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 19th 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.