A Not So Simple “attraction:” Edison’s Cockfight as an Argument for a Dynamic Model of Representation

...

Wow this Edison Guy was a big dick.

The point here is neither Edison’s character nor the ethics of cockfighting, but simply that even with the simplistic representation of film, one cannot land on a simple theory of representation. Here with “Cockfight,” in a mere 45 seconds, we can argue this film portrays a reflective approach, an intentional approach, and a constructionist approach to representation.

If this is indeed the case with this rudimentary short film, than surely it is the case with more complex films that utilize the full breath of film language. Hence, we can plausibly forward the argument that representation is always dynamic: it always incorporates elements of the reflective, intentional and constructive approaches.

Rather than an ‘either/or/or’ representation, every film can be viewed as a, a trident of approaches:

- Every film representation is reflective in as much as it’s a captured image (animation and special effects aside.)

- Every film is intentional in as much as the mere act of filming “this’ and not “that” is evidence of intent, not to mention the first intentional edit or camera position.

- Every film is constructed in as much as we each carry, as viewers, such a bundle of complex and entrenched conceptual maps on which to track the journey of our film experience.

Hence it must be true, then, that every film or text is dynamically represented, that is, a combination of all three representational theories and never simply just one.

Perhaps it’s time to update the notion of representation and instead of applying exclusivity of class, we grade each film on the preponderance of each approach.

Work Cited

Gunning, Tom. Encyclopedia of Early Cinema. Routledge, 2005.

Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Los Angeles, Calif., 2013.