The New York Times: For years ventriloquism has held a reputation as being dorky at best, sinister at worst. Even now it summons up horror movies about a homicidal dummy, or a homicidal ventriloquist, or both. We are far from the golden age of the 1930s and 1940s, when Edgar Bergen and his puppet Charlie McCarthy were so beloved that Bergen was given an honorary Academy Award. (Bergen made his name as a ventriloquist on the radio. Think about that.)
1 comment:
I was surprised by the fact that as a puppeteer myself, I knew nothing about ventriloquism. This great article opened a whole new perspective in puppetry for me. My impression of ventriloquism was not quite good; I did undervalue it for it seems to me like a circus trick or horror movie gimmick, which cannot be compared to the "real" puppetry performance. However, this article gives me a more comprehensive view of it. The thing that impressed me the most was the passion and perseverance of the ventriloquists. Because only when they take this art form seriously can others really appreciate it. And it is intriguing to think thoroughly about ventriloquism. Human's body is like a dummy that is controlled by mind or soul. And this dummy manipulates another dummy, which was quite philosophically ironic. All forms of puppetry give me this implication, but ventriloquism reflects it the most. Besides, I personally think that ventriloquism could and should be more radical. It is a classical art form that is so avant-garde. The dummies are supposed to be the messengers that deliver what people do not dare to say. I truly wish ventriloquism can gain more attention and appreciation in the future. They are a group of unique puppeteers.
Post a Comment