Opening up Re-Enactment for Film Theory

In Megan Carrigy’s seminar titled, “Opening up Re-Enactment for Film Theory”, she drew attention to the ways that re-enactment is always caught between two agendas—the attempt at literal repetition and the need to foreground its theatrical, performative nature. She begins by discussing that the understanding of re-enactment thus far is a questionable and conventional form of historical representation that is typically associated with specific scenes in documentary films and biopic. She positions re-enactment as an umbrella term in that it captures the lineage of practices that stretches back to the 15 century and facilitates future cross-disciplinary work. She continues by proposing that the use of re-enactment has shifted from the historical understanding of literal re-enactments to focus more specifically on foregrounding the fact of a pre-existing event. Carrigy identifies this shift in re-conceptualising the term re-enactment happened in the 19^th century when mass reproduction technologies had a social and cultural impact on society.

Carrigy suggests that re-enactment has been largely overlooked in film debates and that its adaptation has been vital across media platforms, which is crucial in the development of film language such as continuity editing in narrative cinema. To support her argument, Carrigy initiate a comparison between early film work and contemporary television series CSI to bring light to the shifts in re-enactment. Early re-enactments were faithful duplications, facsimile reproductions and reconstituted news reels which consisted of techniques that were imperative to its shift into narrative cinema. These early form of re-enactment foregrounds the theatrical and performative nature of the content, staging the upstage, dramatising as a form of exhibitionism. In contemporary television series CSI, Carrigy suggests that the show exhibit the shift from the theatrical and performative mode of re-enactments to re-enactment as a point of reference and representations. She positions re-enactment within film theory debates of indexicality, arguing that re-enactment of the cinematic image in television series CSI acts as a form of cinematic metaphor through its computer generated special effects and also its 35mm stock and cinematic lighting techniques.

Re-enactments in film are now structured within a narrative to proof the indexical trace, it is built on this idea of the indexical trace and that every contact leaves a trace. In CSI, re-enactments occurs within the context of the diegetic world, it not only foregrounds the drama of the narrative, but also generate debates of the cinematic image such as, “is the indexical trace the only aspect of the image that can be considered indexical.” As mentioned in her title, “Opening up Re-Enactment for Film Theory”, what I believe Carrigy is suggesting that although the role of re-enactment was to be a theatrical and performative form of representing history, it is also crucial to film debates and the study of film theory. Re-enactment can now be seen as a cinematic metaphor in film theory, critiquing the rise of computer generated effects and the disappearing indexical image. In enabling this analysis, Carrigy draws on spectatorship theory, ontological debates of the indexical image and the historical representations of film.

Megan Carrigy - Opening up Re-enactment for Film Theory

Megan Carrigy’s seminar presentation entitled Opening up Re-enactment for Film Theory attempted to define re-enactment and its form of repetition, and to locate the concept within the spectrum of live performance. Carrigy identified her sphere of research as one which has been largely overlooked in contemporary film scholarship, in spite of the lineage of re-enactment based performance stretching back to the 15th century. Re-enactment also played an integral role in the emergence of primordial cinema, a point illustrated by Carrigy through turn of the century newsreels comprised of reconstituted footage of staged re-enactments of topical events such as the Spanish-American War, featuring rudimentary examples of techniques that would eventually become common parlance in filmmaking vernacular, such as continuity editing. Re-enactment has remained a prevalent mode of cinematic storytelling in features such as documentaries, biopics and history based narratives (war films, epics, ‘true stories’ etc), in conjunction with its existence outside the respective mediums of television and cinema in the form of battle commemorations and living history museums, continuing to play an key role in the perpetual evolution of the medium. As a device that “dramatizes documentary, and authenticates drama and fiction”, re-enactment constitutes something of a problem for historians who often struggle to reconcile historical accuracy with performance, even on occasions when the narrative makes the most earnest attempts to engender some sense of fidelity to the truth.

Carrigy concluded her discussion with an analysis of the re-enactments that appear in the television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The re-enactments that punctuate this series can be considered particularly unique in that they are predominantly speculative (based on the wounds of murder victims, the re-enactments attempt to elucidate what may have happened) further problematizing the inherent claims of validity espoused by all re-enactments, appear repeatedly throughout each episode in various forms and from various perspectives, and are also computer-generated. Through this discussion of re-enactment in the context of CSI, Carrigy raised the concept of indexicality, which refers to the so called ‘truth claim’ of photography and its capacity to accurately depict reality, and is a highly prevalent theme in the film theory debates regarding spectatorship in the work of theorists such as Andre Bazin. Though speculative re-enactments of events that likely never occured, Carrigy argues that the re-enacted cinematic images that appear in CSI leave their own indexical trace as a result of their repetition, an example of her attempts to shift the theoretical terrain surrounding re-enactment to a more referent-based focus. In this sense her study can be considered the development of a new theoretical approach to film studies, informed by aspects of film spectatorship and film history, as well as media and performance studies.

Noel Polk: Living Outside History

Noel Polk is an emeritus professor of English who specialises in the American novel.

The following is a response to a talk given by Polk at UNSW on the 28th of April 2010, where he presented readings and reflections on his 1997 autobiographical book titled “Outside the Southern Myth”.

In addition to contributing to the field of American literature studies to which Polk himself belongs, this presentation dealt with three main areas of theory, namely: history; identity; and knowledge. Polk used the subjective contingency of theories, concepts and language to reveal the diversity inherent in social reality.

History:

Polk understands history as what people proclaim to remember of the past. Thus, when Polk describes his ‘living outside of history’, what he is referring to are the grand historical narratives, such as the American Civil War, rather than the micro-histories that directly confront and affect him, such as the relationship with his father. This becomes apparent when reading a passage from his book that describes an emotionally charged, seemingly irrational encounter between him and his father which is initially told from Polk’s point-of-view as a youth. This first account is later tempered by reflection from an older, wiser, perspective from which Polk is able to intuit the causation behind his fathers behaviour by locating him in relation to the larger socio-historical contexts.

Identity:

As a youth Polk’s identity as a “Southerner” was based upon a geographical rather than historical understanding of the term. The young Polk responded empirically to his tangible and social environment: The small, out-of-the way town he grew up in (Picayune) did not memorialise the American Civil War with monuments, and his circle of family and friends did not overtly encourage slavery. That black students were segregated to their own school was encountered as a fact needless of being questioned.

Knoweldge:

W. B. Yeats famously declared that “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”. Polk attests to this, recognising that despite receiving tuition in history throughout his school career, the historically produced connotation of what it meant to be “Southern” did not occur to him till much later, after he had left Picayune and begun studying at University.

Polk’s presentation problematises ‘history’ as something both socially and materially negotiated, as well as something that is encountered and understood at a personalised, individual level. A disjoint may thus exist between ‘objective’ (macro/social) accounts of history, and those ‘subjectively’ (micro/personally) experienced.

As a function of myth, history tells us that being “Southern” means to be this or that way. It means to talk with ‘that’ accent, and to have ‘those’ attitudes and beliefs: It creates a mythic identity. Claiming to have ‘lived outside of history’ is a provocative statement. It implies a distinction between socially constructed and natural histories, where, to live outside of both means to have never existed at all. When Polk claimed to have lived ‘outside history’ he was referring to his youthful lack of understanding about the American Civil War, and later, the discord between the narratives and stereotypes of that mythic history, and his direct personal experiences. His subsequently difficulty in identifying with that history is evident; saying, “[it was] not my history. Not yet.” As Polk grew up and advanced his education he was eventually able to recognise that the mythologisation of the South “had always been my war”. And it was coming to terms with this that finally allowed Polk to personally reconcile the rift between he and his father, despite that his father had long since passed.

Living Outside History - Professor Noel Polk (28/4/10)

Professor Noel Polk delivered an account of his personal history. He discussed growing up in Picayune, a secluded town in Mississippi. Although this town lies in the Southern part of the United States of America, Polk never identified himself as Southern. Picayune is a small town on the outskirts of the woods. Not far up the highway were larger cities that had a deeply Southern heritage, such as New Orleans and Hattiesburg. However, Picayune not only offered a geographical distance from these locations of historically southern identification, but an ideological distance. For Noel Polk, the South was somewhere else. The events he learnt about in school history were fantastical stories that happened far from where he lived.

