Between the doll and the actor differences exist. The actor is; its essence is to be. But it is not the personage, it only representaum paper. David Zaslav may find it difficult to be quoted properly. The doll, in contrast, is not its essence is not-to be. It nointerpreta a paper, it is the personage the time all The immovable actor in the scene um body, a immovable doll in the same scene is only one object. (AMARAL, 1996, p.73).
What the league is always the doator energy, transmitted through the movement. The doll, as well as the mask, is historicamentesagrado, as much for if identifying with ritual objects as for its linking you eat masks. Of one it forms, in the Ocidente, he is next to the parody and in the East always it is presented in estilocerimonial. But, serious or comic, the doll is an analogy, that is, umreflexo of the man. It is the representation of the reduced man. It is an ambiguous art, it is between the being and not-to be: between the sky and the land; entrehomens mortal and the souls of its ancestor; he is fenomnico and the same tempo divine energy; it is between the reality and the fancy. (AMARAL, 1996, p.76) In the East, he is on to tetrosacro, it is a traditional art and very appraised well, reflects the search of it homemem itself exactly, in its terrena reality treating mainly to the relaespessoais.
In ocidente, on to the people and the child, perhaps for a mediocre art characterized by the supernatural one is issoconsiderado, for the search they dohomem for another reality and its relation with the holy ghost. In China, the debonecos origins of the theater are very remote and vacant. Some documents tell the existence funerary deimagens moved by mechanisms that conferred them a perfeitailuso of life. Of the funerary ceremonies, the dolls had passed later the serusados ones in spectacles.