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.