Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Five Films by Frederick Wiseman Kay Armatage Barry Keith Grant , editor and translator. Five Films by Frederick Wiseman. Foreword by F. Wiseman. University of California Press. ix, 432. US $29.95 Frederick Wiseman is one of the most prolific filmmakers in cinema history, rivalling studio stalwarts such as John Ford and Frank Capra: Wiseman has made thirty-two feature-length documentaries over forty years. This is a feat in itself, not only in the post-studio era, but also working as a fierce independent who has maintained absolute control over his productions, with continuing support from PBS. Unlike most observational documentaries, which tend to centre on individuals, Wiseman's subjects are institutional structures of all sorts – including education, welfare, public housing, the fashion industry, food production, commercial retail, and scientific research. His films are as close as we come in contemporary filmmaking to a Foucaultian analysis of institutions, attending to the interlocking dynamics of the people operating within them (in the case of Titicut Follies [1967], guards, doctors, and prisoners in a facility for the criminally insane). Moreover, Wiseman is considered one of the most distinctive stylists in non-fiction cinema, and, as a result, his films are frequently analyzed in documentary scholarship. Bill Nichols, a pre-eminent documentary scholar, has devoted a significant chapter of Ideology and the Image (1981) to Wiseman, and Grant has already published his own Voyages of Discovery: The Cinema of Frederick Wiseman (1992) as well as a recent article on Titicut Follies (1998). [End Page 444] Five Films by Frederick Wiseman operates on a simple but extremely useful concept. Grant has chosen the most regularly addressed films directed by Wiseman (Titicut Follies, High School, Welfare, High School II, and Public Housing) and offers complete transcriptions of dialogue with brief shot details and soundtrack descriptions. As Grant notes in the introduction, the book has few precedents. Several dialogue transcripts and 'adaptations' of individual documentary films have been published, but rarely do they include notes about image construction, soundtrack, or filmic structure. The book also includes frame enlargements, which are tellingly placed throughout the text. I have only one niggling quarrel with the book, a small matter of analytic terminology. Grant writes, '[T]he shot focuses on' so and so. In popular discourse, 'focus' is used metonymically to mean emphasize or spotlight, but in film it is a technical camera term. Beyond the catch-ascatch can early days of cinéma-vérité, most professional productions eliminate shots that are not in focus. Aside from the possibility of shallow depth of field or rack focus, I suspect that Grant means to suggest something about composition rather than sharpness of the image. Generally, however, his analytic approach is precise. This is a work of painstaking scholarship of an original sort in film studies, akin to the annotated editions and translations of manuscripts that we rely on so heavily in other fields. It will be a great addition to the study of Wiseman's work, and a model for on-the-ground film documentation. Kay Armatage Cinema Studies Institute, University of Toronto Copyright © 2008 University of Toronto Press Incorporated
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 | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,022 |
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 ».