The main issue of Polk’s presentation was identity. He was framing his work by defining what it means to be a Southerner, and defying this by saying he was not Southern, despite his geographic location. Polk deals with issues of ethnography in this argument. In many cases, individuals can define themselves based on their origins. This will include geographical origins. He states that he can ‘perform’ Southern is asked, giving examples of stereotypical Southern traits and commonly Southern stories. Through his autobiographical work, Polk is able to challenge the assumptions of shared history and identity present in ethnographic theory.

Noel Polk’s studies have led him to an interest in Faulkner. Although he maintains many links with Faulkner’s texts, Polk also offers differing opinions. He brings up the viewpoint of Faulkner on deforestation. Faulkner sees deforestation as a demon destroyer and wasteful enterprise. Polk sees this differently. He notes that deforestation is a form of creation. Polk accounts for this viewpoint by discussing his upbringing. He mentions living close to the forest. When an area was logged, it would mean that the wood would be used to create. While Polk would not classify himself in some ways to his geographical identity, he would in other aspects of his life and views.

Polk has found that his peculiar sense of identification has given him an ability to see things for the first time. By doing this, he problematises identity. He depicts identity as crafting viewpoints and preconceiving opinions before they can be individually formed. The main example he uses throughout his discussion is the Southerner. Polk describes the pride of a Southerner and the defined history shared by this group. From this, Southern values are taught and learnt, disabling the capacity to view things with fresh eyes. Polk maintains this as being a major problem with identity and ethnography. Although it could apply to positive issues, it mainly raises negative problems such as racism.

Identity is a problem for Polk. Through his autobiographical account for his lack of Southern identification, moving away from Picayune and learning through a different perspective and his relationship with his father during his upbringing, he is able to deal with this issue in a personal and interesting way.

Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking the Storm in King Lear/ Jennifer Hamilton

"The field of enquiry that analyzes and promotes works of art which raise moral questions about human interactions with nature, while also motivating audiences to live within a limit that will be binding over generations"[i]

Eco criticism is the study of literature and environment. Jennifer Hamilton in her focus; Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking the Storm in King Lear uses theories of eco criticism from an interdisciplinary aspect, where literature, film, theatre and actual events come together to be analysed. By analysing the storm in Lear Hamilton suggests a ‘green reading’ of texts where we might be able to brainstorm possible solutions for correcting contemporary environmental adversity.

Using ecological values as one would class, gender, race etc. Hamilton also uses Sarah Kane’s Blast to apply theories of eco criticism, using the event of the explosion in Blast to qualify the significance of the storm in Lear where the ‘blast’ in the text remakes the social ecology of the play, much like the effect the storm in Lear has on the play.

Hamilton in this discussion highlights the event as not a thing and hopes that through its transformation under this theoretical world view it points, reflects, represents something else. Hamilton says; “The fact the event was a storm is arbitrary, the importance is the effect it has on Lear.” It is noted here that in Lear perhaps the storm itself is a chatacter.

To better analyse Lear’s storm Hamilton presents contrasts in different staging’s of the text, noting how its metaphoric significance shifts whether translated through the medium of film or theatre, where literal opposes metaphoric interpretations e.g. Peter Brook 1962 Lear vs. Bell Shakespeare’s most recent attempt to stage Lear. This is a meeting between how it is staged and how it is read.

Hamilton references accounting for the complexities of the storm and contributing accounting for the natural and cultural, offering Donna Harraway as a theoretical standing point emphasising a need to review nature and texts about nature and the environment in a new eco sensitive light; “We must find another relation to nature besides reification, possession, appropriation and nostalgia.” Here narrative and nature are learning to think transversally.

Psychoanalytic and Actor Network Theories are also ways Hamilton suggests reading her texts. Actor/Network enables Hamilton to view the storm as an actant and event giving sight to solid and fluid presence in her texts. Psychoanalysis allows for approaches to the public/private spheres, the politics of the family estate and the gravity of empiricism in the many different readings of eco theories.

Hamilton utilizes Judith Butler’s reading of Antigone to explain subjective and social frames in the text and also in the framework of eco criticism. Hamilton argues the need to be able to move between senses proposing the irrational worldviews of the plays is made rational by the seasonal changes i.e. explosion/storm.

Harnessing eco criticism as a tool to unpack texts is revealing of the need for theory to politicize its objects, subject and audience at once. Through the application of eco criticism to Lear’s storm Hamilton has given new methods for approaching classical and contemporary texts; where readings might reflect theoretical sensitivities in the hope to birth actualized change.

---

[i] Gomides, Camilo. 'Putting a New Definition of Ecocriticism to the Test: The Case of The Burning Season, a film (mal)Adaptation". ISLE 13.1 (2006): 13-23.

this is not a joke

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?"
-Erickson, 2002, p269

Seminar Response - “Opening up the re-enactment for film theory” - Megan Carrigy

Megan Carrigy is a PhD student at the School of English, Media and Performing Arts at the University of New South Wales.

Megan Carrigy discussed the issue of opening up the realm of re-enactment in cinema for greater acceptance by film theorists and within the film studies discourse.

Carrigy described re-enactment as being commonplace in film theory, only within the realm of historical reinterpretation. She explained that in the mind of the critic, film re-enactment took place in individual scenes rather than being afforded its own genre. To the critic, film re-enactment authenticated dramas and fiction, and dramatised documentaries. Carrigy cited David Roddick as describing film re-enactment as “cinematic metaphor” which she argued was an apt description of the thematic device.

Carrigy argued that film re-enactment was more than just a filler injected in to authenticate the delusional fantasies of the writer or to bring home the truth about the past. Instead she argued that film re-enactment was a legitimate genre and theatrical form, characterised by a self-reflexive, performative strategy.

Carrigy then introduced the history of the genre and discussed the idea of early film re-enactments in the period from1898 to 1907. This was a period of vast improvements in both skill and technology, which resulted in an increase in film production. This time period saw an increase in the number of documentaries, topical films and biopics; many of which were on the subject of the Spanish American War which called for a mass demand in film topicality. The need for the masses to see the gore and horrific nature of war re-enacted, was echoed in Carrigy' citing of Tom Gunning's theory of a 'cinema of attraction', wherein the viewer wishes to see that which attracted them in the first place – the hyperreal re-enactment of the horrific nature of the subject.

Carrigy's seminar was framed around the question of theatricality and reference in the genre of film re-enactment and was structured by her comparative case study on a modern depiction of film re-enactment in the realm of television realism – the indexical inter-object trace in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000-present). Carrigy discussed the re-enactments played out within the contexts of the diegetic world of the television series, with particular emphasis on the indexical trace between objects that afford a forced direction on the viewer. She argued that it displayed a sense of 'ultra-realism' and was pivotal to the narrative of the drama. Carrigy argued that this displayed a sense of cinematic metaphor; of cinema and spectacle – an idea at the basis of film re-enactment.

Carrigy concluded her seminar by restating the importance of film re-enactment within contemporary cinema, with the possibility of opening it up as a legitimate genre within film theory and history.

Cinema of Attraction – Tom Gunning

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000 - present)

Seminar Response - “Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking the storm in King Lear” – Jennifer Hamilton

Jennifer Hamilton is a PhD student at the School of English, Media and Performing Arts at the University of New South Wales.


Jennifer Hamilton discussed the aspect of storms as being seen as strong narrative leads rather than the emotion-augmenting metaphors they are usually perceived as. She structured her seminar around her central text King Lear; the comparison between Lear and other relevant texts; and the constant question of the addressing of the storm in scholarly discourse.

Hamilton purported the theory of nature in Lear, which is represented by the storm, as holding a stronger significance within the narrative than traditionally discussed, because the storm is imperative to the cultural ecology of the drama. Citing Donna Harraway and Felix Guattari, she put forward the idea of a cosmic ecology; one which is understood as nature being integrated with the drama's culture. Hamilton framed part of her discussion around the misrepresentation of the storm in productions of King Lear. She argued that the metaphoric function of the storm is given importance in productions over the idea that the storm functions strongly as a communicative device in the play.

