LGS Thoughtpiece

Cinema: the animals that therefore we are

Posted: Wednesday 15 Sep 2010
by LGS 2 comments

With seven awards to its name, the big winner at this year’s Emmys was the TV film, Temple Grandin, based on the life of the scientist known for her pioneering work in animal husbandry. That she is best known for also having high-functioning autism might have consigned this film to the ‘disease-of-the-week’ category.  That she has overcome social disadvantages too (not least as regards how others treat her for not being ‘neurotypical’) to become an expert on and advocate for the ethical treatment of farm animals, might again tempt us into thinking of this as another cinematic cliché – ‘triumph in the face of prejudice’, the ‘human spirit once more overcoming the odds’, etc. Yet if we look at Temple Grandin, firstly, in terms of its heroine’s work in animal husbandry itself, then we do have a chance of sidestepping such critical pitfalls. That is because the success of her work – which has resulted in ameliorating the conditions many farm animals must endure, including those suffered during their slaughter – has stemmed, she says, from the fact that she thinks like an animal thinks – namely in images. This is not her human way of thinking about images, but a way of thinking in pictures, a picture theory, that, she also claims, allows her to empathise with animals, with their world-view, in a manner that might not be open to neurotypicals like the rest of ‘us’.

And here is where my curiosity is aroused a second time, for the content of this film begs a question about its form (if I can be allowed this old dualism for a moment): how have the award-winning images of Temple Grandin measured up as an alternative type of thinking? Is it true to say, given the animal and autistic kinship formed through image-thoughts, that this film offers us the opportunity to think (in moving pictures) about cinema itself as an animal mode of communication – the animal that thinks inside us when we are ‘at the pictures’? I don’t want to put any one movie under the spotlight on the question of its formal coherence, but, as well as being an excellent piece of experimental film-making, Temple Grandin does make me think again about the origins of the power of cinema.  Why is it that we are so engrossed by film anyway? Like Pavlovian dogs responding to the dinner-bell, we salivate in front of the screen, to the image-stimuli agitating ours senses, almost as though we are in the presence of their ‘referents’. Many theories – psychological and philosophical – have been offered to explain this immersive effect: Freudian, Cavellian, Cognitivist, and so on. But what if the answer was as simple as this: the power of the cinematic image is purely the power of the animal that we (always) are when we think in images, or when images think in us.

Linda Williams has written of the three body genres of cinema that most obviously disturb our flesh (melodrama, horror, pornography) and, certainly, when we let the image arouse our tears, screams and genitalia, we do seem to approximate a little dog getting over-excited by stimuli. Yet there are also more complex responses, which are neither thoughtless flesh nor disembodied reflections, but affective thoughts, seeing-thoughts, that are all the more potent because they are imagistic (and non-neurotypical). These images are not any less the animal-thinking-in-us, however, nor are they either base or inhuman: they might simply be where our most powerful and animal thinking resides.


  1. At 9:40 pm on September 17, 2010, Scott Wilson wrote:

    ‎’The power of the cinematic image is purely the power of the animal that we (always) are when we think in images, or when images think in us’. Or indeed that the ‘core consciousness’ that we share with animals is cinematic. See http://scottwilson-amusia.blogspot.com/search/label/Antonio%20Damasio

  2. At 2:23 pm on October 30, 2010, nicola masciandaro wrote:

    Thanks! for (re)developing these thoughts. Makes me think that Bataille’s comments about animals not seeing death — “But what is certain is that the consciousness of death has moved far away from the natural given. Not only do animals not have this consciousness, they can’t even recognize the difference between the fellow creature that is dead and the one that is alive” — is perfectly filmic. Cf. Lippit’s Electric Animal.

    Following ‘neurAcinema’ I wrote a while back: Cinema, or life as animation, is one instrument for holding in mind the complexity of auto-spectral being. A mixture of common sense and rumor, going back at least to the middle ages, lets us know that life near/after death is intensely self-filmic: “The fret and fury of immediate responses to the changing situations of earthly life is replaced in life after death by a more leisurely mood freed from the urgency of immediately needed actions. All the experience of the earthly career is now available for reflection in a form more vivid than is possible through memory in earthly life. The snapshots of earthly life have all been taken on the cinematic film of the mind and it is now time to study the original earthly life through the magnified projections of the filmed record on the screen of subjectivised consciousness” (Discourses 3.64). Auto-spectrality is cinematic in the sense that watching the film of one’s life means being both alive and dead in a wonderful way. My life is over, but I am still experiencing it. I still live, but I am already dead. Something like this seems to be the natural state of all things to themselves, the reality of their being whoever they are. And Chaos, instead of being an absolute place or principle from which everything contingently hangs, would then be the spontaneous cosmic machine or ultimate undesignable instrument through which the auto-spectral existence of each being is maintained simultaneously as itself and as a relation to innumerable other unpredictable beings (world).

Leave a comment

What Can We Do With Non-Philosophy? Listen here

Thursday 12 Nov 2015
Posted in Blog

10 November 2015, Swedenborg Hall, Bloomsbury Way, London   What Can We Do With Non-Philosophy? A Discussion with Alexander Galloway, Ian...