MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W186935854

Humanist Philosophy: Interview(s) with Bruno Dumont

2000· article· en· W186935854 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Peranson, Andréa Picard

Notice bibliographique

RevueCineaction! · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLaw in Society and Culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFilm directorMovie theaterPoeticsFace (sociological concept)HumanismArt historyArtAphorismFalsitySimple (philosophy)AestheticsSociologyPhilosophyLiteraturePoetrySocial scienceEpistemologyTheology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

While the recent passing of Robert Bresson may be the final death knell for first hundred years of film, it does not usher in the end of a poetics of cinema. Bruno Dumont has created--in just two works, La vie de Jesus (1997) and L'humanite (1999)--a non-cerebral, anti-bourgeoise cinema which aspires to a purity of expression through an intellectually rigorous aesthetic, rooted in the physicality of the actors and the Flemish landscape. The following interviews were done before and during the 1999 Toronto International Film Festival; Andrea Picard spoke to Dumont over the phone from his home in Balleuil, while Mark Peranson followed up with a face-to-face meeting. The interviews are mutually supportive, at times covering different ground, other times overlapping. Some replies have been consolidated from both interviews. In this way, we present a far-ranging look at a confident filmmaker who should prove to be one of the more important film artists in the decade to come. Film and Art MARK PERANSON: Simply, L'humanite is a film that deals with basic ideas. So my first question is simple: Why do you make films? BRUNO DUMONT: That's a very simple and a very difficult question. There is a desire expressed through cinema and its methods to search and to find what's inside of others. I would like to express my own views on the mysteries of life. MP: Degas has said that art is false, and one can only approach the truth through falsity. Do you think that the cinema, because it is a false medium, is best able in art to capture something like the truth? BD: Yes, I think that all art is false. And that with art in general--talking about life in false ways--can you attain truth. Because the truth can only be expressed through lies and falseness. And those who film truth directly, in your face like seen on television, tell us nothing. Thus the work of the artist is to reveal the truth through his work. When Picasso and Braque invented Cubism, the representation was false in comparison to reality; but it was the reality of truth that they were expressing. An artist must modify reality. It is only through modification that the truth can be expressed. That's what Degas meant when he said that art was false. MP: But why do you choose cinema in particular? BD: I could have easily used painting or literature to express myself, but I think that cinema itself has the capacity to express what is invisible--and this interests me. And, also, cinema is an art of time, of the temporal. Within the perception of existence, time is the most important material of life. Therefore, cinema has a natural capacity to talk about life. MP: How much does it also have to do with movement as opposed to time? BD: The movement inside of the frame, the length of the take is the art of organization, everything is time. When I shoot a take from beginning to end, this is time. The actor who moves; this is time. Therefore, all of cinema is time. The art of mise-en-scene is organizing time. The time of the actor, the time of the action, the time of waiting. MP: You've said that very few filmmakers make real cinema. What's your definition of real cinema? BD: It's understanding that what cinema is--is its methods, its artistry, its possibilities. It's not like all art. It's understanding what art can be and do. It's fundamentally a way of expressing oneself. It's expressing what lies deep within our heart. At the same time, there is a lot of mystery--even in the films that I make. I think the cinema is about mystery. Most of all a spiritual mystery. That's the most secretive, enigmatic, and foreign. Art is made up of the spiritual. Filmmaking Philosophy ANDREA PICARD: The title also implies themes which are universal, and yet your film deals with themes which are profoundly fundamental in a specific, regional way. BD: I believe that the universal is reached and understood by what is the particular. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,141
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,281

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0260,011
Communication savante0,0070,006
Science ouverte0,0020,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,021
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCineaction!Même sujetLaw in Society and CultureTravaux en français237 207