Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Jackie Stacey, The Cinematic Life of the Gene. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2010. 344pp. $23.95 (pbk).Laurel BollingerIn The Cinematic Life of the Gene, Jackie Stacey explores what she terms 'the genetic imaginary' as expressed in cinema - that is, the set of anxieties accompanying the increased geneticisation of the human body. For Stacey, such anxieties emerge from the mutability of the body its geneticisation makes possible; embodiment is no longer fixed through visual mechanisms, but becomes the manifestation of the invisible gene, and can be constructed through artificial combinations and recombinations wholly separate from prior human experience. Simultaneously, cinema expresses similar mutability; while film initially captured at least the moment when actors and camera came together to produce an image, the increased digitalisation of film eliminates even that degree of stability. Both the body and the cinema, then, have come to be figurable solely as expressions of data, subject to manipulation and artificiality. This intersecting moment of cinema and genetics offers Stacey a means to explore the cultural expressions of the anxiety about such transformations so often revealed in sf and horror films.Stacey's book addresses a wide array of sf films that treat genetics in some fashion, focusing sustained attention on Alien: Resurrection (Jeunet US 1997), Species (Donaldson US 1995), Gattaca (Niccol US 1997), Code 46 (Winterbottom UK 2003), Teknolust (Hershman-Leeson US/Germany/UK 2002) and Genetic Admiration (Leeming Canada 2005). She takes glancing looks at about sixty additional films, selected to centre on what she sees as 'the decade of the clone', loosely configured as encompassing the mid-1990s through the mid- 2000s. Stacey argues the discourse on genetics reaches a critical moment during this decade, opening with the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996, moving through ongoing debates over stem-cell research and peaking with the completion of a major phase of the Human Genome project around 2003, when issues surrounding genetics and 'genomics' (more population-based studies of genetics) came to fill popular, political and scientific debates alike. Structurally, her argument moves back and forth between short theoretical chapters that lay out the cultural issues she sees at play and detailed discussions of specific films that exemplify these concerns.Her theoretical chapters may be where readers and scholars will find Stacey's work most productive. She moves from the concern with genetics as reconfiguring sexuality and kinship structures, through issues of impersonation associated with cloning and ends with the ways in which the reproducibility of the body engages with economics, particularly corporate capitalism. To establish the theoretical groundwork for her exploration, Stacey considers a wide array of scholars, demonstrating how their discussions - only occasionally addressing genetic issues directly - are applicable to the genetic imaginary she describes. She opens with Baudrillard, explaining that he sees cloning as expressing a desire for sameness that ultimately unmakes nature and culture alike; as she puts it, 'these anxieties about the proliferation of undesirable forms of sexual and reproductive sameness are driven by a heterosexual imperative which seeks to locate reproduction unequivocally within the supposedly biological regimes of sexual difference' (32). Looking at Alien: Resurrection through this filter, she focuses on the deviance of the cloned Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), who is part alien and part human, cast alongside a cyborg (Winona Ryder) who bears uncanny resemblance to Ripley and is not revealed as an artificial life form until late in the film. By exploring moments of homoerotic attraction between the two women, and by ending with the most biologically deviant characters as the sole survivors, the film encodes the threat such posthuman reproduction presents to normative modes of humanity. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».