Hamilton's key comparative text in her research is Sarah Kane's Blasted, a re-imagining of the themes and forces in King Lear, and the publication of which she purported to be a formative moment in theatrical history. Hamilton described the blast as remaking the social ecology of the play. She likened the aspect of the blast to the aspect of the storm in Lear, arguing that the storm should be given the same level of importance in scholarly dissertations. She rgued that the storm echoes pivotal themes in Lear such as the need for shelter and the division of the kingdom; and like the blast in Blasted, offers a new perspective on reality and like Blasted's aspect of the rain, provides the drama with an environmental score.

Hamilton also made the comparison to Judith Butler's Antigone's Claim, which displays the storm as a strong motif signifying emotive actions. Hamilton argued that the storm in Antigone's Claim and the the blast in Blasted, show a synesthetic viewing of the world; and how the aspects of the storm and cosmic ecology being viewed as metastates in the dramas should not be ignored.
Hamilton concluded by restating the idea of the storm being more central to the evolution of the drama than previously observed. She argued that storm allowed for the characters' liberation – from themselves and from their own consciousness.



King Lear – William Shakespeare

Blasted - Sarah Kane

Antigone's Claim – Judith Butler

Megan Carrigy - Opening up the re-enactment for film theory

The seminar Opening up the Re-enactment for film theory saw Megan Carrigy argue that, the object of the re-enactment could and should be used as a theory itself. Carrigy used theory to identify the object with which she was working, to critique it in a broader academic context and to apply her object as a theory itself. To identify and outline the re-enactment as an object of study she drew on the optic of both history and performance studies. In a historical context the object was argued to be a dubious and banal form of investigation. Its theatrical qualities were seen as threatening the re-enactments historical validity. In a performative context the object was regarded more highly in terms of its potential for research. It is from this context that a working definition for the term was established. This theory understood the object in relation to the concept of mimesis. It was argued to be an act that had a goal to perform again and to reproduce with theatricality at its core. The objects definition in this performative context was extended to consider how ‘staged accidents’ and the ‘appearance of the real’ were techniques through which the drama can be seen as authentic. Despite the fact that Carrigy’s goal was to engage with film theory she argued that theories of history and performance were required to understand the re-enactment as an object of study.

In order to appreciate this object and its impact in a broader academic context she placed this definition in the context of media and film studies. Theories that investigated areas such as repetition and difference were raised to consider the impact of ‘mimesis’ in film. The concepts of reproducibility and mass production were used to introduce a case study of one of the first films produced. The film was argued to be constructed similar to a news broadcast in the sense that it implied to its audience that it was an ‘authentic copy’ of an event that had occurred elsewhere. Once again the theory of mimesis finds relevance in her enquiry. At this point Carrigy felt the need to encounter the theories concerning simulation and simulacra. She did not draw on these to argue her case but rather distinguish it from more contemporary notions of copy. She did so to establish that the re-enactment was an object that was subject to flaw and degradation and was argued to be very different to simulation. Theory in this case was used to justify her research through contrasting it with similar areas of study as well as distinguishing its difference.

To return to my initial claim Carrigy was asserting that this object should be viewed as a theory to engage with film theory. CSI was introduced to provide a metaphor to understand this argument (introduced with an appreciation of the irony of using an object of television to understand film). In the series CSI the agents of investigation find traces on bodies to help them create a re-enactment. These traces were used as a bridge to link to the technology of indexing frames in film production (I must admit the film vernacular used here in terms of technical production did go over my head). The traces on the body and the traces of frame indexing were seen as imprints, perhaps analogue imprints, that through the gaze of an agent could generate an authentic re-enactment. This object was authenticated through the use of performance theory. Theories of production and reproducibility were used to ground it in the area of film theory. Through critiquing these theories and finding a middle ground somewhere between the study of film, performance and media Carrigy asserts that the re-enactment as an object can be used as a theory to further investigate the discipline of film theory. For Carrigy theory was a tool to define, to critique and a form through which she provided a model for further research.

Symposium Reflections

After a semester long attending research seminars, the EMPA Honours students were presented with an opportunity to let their research shine. Stumbling in out of the rain the theatre almost appeared bare as the drop out rate became apparent. Without trying to create a divide the English students perched themselves to the right as the Media and Performing Arts students casually collected the back row. A move to integrate initiated on day two failed as the English students opted for safer terrain with their compatriots.

Klara opened the seminar and her casual performance made the whole process look less daunting but her carefully structured thesis outline on masculinities in Latvian film left a few of us worried – Had we done enough?

Noni’s Marxist performance left us with little desire for the sugary goodness Coke provides, presenting an oppositional approach to Coke’s image. The stunning red dress, the colour of Coke, was in opposition as she sat alone, flat, unanimated and depressed.

Nick’s stimulus and response presentation investigated the feedback system of interactive performance. The sensorial experience toyed with the idea of birth – the birth of the cyborg.

Heroin addiction is a mixed bag of extreme elation and catastrophic lows and Milana investigated this experience on screen. Like the drug the screen image is attractive for some and spectatorship becomes paramount in her investigation.

Sarah-Jane’s gendering loss on screen presented the fall of the woman as she relinquishes her child and the differences in representation for the man.

Patrick and the acousmatic gave sound a voice in film where the image has nearly always been privileged. The existence of a being or monster is played out through sound without ever actually having appeared on screen.

Rodney and his political cartoons opened up a can of worms for the audience trying to understand the relationship between power and control, and war time propaganda. Disney profiteering from a cause he never believed in is a story worth telling.

Zabrina got our toes tapping with her presentation on the rise of the musical television series Glee. A highly interactive television series, Glee proposes a neat case study on the effects of digital consumerism.

Emma Maye delighted us with her feminist performance on gendered violence. Highly entertaining, drawing on modes of performance such as Vaudeville, the representation resonated with the atrocities of recent female gang rape by footballers.

Darren shifted our attention with the small shifts in media ecologies. He presented us with actor-network theory suggesting the slight technological changes are just as, if not more, important to theorize as the large ones.

Following on, Andrew presented the implications for anonymity amongst Internet users. The pros and cons of remaining anonymous on the Internet are highlighted by the glory of wanting to be identified when the anonymous impacts the world. These are the many contradictions of the growing media environment.

Jessica’s light in urban space presentation accounted for light as a precious substance which is taken for granted in public urban space. The proposed case study on Vivid Sydney presents an interesting investigation as the protest against the festival layers politics over art.

Recurring media panics are the crux of Anushka’s argument, determining how the media and the public perpetuate panic on the Internet.

Kyle lightened the day with his comical imagery of the traditional gamer and presented the theatre with the new exergamer – the convergence of the gamer and the exerciser. Kyle investigates how the Wii Fit is changing the gamer’s future and fighting the obesity epidemic.

Katie’s exploration of love and faith highlights the complexities of the modern world with the varied religions and spiritualities that occupy our planet. Can the notion of love know no bounds when it comes to crossing paths with faith? Are we blinded by the illusion of love?

As Katie left a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts it was time for me to present the importance of theorizing distribution for the Australian film industry.

And then our task was done.

The symposium presented an interesting two days where the crossover between the coursework classes became apparent. Attending those research seminars really did pay off – not just in terms of trying to decipher theory but also for presentation techniques. I can’t help but wonder what the English students were doing while we toddled off to seminars after a hard days work?

Opening Up Re-enactment for Film Theory - Megan Carrigy

When Megan Carrigy presented her seminar on Opening up Re-enactment for Film Theory, she considered the re-enactment as a self-reflexive performance of reference. This notion is interesting in its acknowledgement of the staged re-construction and its historical viability in presentation. Carrigy explored the dynamics of reproduction whilst also examining the techniques of film re-enactments, as they have since been adopted and integrated as norms of narrative cinema. In essence, Carrigy’s seminar sought to elucidate her research approach by introducing a strategic positioning of the re-enactment through its operation in the past and governing lineage, and the progression that has secured its place in the contemporary cinematic sphere. This progression has since seen the re-enactment encompass validation of indexicality, as she suggested through the example of CSI, whilst presenting the form as an act of drawing attention to re-enactment.

