MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W262356789

Blood in the Maple Syrup: Canon, Popular Genre and the Canuxploitation of Julian Roffman

2003· article· en· W262356789 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Taylor

Notice bibliographique

RevueCineaction! · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMovie theaterArt historyPortraitHollywoodArtTimelineLiteratureHistory
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In his entire career, Julian Roffman (also alternatively known as Hoffman) has directed only two feature length films. Despite modest international success of his second feature, The Mask (1961), which also represented only feature-length fiction film to be distributed outside country in its year of release, Roffman has not received recognition from any critics for his work, and his small corpus of films has faded into near-obscurity. Prior to 2001, no mention of his work could be found in any books on cinema, not even in such timelines as Self Portraits A Chronology of and Quebec Cinema: 1896-1976. Here, one would expect at least a passing reference, but in 1959, year of The Bloody Brood's release, Pierre Veronneau only mentions the private production of [unspecified] feature while in 1961, Seul ou avec d'autres (Claude Jutra) is only film cited as being produced that year. (1) Thanks to respective efforts of Peter Harry Rist, Wyndham Rise, and diligent co-editors of Guide to Cinema(s) of Canada and Take One's Essential Guide to Film in providing comprehensive and encyclopaedic viewers' guides to cinema, both The Bloody Brood and The Mask are referenced. For better or for worse, Julian Roffman has been accorded a place within Canada's cinematic heritage, if only by exhaustive default. Prior to 2001, oversights of Veronneau and Peter Morris in their efforts at compilation seem more than accidental. Roffman's thrillers at least deserved an acknowledgement of their status as precursors to big-grossing exploitation films produced by Hollywood North in late 1970's and early 1980's. In 1977, for example, out of 8.9 million dollars from top 10 English films in Canada, 5.7 million were earned by schlock items, and over half that gross was produced by David Cronenberg's Shivers. (2) Suggesting that Roffman's own work made Cronenberg's success possible sixteen years later is contestable, however, it is not untenable to regard Roffman as somewhat of a pioneer within genres of horror and suspense. Before The Bloody Brood and The Mask, both genres were left virtually unexplored by filmmakers. Since then, filmmakers have made several noteworthy contributions to critically disreputable but popularly adored slasher genre, including Cannibal Girls (Ivan Reitman, 1973), Black Christmas (Bob Clark, 1974), and Prom Night (Paul Lynch, 1980)--all of which are regarded as classics in their own right. (3) Not are Roffman's films (and those of his lineage) dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration by film scholars, but critical minimization of his work is indicative of a larger tendency to discount various kinds of films that do not fit into corpus of what constitutes a Canadian With exception (that proves rule) of Cronenberg's work, suspense and horror films, both exploitative and are not co-opted into framework of national cinema. And by our national cinema, I am referring to various conceptions of cinema circulated by academic film scholars. cinema as conceived by academics and cinema as conceived by average moviegoer are two different things entirely, as any fan of Porky's (Bob Clark, 1982), Les Boys (Louis Saic 1997), or Flesh Gordon 2 (Howard Ziehm 1974) could tell you. At any rate, these films do not adhere to criteria of an Elderian Cinema We Need, nor Peter Harcourt's idealized realist tradition, nor Eurocentric aesthetic values of a Northern art Furthermore, critical neglect of The Bloody Brood and The Mask are compounded by their production before 1964: year popularly (and quite erroneously) regarded as legitimate birth of cinema. In short, Roffman's films are anathema to exclusionary specifications of canon builders because of their perceived lack of quality and complexity, their generic status, and their untimely release. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,901
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,198

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,007
Communication savante0,0080,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,211
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCineaction!Même sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207