Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context by Sonia M. Tascón (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
HUMAN RIGHTS FILM FESTIVALS: ACTIVISM IN CONTEXT By Sonia M. Tascon New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015, 264 pp.REVIEWED BY LYELL DAVIESWith dozens of human rights film festivals staged around the world each year, Sonia M. Tascoris Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context is a much-needed study of these festivals, and a useful addition to film festival scholarship more generally. Examining the meeting of human rights discourses and cinema in the film festival setting, Tascoris study is all the more relevant since, as she points out, those working in the human rights arena may know little about cinema and accept films-particularly documentaries-uncritically, while filmmakers, even those who profess a concern for social justice, may know little about human rights. Adding further complexity, film festivals have historically been launched to meet needs that are distantly removed from human rights, such as to fuel cinephilia or promote national cinemas.In her study, Tascon wisely avoids presenting general claims about the numerous human rights film festivals in operation and directs her attention to two festivals, the Buenos Aires-based Festival Internacional de Cine Derechos Humanos (FICDH) and New York City-based Human Rights Watch International Film Festival (HRWIFF). Central to Tascoris argument is that regional film festivals interpret human rights in different ways to meet local needs. Probing the schedule of films programmed by FICD H following its launch in 1997, Tascon argues that during the festivals early years it focused on the exhibition of works depicting themes related to Argentina's military dictatorship of the 1970s and early 1980s. She calculates that in the festival's first year more than two-thirds of the films exhibited were either about or produced in Argentina, with a significant number of these directly exploring the junta's brutal rule or its aftermath. By choosing to screen the films that it did, the festival's conceptualization of human rights was a response to recent events in Argentine history and underlying its choices was the subtext of seeking to encourage the resuscitation of a radical, oppositional Argentine cinema of the kind crushed during the military's rule. Tascon reports that over time this focus has changed with topics linked to the negative effects of globalization taking a prominent place in the festival's program, as well as a higher ratio of films made outside Latin America. Nonetheless, she argues that the prominence of films depicting themes related to Argentina over the course of FICDH s history illustrates that a major thrust for the festival has been nation building within Argentina, rather than a broad call for international human rights.Examining HRWIFF, Tascon describes a different trajectory. Launched in 1988, HRWIFF was the world's first human rights film festival and is an offshoot of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a U.S.-based organization created during the Cold War (as Helsinki Watch) to monitor human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. The author argues that HRWIFF has commonly followed HRW s framing of what is, or is not, a human rights issue, selecting films that focus on human rights abuses beyond the U. …
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 | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,003 |
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.
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 ».