Although re-enactment has been heavily presented as a naïve form, it is the techniques that were pioneered in film re-enactment that paved a successful path for narrative cinema. With reference to Mary Ann Doane, Carrigy gave the example of continuity editing where the temporal necessity of concealing cuts in the re-enactment was then able to cross over in delivering a seamless, more real sense of the narrative.

Historically, the re-enactment served to draw people closer to action that they otherwise would not have exposure to. As Carrigy suggested, re-enactment serves to dramatise and explicate a more real experience, regardless of the content’s validity. She spoke of these concepts in considering the early film re-enactments from 1898-1907 particularly in regards to the war and the reconstituted newsreels that delivered a sense of action and immediacy to the home front. With these earlier film re-enactments bearing an unapologetic representation of a skewed or embellished truth, Carrigy’s research saw the consumption of re-enactment aligning with Tom Gunning’s ‘cinema of attractions.’ The exhibitionism of foregrounding drama in the ‘real’ therefore attracts its audience not only by its topicality, but primarily through the techniques employed to tease out spectatorial engagement.

As Carrigy suggested initially, art theory and performance studies have presided over the development of the re-enactment across time. Artists have staged their re-constructions of events or elements of history, and these representations have found performance in multiple capacities, some including live history performances, tourism features, commemorative ceremonies, biopics and reality television. The performative value of re-enactment has, however, proved problematic in terms of the factual value for historians. The place of tradition and question of truth has been inclined to prolong this tension, although historians in contemporary contexts are tending to recognise their value on a number of levels and as a means by which their research can possibly be informed. A struggle remains in defining what exactly the re-enactment is and its associated etymology, but the acknowledgement of re-enactment as performance of pre-existing events has signalled the form sans a denial of theatricality. That said, Carrigy also acknowledged the tension of re-enactment in its position between two agendas: the foregrounding of theatricality and repetition in representation.

Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking the storm in King Lear

Jennifer Hamilton is a PHD student exploring the use of storms as a narrative device in Shakespeare. In this seminar Hamilton gives examples of her work by using King Lear and Sarah Kane’s 1995 play Blasted. She utilises Speech Act Theory and Ecocriticism and tries to explain the way the storm is treated as a metaphoric significant within a narrative. Speech Act Theory argues that the words we speak are not merely words. It seeks to find the connections between the words being used and the nature of how they are being spoken. The meaning of the spoken expressions can be explained in terms of the rules governing their use in performing various speech acts. She states the poetic function of a storm has come to the point of cliché and can tend towards being arbitrary rather than integral. Hamilton gives a close reading of King Lear to investigate the way Lear’s experience of the storm’s chaos is acted out through the narrative structure of the play.
Certain King Lear Adaptations tend to focus on specific Shakespearean ecologies. The use of the storm in King Lear adaptations will often take on either a literal or a metaphoric use. Traditional studies of King Lear tend to use a Pathetic Fallacy in the analysis of the storm (pathetic in this context meaning capable of feeling) by reflecting Lear’s mood into an inanimate object whereas Hamilton is trying to look at the storm as an “object rather than a thing.
She also uses Blasted to show the relationship between a meterological metaphor and the structure of a narrative. After the first and second scenes set in a hotel in Leeds the set is literally blasted apart to reform in a Bosnian warzone as the sound of summer rain is heard in the background. At the end of each subsequent scene the sound of spring, autumn and winter rain is heard. Hamilton argues that Kane is evoking a “broader environmental ecology” at the end of each scene. A way of soothing the pain from the intense subject matter.
Broadly put Ecocriticism is reading texts from an environmental viewpoint. Ecocriticism looks at the underlying ecological values within a given text and the way nature or the environment is uses in either a literal or metaphoric sense. Hamilton’s work is searching for an ecological understanding and in the case of King Lear how the storm is structured in order to provide a particular narrative. It is not only taking the obvious example of Lear’s descent into madness connected with the storm but also the way certain speech acts within the play are connected to the role of the storm. Whilst she does see the storm as an event she is taking some minor ideas from Actor Network Theory by placing agency in the non human of the storm.
In other work Hamilton explores the discourse of climate change and how it changes poetic representation in relation to the weather. She uses her literary background to engage with people from scientific and engineering backgrounds in order to greater a greater discourse surround the issues of climate change and how that can relate back to the specific fields of science, technology and the arts.

Richard Smith – Space and Action and the Anterior Field

Dr. Richard Smith (University of Sydney) investigated the temporal and spacial nature of film by utilising Billy Wilder’s 1945 film “The Lost Weekend”. Smith argues that Wilder placed heavy importance of action and the mechanics of the actor within and outside the anterior field. The way Wilder constructs his shots allows the main character Don Birnam to interact with the time and space and Wilder adopts a comic nature towards action in the film. Birnam is both a writer who drinks and a drinker who writes and Smith argues that Wilder locaters the action within this writer/drinker relationship.
Smith showed the opening scene to demonstrate these ideas. In it we can see the disequilibrium between hand and face. Birnam’s hands are reaching outside the anterior field and his hand is calling for the bottle of rum he craves. Instead of thinking with his fingers, his fingers are outside his thinking. This particular division generates the montage for the entire film. The imposture within the opening scene is carried on throughout. Smith argues that the very first show we see of Birnam the action being played out emphasises the constant battle between drinker and writer.

This movement of the hands and movement of the lips is a total automation of the face and body emphasising the auto. The Lost Weekend stands outside the classic paradigm of American action cinema because the in The Lost Weekend action is falsification.
Richard Smith uses studies on the Anterior Field to see the nature of the temporal paradox within the Lost Weekend. This is a movie that is full of conflicts, parallel divisions and infinite loops. The action never restores identity. Don Birnam is a writer who keeps forgetting he is a drinker and a drinker who keeps remembering he is a writer. However we never see much writing or drinking within the film. We only ever see Birnam wanting a drink or having had a drink. This plays out as a temporal paradox. Once the drinker features the screen fades to black and we wake to the face of the writer who wakes lost in time. Action never restores identity. The action of bringing the hand to the lips becomes its own form of writing that needs no typewriter. Birnam the writer is only a writer when he is drinking and Birnam the drinker is only a drinker when he is writing. Smith calls this constant conflict between Birnam’s two minds or personas a “geometry of the false”. The more the images divide, the more they unify. This is a “reconciliation of opposites”. The different don’s are like different gestures which are then reflected on to different sets of actions. This is most apparent in the opening scene where we view Birnam packing his suitcase for a holiday. His hands are focused on the clothes in front of him while his eyes are staring past the camera to the bottle of rum that is hanging outside the window.

EMPA SEMINAR -

Jennifer Hamilton

Cosmic Ecology: rethinking the storm in King Lear

500 word response

Jennifer Hamilton seems to still be teasing out the way she will be framing her PhD object, the storm in King Lear. During the seminar she referred to various theories that she was using to look at the storm as an event rather than a thing. The first theory to be mentioned was speech act theory that she is using to explore the events leading up to the storm in Lear. She described Cordelia’s reply to her father “Nothing my Lord” as an illocutionary act[1]. The intent or illocutionary force[2] behind those words was that that led to the rearrangement of Lear’s kingdom and thus consequently the turmoil, the storm that followed his decision.

Another theory used by Hamilton is performance theory, using it to analyse and write about how the storm is staged and how to understand its theatrical meaning. She briefly mentioned various productions of King Lear and how each director had had his or her own interpretation of how the storm should be represented, going into finer detail of Bell Shakespeare’s production where the actor playing Lear was made to walk as if he was in the middle of a ferocious storm.

Dramatic ecology was the next theory to be mentioned which is the theory of embedding the natural and cultural together. However she spoke of how sometimes this can lead to “green” readings of texts which she wanted to avoid such as the “green” reading that the storm was mother nature taking revenge on western society. To try and avoid this she said she found Felix Guattari’s work 3 Ecologies extremely helpful. In this work Guattari states that now more than ever nature cannot be separated from culture that we had to start thinking transversally. Hamilton has then applied this concept to her work thinking about how the storm (nature) and the people (culture) in the play are inextricably linked, that they exist transversally; each is present and affects each other’s worlds.

