The Baseball Film in Postwar America: A Critical Study 1948-1962
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ron Briley. The Film in Postwar America: A Critical Study, 1948-1962. Jefferson NC: McFarland, 2011. 214 pp. Paper, $40.00. Ron Briley, editor of two previous collections of essays for McFarland on baseball and American culture, has just published first book-length critical study devoted solely to baseball film in postwar America. And while there is much in this volume of interest to popular readers and fans interested in role of baseball in popular American culture, unfortunately as an academic study this work is of limited value. In study's preface, Briley notes that the baseball film genre of postwar era was more than just a nostalgic enterprise in which young people [...] I could seek to escape reality (3). Accordingly, Briley reads films from period as evincing various tensions that had beset postwar American society, in particular tensions related to gender, race, and class. Further, this preface sets up a useful thematic organization for following films, though this organization is not employed by study itself. Such an organization, in this reviewer's opinion, would have strengthened reading of films and provided better, more fluid connections between individual chapters. This is especially case with biopics, as Briley is often referencing earlier discussion in his later chapters. Instead, chapters are arranged mostly chronologically, with notable exception of chapter 8, Baseball and Supernatural Intervention: It Happens Every Spring (1949), Angels in Outfield and Rhubarb (1951), a chapter organized thematically by discussing three of four supernatural films included in study. Other than resulting length of chapter, this reviewer sees no reason why discussion of Damn Yankees (1958) could not have been included in this chapter. In a similar vein, all of biopics could have been included in one larger section, given Briley's particular strength in individual chapters for establishing importance of biopic as a subgenre within baseball film. All that said, there is much value in discussion of various movies. The individual chapters (with one exception, noted above) focus on one film and read that film both within context of American social anxieties of time as well as against historical figures and events depicted in films. This, of course, would be of particular interest to fans of players whose biopics are included in this study: Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Jim Thorpe, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Dizzy Dean, and Jimmy Piersall. It is this reviewer's opinion that chapters focusing on biopics are strongest chapters because they demonstrate best balance between discussion of film, situation within social/cultural contexts, and comparison to historical record. Fans of individual players whose lives have been depicted (or romanticized, as Briley smartly demonstrates) in these films will find much valuable discussion in these pages. …
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 | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 ».