Screening Youth, Contemporary French and Francophone Cinema ed. by Romain Chareyron and Gilles Viennot
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Screening Youth, Contemporary French and Francophone Cinema ed. by Romain Chareyron and Gilles Viennot Peadar Kearney Romain Chareyron and Gilles Viennot, eds. Screening Youth, Contemporary French and Francophone Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Pp. 250. Screening Youth, Contemporary French and Francophone Cinema is an innovative text that gathers together diverse approaches to the notion of youth in French-language cinema. Editors Romain Chareyron and Gilles Viennot inform us that the desire to produce the collection stemmed from the realization that while youth has been a central interest of Francophone film, this focus has not yet been matched by academic studies. Most debates concerning the 'teen movie' as genre find their roots in studies of Rebel Without a Cause (Nicolas Ray, 1956). Although the 'teen movie' may be less established in the Francophone world than it is in the Anglosphere, one can think of many French-language screen productions where young people are at the fore. The collection is therefore very much at the intersection of French studies and film studies. There are three different types of chapters in Screening Youth: theory-based, filmmaker-centered, and thematic comparison. The theory-based chapters are understandably placed near the beginning of the book in order to sketch out a framework for what is to follow. The majority of chapters address the notion of youth across the work of one filmmaker. However, a number of theme-based chapters examine the notion of youth across the work of multiple directors, for example, comparing the notion of queer bodies in the Maghreb and France or representations of gender and the banlieue. The collection retains its cohesion by being grouped through its common over-arching thematic and notional concerns. Gemma Edney's theorization of what may interest us in terms of the 'youth movie' in the French-speaking context is of particular interest here, as she asks if there is a French equivalent of the 'teen movie,' an established genre of the American mainstream. Fiona Handyside's analysis adds depth and fresh perspective to Mia Hansen-Løve's films, while Elizabeth Geary Keoghan's study of Bruno Dumont's P'tit Quinquin (2014) allows us to reconsider many of the unanswered questions of the memorable mini-series. Walter S. Temple's chapter mixes the study of film with spectator reaction interviews in order to articulate the extent to which the films being studied may be considered authentic. With these examples alone, we can see that the collection successfully covers a broad range of genres and styles, even going slightly beyond the limits of cinema itself. Spanning 15 chapters, 13 of these being case studies, the collection's scope is suitably broad in covering an array of styles and artistic registers. Remaining predominantly with the extreme contemporary enhances the collection's cohesion, as few of the films studied date before 2000. There is potential for more work to develop the initial ideas and apply them elsewhere; for example, one could easily imagine another collection that concentrates on Quebec or Belgium, with an abundance to say about the notion of youth in films of Xavier Dolan or the Dardenne brothers. Comparative studies of different film cultures would surely provide further insight. Such inspiration is a testament to the collection's success. [End Page 152] Peadar Kearney Maynooth University Copyright © 2020 L'Esprit Créateur
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,003 |
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.
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».