A theory that may be taken up in the future by Hamilton is the actor network theory. This assumption is made due to her excitement when Stephen Meucke suggested this theory as a way of looking at the storm as an ‘actor’ in its own right, as something whose ‘competence is deduced from its performance’.[3] This way of looking at the storm perhaps will bring the storm out of the pages of Shakespeare’s text and bring life to it, looking at every performance as a development of its existence; how has the storm performed through the ages impacting on the lives of the characters? Perhaps as well she could engage in the writing way suggested by Meucke. Instead of interpreting the world she could write as if she and the world are co-becoming[4], which seems to fit in quite well with the dramatic ecology theory encouraging to think transversally. However approaching the storm as an ‘actant’ may make it a thing rather than event. It did seem, however, that she had not yet completely clarified her understanding of the difference between a thing and an event. Perhaps she should read Latour’s ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’ to help her come to some concrete decisions on their differences.

---

[1] ‘Speech Act Theory’, Changing Minds. Org, viewed 18^th May 2010, http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/speech_act.htm

[2] ibid.

[3] Muecke, S, ‘Beyond Actor Network Theory: Latour and Political Ecology’, Lecture Notes, Wednesday April 14^th 2010.

[4] Ibid.

Cosmic Ecology – Jennifer Hamilton

In her paper, Cosmic Ecology: Rethinking The Storm in King Lear, Jennifer Hamilton argues that the storm in King Lear acts as a dramatic device that results in a literal ecology within the Shakespearean text. It is the generation of this ecology that accounts for the structural principles of the narrative. By employing an eco-critical methodology, Hamilton is able to treat characters in the play as being part of a complex ecology, establishing a cultural ecology of the drama. She wishes to draw the idea of the storm away from a metaphor that focuses around the inner turmoil of the character King Lear. Even though the character of Lear does attract the audiences’ main attention Hamilton argues that the storm is autonomous from this. To further exemplify the power of the storm, an analysis into the play Blast by Sarah Kane - drawing comparisons between the scene altering blast and the storm as an event that causes change. Furthermore, both events are explored by as an encouragement to use more than just visual senses as both the storm and the blast are blinding. Hamilton argues that in order to understand the social and ecological one must use other senses beyond the visual, incorporating touch, taste and even smell.

Using an ecological perspective allows for an analysis of the relationship between cultural and nature. As Felix Guattari states, “now more than ever, nature cannot be separated from culture”. In saying that, a hybridity of nature and cultural has not develop, but rather a system of networked relations between the two. Both co-exist in an ecology. It is this perspective that Hamilton’s paper attempts to generate. The storm exists with in the narrative ecology of King Lear and co-exists with the other characters.

An interesting comment made after the paper was delivered was the comparison between Hamilton’s eco-critical approach and actor-network theory. With this is mind it is possible to view the storm as a non-human actor, co-existing with other actants with in the network of the narrative. Viewing Hamilton’s argument this way means that the storm and its relation to the actors does not focus on the storm as part of nature, or even the actors as human. This is not the hierarchy that Hamilton wishes to prescribe to. Rather, the storm in relation to others can be viewed in relationships that are stronger or weaker than others. Knowing this it makes much more sense to see the interactions between Lear and the storm as the focal point of Hamilton’s discussion. However, Hamilton does mention other players in King Lear, such as Cordelia, her avowing to ‘nothing’ and the representations of this through the storm. Furthermore, the creating of such a network means that the way that each participating string relate needs to be re-established and reproduce in a new network. This relates to what Hamilton mentioned about how the storm is staged in different presentations – from a grey backdrop with a Lear practicing mimicry or a more literately filmic representation with an emphasis on the storm as a physical force of nature. Viewing the storm this way, means that it can be read as a single event, or rather participant in the play, that is able to modify the way the play is read through it’s relation to the other participants of King Lear.

Jennifer Hamilton and Ecocriticism

In her lecture “Cosmic Ecology; Rethinking the Storm in King Lear” Jennifer Hamilton outlined her use of ecocriticism as her critical reading practise. Hamilton’s lecture focused on Shakespeare’s King Lear and Blasted, a reinterpretation of King Lear by Sarah Kane. Ecocriticism is concerned with the relationship between eco systems and society, nature and culture. Using ecocritical methodology Hamilton explores what she refers to as “the dramatic ecology” of King Lear. Quoting Barker to justify her use of eco criticism she stated that the storm in King Lear is not incidental but an integral aspect of the play’s makeup.

Ecocriticism is not to be confused with a “green” reading practise. Green readings tend to focus conflict between nature and humanity; a traditional green reading of King Lear would conclude that the storm is nature taking its revenge on humanity. Ecocriticism does not focus on a hierarchy or power play; rather it explores how the natural world and humanity influence each other. When reading King Lear Hamilton examines the impact the storm has on the human subjects. Hamilton said that a level of “ critical synesthesia” is required to engage with eco criticism. Hamilton focuses on the physical sensations of being in a storm. As blindness is a feature of the storm scene Hamilton explores the other sensations a storm can provoke in humans and considers how these influence the dramatic arc of the scene.

In an ecocritical reading of a play, references to the natural world are not read as being background information for the audience or directorial suggestions. The natural world becomes an integral feature of a play’s narrative. Hamilton gave the use of rain in Blasted as an example of an ecocritical interpretation of a stage direction. In Blasted the scenes end with descriptions of seasonal rain, for example “ spring rain’. In an ecocritical reading, the sound of rain is not merely background information for the audience. The story line of Blasted is erratic, making unrealistic jumps in place and time. The rain positions the dramatic action in space and time. Hamilton argues that the sound of rain provides a counterweight to the irrational story line by contrasting it with the ‘rational cyclical natural world”. The sound of rain makes the fantastic believable.

Early in her lecture Hamilton quoted Donna Haraway, who called for artists to find a new way of representing nature and humanity, one which does not show the two as being in opposition. Ecocriticism answers this call by considering the constantly shifting interactions between humans and their environments. Ecocriticism focuses on the agency of the natural world, thus the storm in King Lear or the rain in Blasted are not supplements to the dramatic action but dramatic actions in their own right, one audience member suggested that ecocriticism casts the storm in King Lear as an independent character. The strength of ecocriticism lies in its ability to shift nature from being an object to a subject allowing the critic to give the same level of attention to the complexities and contradictions of nature as they do to humanity.

Why Feminism Matters: Laughing At What Is Ridiculous, Not Laughing At What Is Not

Arts Matters Forum: WHY FEMINISM MATTERS

Monday 22^nd March 2010 6:30pm Seymour Centre/ York Theatre

If there is one thing I came away with from attending this lecture, it is that the importance of feminisms is ever increasing and reclamation of the word is dire. This panel, made up of 5 leading international political scientists along with Australian academics and researchers, sought to discuss the state of contemporary feminism. With focus on; How far women have come in terms of political leadership and shaping the public policy agenda? Do men and women do politics differently? Do women have different interests to men and how should these be incorporated into political decision-making? How might contemporary feminism contribute to improving women’s position in politics?

The forum discussed the hopes and responsibilities of a new generation of feminists. Examples were made of Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin of who were criticized for their lack of feminist progression in their political careers. It was important for these characters to emerge as it gave light to feminism and its goal in shaping political agenda. Issues of legitimacy, women’s presence in powerful institutions and symbolically in politics were brought to air as each panel member took turns in staking their claims and history as feminists. Here there was a re-reading of the invisibility of women and the necessity of a new gender discourse that is inclusive and not limited to the academic world. With this new discourse, it was suggested; the ideas of today’s society can be brought into the community.

American panel member Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Professor of American Studies and Government at Cornell University introduced the idea of American Exceptionalism, taking a Materialist Feminist worldview on feminsms battle with capitalism where “the market rules”. Here the problem of the commodification of female sexuality was discussed putting emphasis on ‘supporting a punitive response to violence against women.’ Katzenstein is hopeful stating; “…despite its problems, feminism is active…. there’s real power in feminism in the states.”

