<i>Les Cinéastes animaliers: enquête dans les coulisses du film animalier en France</i> . Par <scp>Maxence Lamoureux</scp> <i>Les Cinéastes animaliers: enquête dans les coulisses du film animalier en France</i> . Par LamoureuxMaxence. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2017. 252 pp.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The year 2004 was the best of times and the worst of times for cinéastes animaliers, or French wildlife filmmakers. Luc Jacquet was completing La Marche de l’empereur (The March of the Penguins), which would shortly break global box-office records and exemplify the popular renaissance of French-made animal cinema. The École de cinéma animalier des Deux-Sèvres (also known as the Institut francophone de formation au cinéma animalier de Ménigoute, or IFFCAM), dedicated to training students in the art and ethics of wildlife filmmaking, admitted its first class. But Canal+, one of the major private television channels, announced that it would cease funding original wildlife content, a decision that threatened to foreclose a robust future of the genre in France. These overlapping events form key points of reference for Maxence Lamoureux’s fascinating three-part study of French wildlife media. Part One draws upon thirty feature films made between 1954 and 2014 to sketch a ‘socio-history’ of the film animalier, which the author defines as camera-made (non-virtual) documentary and fictional media featuring non-domestic animals (p. 44). Part Two provides a sociology of wildlife filmmakers as a class of professionals. The final part conducts case studies of two emergent organizations: the degree-granting IFFCAM and the advocacy group Réalisateurs naturalistes animaliers refusant de disparaître (RENARD), founded by director Marie-Hélène Baconnet in response to the Canal+ funding retraction. Lamoureux provides a detailed panorama of wildlife media production, distribution, and exhibition during what may come to be known as the trente glorieuses of the genre (1990–present), due to the increase in productions characterized by a highly cinematic ‘French touch’ (p. 63; in English in the original) born of the specificities of a funding system where properties were made for release on the big screen with subsequent programming on television. The author’s double competencies as an IFFCAM-trained filmmaker who also holds a doctorate in sociology are effectively put into conversation across the book’s fourteen chapters. The methodology combines a sociology of creative labour that draws upon anonymized interviews with forty filmmakers with thick descriptions of the specific techniques for filming animals and poetic passages evoking the milieux where the films are made. As the title suggests, the focus is primarily on a typological analysis of the professional cinéastes who make wildlife media — their sense of identity, ethos, work experiences, and professional networks — and not on the films or the animal life captured by the camera. Lamoureux treads lightly through the literature and methods of cinema studies proper and leaves it to the reader to consider reverberations with the rich theoretical and philosophical writing on animals and animality contemporaneous with the period examined. Scholars writing on animals and media in the French context would do well to inform themselves with the practical concerns of the métier covered in this book. My sense is that those who will benefit most from Lamoureux’s welcome contribution to the small bibliography on the subject are current and future students of IFFCAM, although the text certainly merits a wider readership from advanced students and scholars working in the overlapping fields of cinema and media studies and animal studies.
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».