Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Stephen Colbert: How did I do with your name? 'Sursha'. Saoirse Ronan: 'Sursha is perfect. 'Sursha' like inertia. SC: What's worst pronunciation of your name that you've ever had? SR: I've had a lot of 'Sore-sees', 'Suarez', 'Sair-she', 'Sheer-says'... SC: You do look a little bit like a Suarez. The Late Show, 12 January 2016. Recent months have seen absurd discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation of Saoirse Ronan's first name repeatedly exploited for comic effect on American chat show circuit. Before Colbert, Ellen de Generes did it twice (producing cards with Irish names and challenging audience to guess correct pronunciation) while Jimmy Fallon couldn't avoid referring to Ronan's brogue during a Tonight Show appearance in November 2015. Behind cheap laughs, however, these exchange simply that US audiences need to get used to Irish accents and idioms (Interview magazine featured a similar encounter between Domhnall Gleeson and Angelina Jolie), pointing to a 'mainstreaming' of young Irish actors and--perhaps--Irish film within US entertainment firmament. (1) This 'greening' owes much to critical success and extensive coverage afforded two recent Irish films--the screen adaptations of Brooklyn and, to a lesser extent, Room (reviewed in this year's edition by Pat Brereton and Eileen Culloty respectively)--although for a variety of reasons, Saoirse has proven more marketable personality. In case of Brooklyn, remarkable success of Colm Toibin's novel was replicated by John Crowley's screen version. After premiering at Sundance Film Festival in January 2015, a carefully planned festival release strategy built critical momentum over nine months, paying dividends on US and UK awards circuits, most notably for Saoirse Ronan's central performance as Eilis. The comparable success of Lenny Abrahamson's Room (the nomination of Abrahamson in Best Director category in some senses outshone Brooklyn's considerable achievements) came as a late bonus given that film didn't receive a world premiere (notably at Telluride, not Dublin) until September 2015. Both films featured prominently among nominees for Screen Actors Guild, Golden Globes, New Film Critics Awards and, of course Academy Awards. When Colin Welland, on receiving Best Screenplay Oscar for Chariots of Fire in 1982, famously proclaimed that the British are Coming, he could only point to that single film. In 2016, Oscar nominations created a hitherto unimaginable scenario: two Irish films vying not only in Best Actress Category but also for high status and financially critical Best Picture Oscar. The Irish, it would seem, have arrived. // So overwhelming has critical praise and coverage of these films been that they have all but eclipsed other films produced in Ireland over past year and become, inevitably perhaps, benchmarks by which such films are measured. Notwithstanding their extraordinary achievements, Brooklyn and Room nevertheless raise provocative issues around definition and ambitions of Irish cinema in 2016. (Along with not-yet unreleased Viva--a Cuba-set Spanish language film shortlisted as Ireland's entry in Best Foreign Language category). While Room can unproblematically be identified as Irish at a production level, led by director Lenny Abrahamson and producer Ed Guiney (and substantial development and production funding from Irish Film Board),the setting and characters are unequivocally North American. Outside Ireland, some media coverage has referred to film as Canadian, reflecting Guiney's creative exploitation of screenwriter Emma Donoghue's dual Irish/Canadian citizenship to access Canadian funding. (The film is adapted from Donoghue's novel). In this regard it's worth recalling that previous Abrahamson/Guiney collaboration, Frank (2014) had scarcely any textual relationship to Ireland at all (bar a brief stop-over for band) and while two of its principle actors were Irish--Michael Fassbinder and Domhnall Gleeson--they were cast as American and British characters respectively. …
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 | 0,005 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».