In the UK, apparently, signs are very mixed. There is a resurgence featuring a lot of cyber activity suggesting the ‘green shoots’ of feminism. Women’s representation is ‘good’ across the board with UK women ‘feminsing their partners.’ Su Goodwin, senior lecturer in the Faculty of Social Work and Education at the University of Sydney insists that we still have gendered divisions and gender divided workforces. Goodwin explains gendered ordering, where the masculine is valued over the feminine. Goodwin suggests maybe trying to think of the ‘over representation of men instead of the under representation of women.’ She goes on to add that ‘instead of having women in leadership courses we should have men doing mediocrity courses.’ Goodwin also reaffirms the need for institutional change, a point I had previously not considered, but have realised this is where the big changes need to happen. This realization has shifted my own creative and theoretical focus as a feminist.

Rebecca Huntley is an Australian writer and social researcher. Her input was most theoretically progressive. She believes we have made progress and highlights the need to reflect on where we’ve come from and use it as strength for the future. One panel member remembers Helen Reddies ‘I am woman’ because “Her mother would sing it whilst doing the vaccumming.”

She points out unrecognized class separation and an obsession with what women look like. She also points to a need to recognize the gay community and work on changing absurd inequality that exists within its viewing, highlighting the relationship to queer theory and feminism.

Huntley believes we must be fighting at a local level and that ‘not everyone is a feminist now.’ As a spectator I am enlightened and reminded about placing feminism in a political sphere that isn’t just about gender. Huntley argues for progressive behaviours where we reject the media’s definition of feminism. She carefully silences non-believers in the crowd and suggests that you are not labelling yourself by being feminist, but seeing yourself as part of a cultural phenomenon. Here, we question how we might mobilize so institutional figureheads are forced to make changes. The forum was also a great mechanism for realizing the importance of a higher prominence of feminist politics in education. Where feminism is active and accurately taught, not just represented in a misleading, demonizing stereotyped manner, which happened to be my educational experience of the ideology.

Questions of how to empower yourself daily in the absence of autonomy, where we might as a community of feminists, infiltrate all avenues for change. The forum encouraged spectators to think very broadly about what feminism means and how to keep making it work in a conservative repressive era. Combating the masculine backlash to feminism and asking what equality really means?

Panel members insisted that we must continue to ask awkward questions, to speak unspeakable truths and realise, though, it manifests through the responsible individual, problems are systemic. Harnessing the power of words and the continual questioning of an apparent democracy can make obvious that women’s issues are the issues of society as a whole and citizens have a responsibility. In Australia, the claim was made that; women are not recognized as full citizens.

Huntley adds ‘We must laugh at what is ridiculous and not laugh at what is not.’ Feminism has to navigate a way to make people accountable for their actions at the same time as changing the mechanism that is allowing prejudice to continue. Perhaps what becomes clear about the theory of feminisms, through this forum that placed the theory within a larger scale of theories; globalization, industrialization, capitalism etc, is that now, we must claim feminism and all of it’s history, conflicting and all, to reclaim it’s universal objectives of equality and freedom.

Response to Life Experience & Noel Polk (Noni's Post)

I was unable to attend Noel Polk's lecture on "Living Outside of History," but on reading Noni's post (thank you Noni!) I started to consider more of the notions of life experience as it translates to critical theory. As Noni said of Polk's approach to theory, "It was a way of drawing out the very complex issues that arise out of everyday life," and this took me back to a seminar I saw recently from screenwriter, producer and executive producer Andrew Knight at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. Although this was more of an industry practice seminar rather than an intended theoretical approach to practice, it has resonated in a very interesting way with the Noel Polk to show life experience through history and narrative in a kind of dialogue with one another.

Knight's career has spanned over the past 30+ years and in this lecture, he spoke of his craft and approach to practice as it pertains to the dynamics of the Australian context and the industry that this context nurtures. Just as Polk explored social identity, Knight too highlighted social factors and issues of identity as narrative material in telling Australian stories. With this in mind, life experience has always been Knight's approach to writing and rationalism has driven his approach to creativity. This was quite clearly evident in the way that he conducted himself throughout his speaking, as it is the everyday that inspires and has the ability to entrance. "As a writer, you need to remain close with people, your community...remain with the world outside your head." It's about finding characters in real life that can translate to flesh on the page. These notions of rational and realist derivations have spurred Knight's creative practice, and successfully so. In the context of the Australian industry, however, he noted a sense of pandering to America for validation.

As he commented, Australia spends a great deal of time and money trying to "justify itself in its film culture," but the biggest problem for us is embracing the fact that we are not America. Our stories, histories, identities, myths, crises and triumphs are ours, and by tailoring them to America in an attempt to justify ourselves, our culture/s is devalued. We're dragging ourselves into American formulas unnecessarily without considering the value of success in our own backyard. Where is the sense of pride for Australia? Throughout his seminar, this connection to Australia and passion for art in our country was clearly evident and certainly infectious.
His perspective also sat on the side of art rather than commerce, and as such, one Bec Haly may have a retort...

With his craft and approaches at core, Knight's seminar tapped into very personal aspects of his industry practice and allowed insight into how the sense of self plays into any practice. One of his closing comments was, "The only way you can justify life is through your culture," and again, a contextualisation of practice as it sits in the Australian industry was broached and has profoundly in my own practice since.

From both Polk and Knight it can be said that life experience plays past and present, and by living those experiences we may then step outside of them to observe greater engagement in theoretical and practical pursuit.

Living Outside History

Noel Polk’s lecture “Living Outside of History” was concerned with social identity, alienation and guilt, both collective and personal. A central theme of his seminar was reconciling the past with the present. The life experiences that he shared illustrated his theories on how personal connections (or lack of) with history influence identity and personal feelings of guilt and alienation in the present. His lecture used life experience to perform the same function as theory, acting as a framework for navigating these issues.
The first experience he recounted was his childhood living in the Mississippi. He described himself and his town as being geographically southern but not connected to the “myth of the south.” By this he means that neither he nor his town had any connection to the civil war, the history of plantations and slavery or, as he argued, to the racial tensions prevalent in other cities in the south. He pointed out that he does not identify himself as a southerner. This is an identity imposed on him by others. Yet despite his lack of connection to the myth and history of the south he says he has learnt that “I would always be tarred with it no matter what I did.”
The second story he told was about his relationship with his father. His father had served in the Second World War and unknowingly suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Polk described his father as a man who would have unexplainable and unpredictable outburst of anger.
The stories that Polk shared were obviously chosen to illustrate his point about guilt and identity, wether they come from within or are imposed from the outside. His life lived “outside of history” gave him a unique perspective on the racial tension of the south, yet he struggled to know what to do about them because he could not give these events context, in his words he lacked “a solid place from which to look.” His point being that a person’s lack of connection to the history of place or institution such as slavery does not remove them from its reality in the present. While he did not have a connection to slavery in the past, he was a part of its history because he was witness to its legacy in the present.
Polk’s lecture could have been read as an entertaining but inconclusive narrative about a life lived geographically close to historically and culturally significant events but never tangibly connected to them. The key to understanding his lecture came when he talked about his father. He speculated as to whether or not knowing about his father’s mental illness would have helped his relationship with his father. He admitted that it probably would have but the he was glad he did not know, because knowing would have compelled him to sympathise with his abuser. Not knowing allowed him to resent his father without guilt. It seems that he was arguing that wilful ignorance of the past or denial of one’s involvement in the present is rarely constructive when engaging with complicated issues like guilt or personal identity. Life experience functioned in the same way as a critical theory. It was a way of drawing out the very complex issues that arise out of everyday life.

Dr. Porscha Fermanis on William Godwin

William Godwin’s History of the Commonwealth (1824-1828) is far from his most popular work, and is accordingly the subject of very few textual analyses. Hayden White is one of the few noted historians to offer an analysis of Godwin’s History…, but his approach focused exclusively on the text itself, whilst deprivileging the role played by romantic fiction. In contrast to the approach adopted by White, Dr. Porscha Fermanis' frames her analysis of Godwin’s History… through the prism of Godwin’s biographical works, his fictional oeuvre, as well as his own personal life.

