Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WOMEN FILMMAKERS: REFOCUSING Edited by Jacqueline Levitin, Judith Plessis and Valerie Raoul New York: Routledge, 2003, 496 pp. This is a great book. I'm sure that anyone who teaches women's cinema has felt the need for a book that brings the discussion of feminist theory up to date with current film practices. This collection of articles from the Women Filmmakers: Refocusing conference, which was held in Vancouver in March 1999, fulfills this need. The articles are well written and cover a wide range of topics. Most of them deal with the films of specific female directors, but there are sections on feminist film theory and on conditions of production. The book also includes sections on European auteurs, popular genres in Europe, postcolonial filmmakers, films on India, representations of and by minority women, and Canadian women filmmakers. It is a thick book with much to offer anyone interested in the field. The collection opens with an article by E. Ann Kaplan that gives a good overview of feminist film theory centered on questions relating to the gaze, as well as white feminism and its relation to minority groups. While the theoretical discussion is kept at a sensible level so as to be accessible to undergraduate students, it has some shortcomings. For example, Kaplan discusses Trinh T. Minh-ha's films and her theories without mentioning poststructuralism. In another instance, Angela Martin discusses the relationship between women auteurs and the female voice, arguing that Kathy Bigelow's films put into question the very idea of the existence of a female voice because they are mainstream films, but because Martin never clearly defines what she means by a female voice, her article is not convincing. Donia Mounsefs article on Germaine Dulac and Marguerite Duras is a fascinating historical study of the place of these women in the avant-garde movements of their time, but because Mounsef fails to address issues of feminist film theory inherent in their two different strategies, she misses an important distinction between the two filmmakers: the fact that Dulac emphasizes the construction of a visual language, while Duras privileges sound over image. Comparable problems appear in Katherine Fowler's essay on Sally Potter, Chantai Akerman and Yvonne Rainer. Fowler attempts to trace a change in strategy from their earlier films to their more contemporary ones. While these filmmakers were at one time concerned with the issues raised in Laura Mulvey's famous article on visual pleasure, the later films go beyond Mulvey's specific concerns to construct a carefully developed and negotiated pleasure for the viewer. Fowler feels that this new strategy needs to be reconnected to feminist film theory. I would agree with this, and her analysis of the films is a good start in that direction, but it does not go far enough. A general problem with the anthology lies in the avoidance of postmodern feminist theory, which hampers the development of the analysis of the films and obscures the changes that have come about in contemporary feminist filmmaking. The book is, however, full of informative, contextualized, discussions of the works of different women filmmakers that kept me reading avidly. The section on auteurs from Europe begins with an article by Steven Taubeneck on Helma Sanders Brahms' work and its relation to German history. Slew Jin Ooi's analysis of Margarethe von Trotta's The Second Awakening of Christa Klages sets the film in the context of the feminist film movement in Germany. Agnieszka Holland's use of the personal narrative to address political issues in her films is explained by B. Amarillis and Lugo de Fabrits. Corinn Columpar shows how dance is used by Sally Potter in The Tango Lesson to explore ways of constructing the female body. In a section on the uses of popular genres by European directors, Brigitte Rollet argues that women can use genre films to make strong statements about gender identity and gender roles, as in films such as Gazon maudit and Trois hommes et an couffin. …
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 | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,003 |
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 ».