of power and a heart-tugging sense of pleading. The contrasts of light and shadow, of scale, and of reality are stark and bold, and seem to come from the gut or at least hit me there. The way the light sculpts the puppeteer's face is a photographic artifice in itself, bearing a visual and narrative truth. The spotlight here is unmistakable . . . to me . . . and the puppet's diminutive physical presence can't overshadow (pun intended) his co-starring psychic presence. This is a photo, not a puppet show.

I'm not fond of the reverse vignette image edges but I love everything else about the photo.

 

The pleading expression of the puppet and the direct forward gaze of the puppeteer tell a dramatic tale.

 

The light is handled skillfully and supports the sense of drama. Nicely done.

The image is good; perhaps a little sinister; but given the title, we understand. I could do with a little more light on the face, but I think it is an excellent portrait in the truest sense, showing us the man, and what he does.

Thank you for the compliments and critiques.

There's at least one more element that contributes to the strength and drama of this image; I don't think anyone else has commented on this so far. Because of the predominant black area between the man and the puppet, the strings that control the puppet are invisible to the viewer. It's as if the man is guiding the puppet's movements by means of telekinesis. Fred, perhaps I got this idea from your using the term "psychic."

A strong image that sells the subject and pulls the curtain on the act to present the real actor. Personally I think I would enjoy seeing the puppet in full color. I like the concept.

The image was shot using a Rollei SL66 BW film was Agfa 120 400ASA. This was pushed half a stop and the print was processed in a double bath of dektol, the paper was Agfa multi grade.

I just enjoy the story and the fine black and white contrasts. Dramatic.

A very good b/w portrait of a puppet master.

I can see the strings clearly as they pass in front of the puppet. With the puppeteers hand directly above the puppet and the strings visible in front of the puppet the connection is evident without any "psychic" link.

Gordon, all I see is the string "control" which is slightly visible on the side of the puppeteer's hand, what I previously thought was an extraneous element - which possibly can be construed as the initial part of a string, and the strings in front of the puppet. Accordingly, I see no reason to retract or modify my initial comments.

LOL!

 

My use of the word "psychic" wasn't intended to have anything to do with a substitute connection (in lieu of strings) between puppet and puppeteer. And . . . it didn't have anything to with any kind of clairvoyance. I used "psychic" more benignly to mean "of the mind or human psyche." It was meant to contrast the puppet's strong expressive and visceral presence with his relative diminutive physical size compared to the puppeteer.

 

To rephrase the sentence without the use of the word "psychic": The focused spotlight and the puppet's strong pleading expression more than compensate for his diminutive physical size.

 

;-)

Michael I was not suggesting that you " retract or modify" your comment and I am at a loss as to where you got such a notion.

 

You stated that "the strings that control the puppet are invisible to the viewer. "

 

Given that I am a viewer and I can plainly see the strings, I thought I would add that observation to the discussion.

That age old clown Pierrot has stolen the show once again. Thank you for the comments, its interesting to read how and what people look at.

Once again a picture which relies on strange lighting and/or colouring for its impact; just like the past 20 or so POTWs. Is the man leaning over a small wall, or is he kneeling? The solid blackness does nothing to help this image, other than to create the god-like presence of the puppeteer. Please POTW judges, give us something more relateable that we can read into next time.

((Once again a picture which relies on strange lighting and/or colouring for its impact; just like the past 20 or so POTWs. Is the man leaning over a small wall, or is he kneeling? The solid blackness does nothing to help this image, other than to create the god-like presence of the puppeteer. Please POTW judges, give us something more relateable that we can read into next time.))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the use of black and white has a place. I also think it has become a kind of fetish to be different and artsy. Not that I do not use monochrome or enjoy it as I once did with Tri X and Rodinal. Yet I see in color and look for spacial clues and impact in color choice to register a feeling. It adds a dimension. So I agree that a little more variety, such as RBG would not be inappropriate as well. This is an interesting subject. Which could be nice if the puppet were colorful. I could be wrong natch.

The lighting is simple, Film Noir needs no further explanation, except I used the theatre of lighting to divid the image into its two stages... each character on their own stage, in their own world. Typical Film Noir technique. As for Pierrot, Black and White customer character, and its a BW series, colour is another medium.

 

But I am disappointed that someone would attack the judges for their efforts, and the work of some twenty weeks of submitted images, when I looked back I was impressed by the diversity and talent of that work... interesting that the people who make positive comments are the people who have the most talent, as I checked to see who was saying what, I was very impressed with the work of many many people.

Film noir Pierrot? LOL

Julie, H -- You are so mean,

LOL is really thin!

 

The work really is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and potential 'godly' menace of the grand-manipulator. Hence the author's apparently appropriate allusion to Film Noir. The stock clown pantomime character of Franco-Italian 'comedie' tradition is hard to miss. What is it that is so funny?

The 'upstaging' comment strikes as an atomistic bird-zoom take missing the boat entirely...

This photo is all about drama/histrionics, and there is no effort to hide that. A great example of a planned/staged setup that is executed with authority and confidence. I have to admire Raoul's skills at lighting and printing (take a look at his other works). The highlights on the conductor's face and shoulders hide more than they reveal. This brings me to the darkness separating the conductor and the puppet. This dark area, which will be frowned upon by some people, works well for me. It's this abysmal darkness that the manipulated puppet sees, when it looks upward. The darkness hides the strings that control it. The fist that rests on the table on the right suggests that this is really a show, not an act of God or the devil.

I am a little confused by the comment of Dale Mellor, who despite the apparent dislike of this image has actually made some sensible observations and asked a meaningful question. Yet, he thinks the only redeemable quality of the last 20 POWs is their 'strange' lighting and coloring, which I suppose he means black and white. Yes, I agree, a good part of the history of photography is dedicated to this 'strange' coloring, by people who were clearly delusional. Otherwise why stick to shades of grey when there are so many other colors in the universe. If the current image makes no sense, then I would respectfully advise to go through the others' comments who apparently found the image 'readable', and then come back and have a second look.

Giday Supriyo... much appreciated. Thank you

Igor... thank you man.