Dr. Fermanis’ primary source of reference in her exploration of the rhetoric and form of Godwin’s representation of Britain’s history is his novel Mandeville, as well as his biographical studies of both the ‘common man’ (The Lives of Edward & James Phillips, written about his nephews), and luminous figures such as William Chaucer (The Life of Chaucer), all published before History… . These works were themselves thinly disguised historical works hiding under the veil of the biography, and were roundly excoriated by critics as being highly emotive and nothing more than ‘speculative biographies’. Fermanis posits that the sting felt by such criticism would play a significant role in shaping his historical work later in his career; History… is subsequently far more conservative than Godwin’s biographical studies, with much of the research conducted by Godwin personally rather relying on secondary sources. Godwin also relegates the more sentimental aspects located within to the footnotes section (some of which go on for more than an entire page), while the main body of text is composed in a strictly factual, detached style – the direct antithesis of traditional literary form.

Dr. Fermanis also points out the posthumous role played by Godwin’s predecessors, namely David Hume, in formulating his approach to historical literature. Hume’s six-volume History of England was Britain’s standard historical text for many years, and Godwin’s ambitious attempts to rival Hume would play a major role in dictating his own unique form and style. Fermanis argues that Godwin was sceptical of Hume’s approach of and wished to be seen in a different light, which was the primary motivation of Godwin’s promotion of ‘individual’ history, rather than the notion of ‘mankind as a mass’, which constituted a common theme of Hume’s work. Godwin’s endorsement of ‘individual history’ manifests itself in the romanticism of his character portrait of Oliver Cromwell located within the historical narrative. This incorporation of Cromwell imbues History... with an autobiographical voice, while Godwin is conscious to eschew the cloying sentimentality that raised the ire of critics commenting of his earlier biographical studies.

Dr Porscha Fermanis and William Goldwin

Dr Porscha Fermanis argues for the inclusion of historical writing into discussions of history, in her paper ‘History, Psychology and Romance in William Godwin’s History of the Commonwealth (1824-28)’. It observes the boundaries between history and literature, and although the literariness of the text is Dr Fermanis’ focus, she believes Godwin’s historical writing in the romantic period paints a more comprehensive picture of the times.

The history of 17^th century is very important for definition in the 19^th century as Godwin began writing his History in 1822 – the era of the Great Reform Act, parliamentary reform and emancipation. Godwin long rejected the political parties of the commonwealth, believing that they were essentially repeating the same arguments of previous republicans and monarchists.

History is the mode for some of Godwin’s other writing on political justice, but moving away from the philosophical, he is more concerned with motive, cause and effect. Fermanis states Godwin’s belief that all knowledge can be reduced to probability. He accuses Hume of over-identifying at the expense of impartiality, and repudiates him for the use of specific historical actors instead of noting more generic experiences.

Prior to his History of the Commonwealth (1824-28), Godwin had experimented with historical biographies, writing one on his completely unknown nephews - The Lives of Edward & James Philips – and another, bolder work, The Life of Chaucer. Bold in that it was neither a social nor political history, but was in fact a history of the possible, which was consequently attacked on the basis of being speculative. Godwin espouses a historiography of presence and wants to make the reader feel he is ‘there’ with the character, and criticizes other authors who neglect this attention to presence.

Godwin’s History morphed from a two- into a four-volume history of the Commonwealth that had the author anxious very early on to assert himself primarily as a historian. It is in this endeavour that he becomes much more conservative compared to his previous experiments. Godwin takes matters very seriously, conducting copious amounts of primary research, rather than relying on the research of others before him, believing that the primary sources and eyewitness accounts will give a more accurate portrayal of the feeling of the times. He is also very clear about his difficulty with sources, for example, about Cromwell much is unknown. Despite this, he is aware of Cromwell’s charisma and models him as a kind of romantic, heroic figure; however, rejects sentimental, ‘affective’ moments when it comes to Cromwell’s final demise.

In Volume 4 of the History, radicalism remains thwarted and the republican moment continues to be denied. Godwin ends his History with the limitations of historical writing, and the rejection of the sentimental ending. He combines different models of history, drawing on sources that helped to shape the novel and in turn demonstrating the shift from Enlightenment philosophy to romantic psychology - two approaches Godwin attempts to reconcile in his History of the Commonwealth.

Refracted Modernism

In addressing the complicated issue of Refracted Modernism, Dr Tony Voss was asked by the Cambridge History of South African Literature department to look at three writers, which in itself was difficult because of the consequential exclusion of other equally notable writers, and calls into question the notion that a useable past also denotes an unuseable past.

Modernism, as an idea, originated in Europe and America, but as it spread throughout the world, was refracted. The concept was taken up and then adapted from country to country. None of the South African writers that Voss speaks about conformed to the conventions of modernism because South Africa had a different frame of reference, yet all writers invoked a certain edge to what they had to say.

Voss’ guidelines were to write about two white authors and one black, with two who wrote in English and the other in Africa’s postcolonial language, Afrikaans. This led to a somewhat eclectic grouping of writers Roy Campbell, H.I.E Dhlomo, and N. P. Van Wyk Louw who have been included together only once before in the publication Poets in South Africa.

Roy Campbell (1901-1957), a white South African, lyrical poet, satirist and devout Catholic, made his name as a young man while abroad and was much celebrated upon his return to South Africa. He was a modernist of a distinctive time with the 1930s being the high point of his career. He had a tense relationship to South Africa, continually returning only to leave again due to the burdens of living there. He even published a journal that was quite critical of the living conditions, specifically, of the serf.

H.I.E. Dhlomo (1903-1956) was a black South African who used literature as a means for his people that would endure. He had a varied career as a playwright and poet, later becoming a librarian, and then a journalist and broadcaster. Dhlomo’s journalism is a series of prose poems giving an idea of the African experience of the 20^th century. His 1940s poetry harks back to the language of the Victorian era as he explores the idea of writing in English as an African. Voss distinguishes between here between European modernism in Africa (Campbell) and African modernism in Africa (Dhlomo).

N. P. Van Wyk Louw (1906-1970) was a white South African who celebrated writing in Afrikaans and believed Africa to be the centre of the world. Most of what he wrote can be aligned with a sense of African nationalism and his style parallels strong militant political poems. Despite being disappointed in his country for various reasons – the main being apartheid – he never turned away from his people, and always argued for a universal literature.

The writers are received differently in modern times, with Dhlomo not really having a place, due to the dispersion of his Zulu audience. Louw however, is very much a presence especially for Afrikaans speaking people, with annual lectures on his work. If you are a poet today you must determine yourself in relation to Louw.

In regards to modernism, Campbell drew a degree of inspiration from Europe, which informed on his African modernism, however overall, he rejected the concept and would not classify himself as modernist. In South Africa, it is not so much about modernism, as it is about literature.

Latour on Critique

Things and objects have had for some time a separate and distinctive relationship. Things have been assigned a privileged status based on their complicated qualities and complex artisanal or intellectual connections while more technical and scientific objects have been taken for granted as commodity and consumption items, and therefore disregarded in the realm of discussion and debate. An object has been designated as a matter of fact and hence not questioned, while a thing is a matter of concern, debate and critique. ‘Things have become things again’ because a number of things have to participate in the gathering of an object, and so this reciprocal and cohesive relationship entails that things are both a matter of fact – the actual object – and a matter of concern – the gathering. A thing can now be described as both an object in the public arena and the ensuing issues related to said object, which are to be debated and discussed within a gathering or body of people. “A world of objects, unconcerned by any sort of [gathering] has come to a close. Things are gathered again.” (p236)

The realist attitude that Latour celebrates acknowledges that matters of fact are “totally implausible, unrealistic, unjustified definitions of what it is to deal with things.” He seeks to abandon outdated social theories in favour of a new critical attitude “launched with the tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect how many participants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and to maintain its existence”. He celebrates a realist attitude in which the word criticism is spun in a positive and more inclusive way.

2nd Attempt: THIS KIND OF RUCKUS RESPONSE

( Under the guidance of my supervisor I am working on a response to version 1.0's This Kind Of Ruckus. I posted my first attempt earlier on the blog and now here is my second attempt. My challenge has been writing analytically and without opinion, i am also exploring what I mean when I say 'political performance')

Innovative Political Performance?

