Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This is a film review of What We Do in the Shadows (2013), directed by Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement. Author Notes Rubina (Ruby) Ramji is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Cape Breton University. After serving as a Chair of the Religion, Film and Visual Culture Group for the American Academy of Religion and then the steering committee, Rubina continues to serve on the Executive Committee for the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion as President and is the Film Editor of the Journal of Religion and Film. Her research activities focus on the areas of religion, media and identity, religion in Canada, and religion and immigration. This sundance film festival review is available in Journal of Religion & Film: http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol18/iss1/21 What We Do in the Shadows (2013) Directed by Taika Waititi, Jemaine Clement Midnight When one watches a vampire movie, it tends to be filled with blood and gore and screams. Needless to say, there is quite a bit of blood in this film, but it’s not your average horror flick: it’s not really a horror film at all as you will laugh too much throughout it. What We Do in the Shadows is a mock documentary, examining the lives of four very different vampires sharing a house in New Zealand. One does not often ponder how the undead live. If you could live forever, would it be in a lonely castle in Transylvania, or would you want to have a few mates to spend the evenings with, share meals and chores with, and go clubbing with every once in a while? Given our propensity for companionship, it makes sense that vampires would like to have a few friends as well – immortality can become boring. Peter is the least social, being 8,000 years old. The other three flatmates, Viago (379 years old), Vladislav (862 years old) and Deacon (183 years old) try to maneuver through the modern world together. All four share characteristics we see in the average human: Vladislav is a lady’s man, Deacon hates doing his chores and 1 Ramji: What We Do in the Shadows Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2014 Viago just wants everyone to get along well (and be cool). As an anonymous camera person follows these vampires around, documenting their daily lives, we become aware that immortality is not truly filled with power and indifference. These vampires yearn, love, suffer and mourn the passing of their “immortal” friends. Much as we tend to view the “Other” as wholly separate from us, once we get past the stereotypes we tend to see those in the out-groups as being just like us. What We Do in the Shadows is a tale of humanity; even though some of us might become immortal, we all continue to share the same human traits, values and desires (it’s just that those who have become vampires have an added lust for blood). There are no rules or guidelines about how to live our lives. We choose our morals in life and live by them as closely as possible. These vampires give us a glimpse into the world of those who should be apart from us, yet who continue to be guided by the same set of morals and desires we all struggle to formulate and live by. What We Do in the Shadows in a comedic and yet sometimes sad film about friendship and loyalty, about fitting into a world that changes faster than we do, and the yearning to be loved.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».