MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W281643019

The Party's Over: Rollercoaster

2001· article· en· W281643019 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Wood

Notice bibliographique

RevueCineaction! · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFilm directorVerdictArt historyHistoryArtLawMedia studiesSociologyMovie theaterPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Prelude: 'Efforts' and 'small films' Recently, in Toronto, a rare event: a filmmaker actually had the nerve to attack the reviewers for not liking his film. The filmmaker was David Weaver (who once long ago wrote for CineAction); the film was his first feature, Century Hotel. Weaver's shocking, unprecedented and of course totally unjustifiable behaviour produced a response that was surprising only in its length and obsessiveness (had, perhaps, a nerve been touched somewhere?): Geoff Pevere (who also once long ago wrote for CineAction) managed to take up almost a full page of the Toronto Star in his determination to put this young upstart in his place. (Was I alone in finding his response insufferably smug in its lofty scorn and condescension, its transparent desire to push a young and ambitious Canadian filmmaker back into the dark and lowly place he should never have dared peek out of? But then, I like Century Hotel...). One of Weaver's misdemeanours was to suggest that the reviews would have been different if the film had been French. This elicited further witticisms from Pevere, but I agree with Weaver: if Century Hotel had been made in France and had subtitles, the critical verdict might have been roughly the same, but the tone would have been quite different and far more respectful. I have noticed on several occasions a tendency in the reviews or the 'new releases' listings to describe Canadian movies as 'efforts' ('the latest Canadian effort'; Century Hotel, made in Toronto, was announced as a 'local effort'). I cannot recall ever seeing this term applied to films from elsewhere (The Wind Shall Carry Us as 'the latest Iranian effort'? Harry Potter as 'the new Hollywood effort'?). Canadian films (unless directed by David Cronenberg, or perhaps Atom Egoyan in his later works) are also categorized instantly as 'small', and I think we should ask ourselves exactly what this conveys, and by what criterion smallness or bigness can be gauged. The answer is clear: 'small' here has nothing whatever to do with subject matter, quality or ambition; it has to do exclusively with money, and is yet another proof of our insidious and all-pervasive corruption by capitalist values. Pevere was very positive about Bruce Sweeney's Last Wedding, yet he referred to it repeatedly as 'small'. The film is a devastating attack on the institution of marriage, its title to be taken literally: 'I say there shall be no more marriages...' (Bruce Sweeney as Hamlet). Is this a 'small' subject? It is offered as a bomb placed and exploded under the very heart of our culture. But of course it did not cost very much (relatively speaking) to make, and lacks stars, spectacle and 'special effects'. For me, Last Wedding is a very big film indeed; Harry Patter is a small film. I wonder how many people reading this article have even heard of Rollercoaster (or, perhaps, are expecting a critical exploration of the 1977 Sensurround 'effort', a disaster film in every sense, in which case I shall disappoint them). Scott Smith's film is also 'small': its budget was not exactly enormous, and I assume its cast of six (uniformly marvellous) actors were each paid somewhat less than the ten million nowadays taken for granted by major Hollywood stars, though they give performances as good, if not better. And the film is 'merely' about teenagers, our culture's disenfranchised, disenchanted and desperate members, and (more specifically) about teen suicide: a 'small' subject? I have to suppose it is, for most people. We read brief references to it in the newspapers but nothing is ever done so presumably no one cares, it not occurring to them that these same teenagers (the ones who survive) represent the future of our culture. But then, does anyone care about that either? Those who believe in the reality of global warming (notice, Torontonians, that it is, at time of writing, the beginning of December and the temperature is still well above zero) and the devastation of the environment appear to be in such a minority that they feel helpless, while the rest have long ago succombed to the capitalist lure of 'nowness' (you'll be soooo happy if you get that new car, the latest pop CD, the very newest shampoo, deodorant or perfume, the very latest in clothing, and have sex, sex, sex at every opportunity--how can you spare even a moment to think about 'the future of the culture' or some such troubling and difficult sort of thing, best left to impotent academics). …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,766
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,237
Écart entre enseignants0,202 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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