Why This Kind Of Ruckus isn’t a Ruckus

There are certain expectations I have for performance, let alone performance that claims to be innovative and political. As an artist who is also exploring similar themes to collective Version1.0, I was excited to read a flyer advertising their latest work This Kind of Ruckus.

“This Kind of Ruckus explores the forming and wrecking of relationships, patterns of control, and cycles of abuse. Drawing upon recent high-profile sexual assault scandals, accounts of relationship violence, and the subtle violence implicit within most relationships, this is confronting, unsettling and powerful theatre from Version 1.0, the acclaimed makers of Deeply Offensive and Utterly Untrue.”[i]

Now having seen the show twice (once in Sydney, late 2009 then again during the Adelaide Fringe, early 2010) I am frustrated. I am frustrated on many levels; as an audience member, as a young woman, as an artist, as a student, as a feminist and as an individual who has experienced the violence V1.0 claims to discuss in this work.

There is a lot to be said for a collective that attempts to address such controversial themes, this is important for contemporary performance to move forward and resonate with its spectators. There is something, though, in TKOR’s execution and collective energy (or lack of) that leave a lot to be desired and makes their choices for the piece questionable. In response to this performance I must actively critically question what a performance is to be “political”? And, how is TKOR an unsuccessful “political” work?

“A performance about power, control and violence in intimate relationships. The work explores sexual violence in a range of spheres – from the realm of the domestic, to the judicial system, to the media and popular cultural attitudes, to the recent spate of sexual assault scandals in the sporting arena…”[ii]

To be political is to engage in the relationship between those with power and the powerless. A political performance needs to question social and cultural hierarchies; it should empower victims and criticize aggressors, it can undress and redress current issues by confronting prejudice, violence and morally corrupt behaviour. Political performance can open up a forum for discussions about change and equality. Works should be inclusive not alienating, showing people and things with cultural and social intelligence, aiming to remove bias yet maintain focus on stereotypes, figureheads and systems that hold political problem.

The structure of the show itself is a series of repeated actions. The cast performs fractured (I assume) ‘football’ actions; they negotiate a quiet cheerlead grasping red pom poms at the front of the stage, they line up and execute footballer’s warm ups and training. An abstracted nightclub dance is repeated throughout the show where male performers attempt to dance with female. They jump up and down side-by-side together moving towards the audience. The female performers become increasingly intoxicated off cans of VB that are lined up side-stage on a table,they appear as if ‘cool down’ drinks for the athletes of a game.

There is a scene of a marriage counsellors session where a male and female player navigate conversation whilst another female player enters the audience and sits looking back onstage whilst counselling the two. The show uses verbatim text from unknown (to the audience) sources. Rape is introduced in a variety of ways; through a monologue delivered at the front of the stage by a female performer casually addressing the rest of the cast, rape is made physical in a drunken dance between a male and female performer, there is also another moment where female performers desperately try and pick up an excess of clothes whilst a male performer tells a story of a gang rape he witnessed his friends commit.

The show concludes with a quote from footballer Matthew Johns. Two male’s stand centre stage,one announces the famous ‘apology’ and the other slaps him on the back saying. ‘Well done mate… Now, on with the show...’ As if purely re-enacting this moment does anything to comment on how embedded these attitudes are in a male dominated mainstream culture. TKOR perpetuate this hierarchy because; thematically it is not clear whether the performers are hyper-real caricatures or performing realism, there style is not coherent, therefore any intent or meaning described in their website blog or in their program is lost. There are moments of dynamic action and text that conjure meaningful sensation but they do not survive the incongruity of stylistic choice.

The shows sound track is an incessant repetitive thumping of a beat that splinters the work into what could almost be called chapters, but not really. There is the constant of media in the show, a video projection that is meant to mimic sporting footages live close-ups that “…magnifies the detail of physical actions and offers new perspectives on fine emotional detail, shedding new light on the minutiae of these human behaviours.”[iii] The media, in this case really only highlights the lack of cohesion between the chosen imagery of sexual violence and what the work claims to explore.

The set for the show is a bubble wrap curtain that divides the space parallel to the audience, as performers disappear behind it and create ghostly figures reminiscent of alcohol-fuelled bleariness. Throughout the work a heavy red curtain of the theatre stage is drawn across the space bringing the performers to the edge of the stage where they sit and participate in storytelling of run ins with the police, a rape and their own interpersonal relationships. These moments are offensive as they seem to serve no purpose but to attempt to bring humour to these parts of the show without irony.

The artists do not discuss the ‘recent spate of sexual assault scandals in the sporting arena…’. Merely presenting actions and text without cross-examination is not discussion. There is an opening and shutting of two worlds (the theatre curtain) that is incongruous, considering there has been no solid definition between the two spaces and their meaning. Time that is spent in front of the main curtain also includes the audience, where two of the female performers point and converse; “…imagine fucking 12 of these guys in a row…. you haven’t got the balls.”

The three female and two male performers continuously swap roles in abstracted scenes of violence. (Always heterosexual and always with the man in power.) These ‘power plays’ are presented but never shift, violent action is placed in front of the audience and, then, it’s almost as if the performers creep away from it.

Gender is split painfully into traditional roles, without this choice being made ironically. The two men are given all the power and, if this is a deliberate reflection of a patriarchal society then, it wasn’t clear. This isn’t successful political work, because I didn’t believe the performers really knew what they were questioning and whom they were pointing a finger to. Is this also what political performance must do? By ‘pointing a finger’ perhaps I mean addressing clear targets (eg. The footballers, the media, the sporting industry etc. ) in which to question and essentially give some responsibility to. TKOR as a theatre work had ideas that were in their beginning stages, and, because of the style of the work; a mix of task-based action and realism, actions became immature and contrived.

“…Perhaps unsurprisingly , it’s been a dark and difficult work to make. The question we keep having to grapple with is why this and why now? Didn’t 70s feminist theatre comprehensively address sexual violence? Does this work need to be revisited by Version 1.0? Looking in the newspaper on a daily basis, with the ever-multiplying number of awful events, has demonstrated the urgent need for performance to return these themes.”[iv]

If Version 1.0 is asking ‘why this and why now?’ Then TKOR didn’t answer, its lack of narrative failed to open up a forum for further discussion because they did not make clear who and what exactly the show is analysing. Of course there is an urgent need for performance to return to these themes and it is, slowly.

This work fails because it gets lost in the performance of the action instead of keeping in mind, and in energy, the greater purpose of a political work, striving for affect, change and the creation of forums, both actual and artistic. A collective might start with an agenda and then lose it in the process of making a work of this nature. It is shows like this that ride the importance of the voice they are claiming to give to women and victims of violence.

As a community of Australian art makers we need to stop making work that is elitist and unapproachable. Stylistic choice is imperative for a work to be successful and its political intentions clear. As a stylistic choice perhaps realism has produced an actor-centric work unable to generate critical inquiry. For a show describing itself as politically innovative it did not take any real risks.

It felt like a work performed by much older players using some stories that belonged to a younger generation that wasn’t acknowledged. And aren’t we, the youth, the ones who can change the socio-political climate? I feel it isn’t effective to perform your bird’s eye view of contemporary mainstream violence; I became confused by the work using realism to perform highly common experiences, in it’s abstraction, V.1.0 has made the violence of their work foreign.

There was no real cohesion about an argument, no through line or gesture for betterment. Actions are thrown out and repeat themselves without building or changing. We, the audience, don’t need answers spelt out for us, it is in what questions are posed and how. I am left asking myself what this show is really about. Wondering, if this is really ‘a political work’ therefore a ‘show for the masses’. How can you charge $40 a ticket?

If, to quote Australian’s Sydney theatre critic John McCallum in that the growing power ofdocumentary theatre is to do with “the power of bearing witness and testimony” then This Kind Of Ruckus falls short. I just can’t help but come to the conclusion that This Kind of Ruckus is a work that had already given up the fight before opening night.

---

[i] From flyer for TKOR Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

[ii] From program for TKOR Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

[iii] http://www.versiononepointzero.com/Online program note by David Williams and Sean 2009

[iv] From program for TKOR Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

[v] Neil, Rosemary. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/the-real-thing/story-e6frg8n6-1225816326732, Jan 09 2010