MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W287986760

Shooting Women (2008)

2012· article· en· W287986760 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monika Raesch

Notice bibliographique

RevueFilm & history · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueCinema and Media Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhotographyFilm industryPower (physics)CinematographySociologyVisual artsMedia studiesGender studiesArtMovie theater
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Shooting Women (2008) Directed by Alexis Krasilovsky Distributed by Women Make Movies; www.wmm.com; 54 minutes Since 1967, the Academy Awards' Cinematography category has had a total of 245 nominees. None of these has been a woman. However, a female presence has increased in this role throughout the decades. Alexis Krasilovsky's film Shooting Women provides an intimate look at the change in the role of Director of Photography over the past decades, as women camera operators have emerged and altered the landscape of the film industry worldwide. Krasilovsky's film begins with 1967 archival footage of a reporter asking an interviewee what he thinks about a woman as a camera man. The man is puzzled, proceeds laugh and eventually explains that realize[s] that [he] has a hard time answering that... a woman as a camera man. This opening scene encapsulates the underlying issues faced by women in the industry over the past several decades, as they have attempted claim their place in male-dominated production crews. The depth of the problem is, perhaps, most apparent in the reporter's phrasing: 'woman as man.' A 'camera woman' is non-existent vocabulary at the time of the interview, as are gender-neutral terms such as 'camera operator.' An array of interviews follows this scene, the majority carried out with female camera operators, concerning their experiences in the industry. While each of these women's stories is intriguing in its own right, the film's international focus significantly increases their stories' power. Viewers take a journey around the globe, discovering similarities and differences in attitudes towards and working conditions experienced by female DPs in different national cultures, including: Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Senegal, and Spain. In this way, Krasilovsky creates the implicit argument that although these cultures may be different, the experiences of women in this traditionally male occupation share significant commonalities. Main themes explored in the film include gender inequities, ethnic differences, and the day-to-day working relationships between men and women. Viewers witness how critical issues such as gender discrimination are manifested across cultures, in various ways and degrees. Interviews with Indian crew members, both male and female-including married couples where both spouses work as DPs-illustrate the strongest gender division in the documentary, with men suggesting that if a woman wants work on the set it is, nonetheless, still entirely her responsibility take care of her husband and children at the end of the day. Ashok Metha, a Bollywood DP, suggests that it is difficult for women to handle so many people and so much stuff. Sexual harassment is a second problem that strains working relationships between the sexes during production, an issue illustrated by Kirstin Glover's recollections of Arnold Schwarzenegger's repeated inappropriate touching of her on the set of Pumping Iron (1975). Erika Addis, an Australian-born DP, argues that while female members of production crews have been discriminated against, such allegations would almost be impossible prove. The film mentions a variety of organizations that have emerged over the course of the previous decades assist women in the film industry, but no background information is provided on these groups. …

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 consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,569
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,194
Écart entre enseignants0,156 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

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

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFilm & historyMême sujetCinema and Media StudiesTravaux en français237 207