Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures ed. by Scott MacKenzie (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
FILM MANIFESTOS AND GLOBAL CINEMA CULTURES Edited by Scott MacKenzie Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014,651 pp.REVIEWED BY MICHAEL ZRYDFilm Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures is a strikingly massive and inclusive anthology of film manifestos that is notable for its global comprehensiveness and sheer quantity of surprises. The collection features 175 texts-the Table of Contents alone is 15 pages-divided smartly into eleven sections that encompass categories both expected (The Avant-Garde(s), cinemas, Colonialism, Decolonization, and Postcolonialism) and surprising (Militating Hollywood, Archives, Museums, Festivals, and Cinematheques). It is first anthology on subject of manifesto, and will be definitive English-language text for years to come-both for incorporating canon of film manifestos and for expanding and redefining category.The anthology collects standard film manifestos like Dziga Vertov's WE: Variant of a Manifesto; Francois Truffaut's A Certain Tendency in French Cinema; texts by Surrealists and Lettrists; crucial Third Cinema manifestos by Rocha, Espinosa, and Solanas & Getino; and Dogma 95 manifesto (which MacKenzie argues has revived film manifesto over last two decades). These manifestos are contextualized not only in economical and helpful annotations that accompany each text (along with publication information crucial for understanding text's historical and social provenance), but also in introductory commentaries that MacKenzie provides for each of thematic sections. In addition to collecting standard manifestos, MacKenzie also makes a strong case for recognizing how many canonical film theory texts were originally manifesto-like, or least polemical, in intention and impact. Thus, familiar essays like Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, John Grierson's First Principles of Documentary, Maya Deren's A of Principles, Stan Brakhage's Metaphors on Vision, and Sergei Eisenstein et alls Statement on Sound are given new life through their placement in thematic sections, resonating with lesser known texts therein.The principal thesis of volume is that film manifestos, though neglected, should be at center of film history, politics, and culture, because manifestos are, by their nature, constitutive, literally to action for political and aesthetic changes in cinema and, equally importantly, cinema's role in world. MacKenzie makes his case, not only by demonstrating mani- festo's centrality in canon of film studies, but also by reframing documents that have heavily impacted film and social history. His favorite example is what he contends is the most successful film manifesto of all time, Hollywood's Motion Picture Production Code (linked to The Legion of Decency Pledge, also included). The Code was constitutive not only of moral content of films made under its aegis, but also of aesthetic of indirection that underlies both Hollywood's ideological power and its occasional internal subversion.In MacKenzie's introduction, he acknowledges dominant leftist orientation of most film manifestos, which function as revolutionary calls for freedom and commitment (and contradictions those twin directives often create) in relation to both aesthetic and political change. Fredric Jameson, Louis Althusser, and Walter Benjamin figure prominently with their impetus to integrate aesthetic and political innovation, often toward explicitly utopian goals. Yet one of revelations of Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures is its inclusion of reactionary texts that are extraordinarily illuminating, especially in our current political moment as we suffer rise of social conservative and neo-liberal regimes. If a savvy political strategy is Know Your Enemy (also title of a US Army training film made during Vietnam War), then Ayn Rand's gobsmacking Screen Guide for Americans, Joseph Goebbels's Creative Film, and Pope Pius XI's Vigilanti Cura-. …
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 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,007 |
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 ».