Irish Film Censorship: A Cultural Journey from Silent Cinema to Internet Pornography
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IRISH FILM CENSORSHIP: A CULTURAL JOURNEY FROM SILENT CINEMA TO INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY Kevin Rockett Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2004, 496 pp. Irish Film Censorship is an outstanding example of archival research. Kevin Rockett has painstakingly gone through nearly a century's worth of Censor and Appeal Board Reports, providing a detailed history of governmental film reception in Ireland. He has also viewed hundreds of uncut film versions to compare them with the Reports in order to determine what exactly was cut for Irish viewers. Much of his study is devoted to examining the differences between these versions of films and the decisions made by those in charge of the machinery of censorship; in so doing, Rockett reveals what is considered appropriate for an Irish audience by the Irish state, and what is not. In effect, censorship helps to reify Irish identity as it has been constructed by the state through its legislation and daily functioning. While other works on censorship have been concerned with literary texts and broadcasting, Rockett has brought film into the broader discussion, comparing it to these other media and their forms of censorship. Where Rockett's book surpasses other studies is that he is not merely a historian: he is a scholar of film studies who has undertaken a historical study of film censorship in Ireland. The difference is that whereas historians are wont to create a narrative of censorship legislation, its workings and the forces that brought the legislation about, Rockett has also examined the actual cultural artefacts. He explains how film functions as a medium and therefore how it can work against those who seek to impose an authority upon it; this he does by appealing to the theoretical work of Walter Benjamin, the Frankfurt School, and Susan Sontag. In addition, he examines certain types of films, such as the horror and rebel flicks of the 1950s, film noir, adaptations of Tennessee Williams' plays, and art cinema, in terms of how they might pose a threat to the structure of censorship and the society it seeks to protect. Through these analytical and theoretical processes, he provides a sophisticated study of censorship, film, and the society in which the relationship between them is forged. Rockett is particularly effective at delineating the different forms of censorship to which film was subjected. While films that show or discuss sex come under the Censor's greatest scrutiny, other films are censored because of their politics and the social issues with which they are engaged. This is not to say that these types of censorship are unrelated: the sexual is, of course, political, particularly in the parochially Catholic environment of mid-century Ireland. But Irish censors also removed perceived political threats from films, especially internal threats in the form of Irish Republican Army campaigns and their effects upon political stability in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Any film glamorising these events or terrorists was dutifully cut or banned, as were interviews with anyone belonging to any paramilitary organisation or their affiliated political parties, such as Sinn Fein. Ireland also censored films and newsreels during World War II, fearing that the portrayal of events or nations in any light could inflame public opinion and thus compromise Irish neutrality. And films that were unkind in their treatment of Catholic social teachings and representation of Church officials likewise came under fire; these sorts of films, it was believed, could undermine the political and moral authority of the state. But the most interesting instances of censorship arise when censors take exception to Irish stereotypes and their possible effects upon the national imaginary. By highlighting these cases, Rockett furthers his argument that film censorship works in conjunction with national identity formation as it is enforced and enacted by the state. Most impressive about this study is the historical narrative of film censorship in twentieth-century Ireland that Rockett unfolds; he has left little in the government archives and Ireland's press for future scholars to pick through. …
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».