You are not Gibarian.
Ah, no? And who would I be? A dream of yours?
No. Their puppet. You just don't know.
And you, how do you know who you are?
Stanislaw Lem "Solaris", (1961)
First of all there are the shadows.
The anthropomorphic silhouettes of shadow theater.
They are not really shadows, even if they live thanks to the projected light, they are representations of men and animals and tell stories.
In any manual of the history of cinema, when we talk about the birth of the seventh art, we refer to three human activities that have allowed its discovery:
1 - Surely photography, from a technical point of view the camera is an evolution of the camera.
Naturally the film and the study of movement in Muybridge 's sequential shots and Marey
2 - Science, with the study of the persistence of the image, that is the defect of the human eye that stores the image and merges it with the next.
Without the correction of this defect, the eye would not be able to see the flow of the frames smoothly.
Here vita (from 1:16 you can see the effect), a visual example of what happens when the "shutter" corrects the error making the animation fluid.
When the structure rotates the eye "mixes" the images but when a black (in this case a stroboscopic light) interrupts the "persistence of the image" in the retina, the animation comes to life.
3 - The theater, generically as an "architectural structure" in which cinema came to life and specifically the shadow theater which has the same mechanism as cinema: a light projects the image on a screen.
Talking about puppets and cinema means going back to the beginnings, to a relationship that is not expressed only with the use or interpenetration of two techniques, it is a closer, almost “genetic” bond.
Starting from this assumption, I did not look for the presence of puppets in the cinema but for the trace, the inspiration, the gene that makes them perceive their presence even when they are not there.
Solaris, directed by Andrej Tarkovskij