James FenwickUnderstanding Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey: Representation and Interpretation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
409 BOOKS IN REVIEW engaged with the dynamics of a revived Cold War and a renewed anxiety regarding nuclear destruction. While its treatment of sf is, as noted, at times a bit hazy and decontextualized, there is little doubt that the volume makes an important contribution to the study of nuclear war in fiction and will thus be highly useful for sf scholars interested in that topic.—Rob Latham, Twentynine Palms No Human Error. James Fenwick, ed. Understanding Kubrick’s 2001:ASPACE ODYSSEY: Representation and Interpretation. Chicago: Intellect, 2018. xvii+268 pp. $93 hc. In celebration of the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey’s (1968), IMAX gave this canonical sf film a new life in summer 2018. So on a Tuesday afternoon in late August, I ventured to see it at the Cinéma Cineplex Forum in Montreal. I arrived just a few minutes late and, as I entered the theatre, discovered that Cineplex had foregone their usual 20-minute pre-show of car advertisements and trailers for upcoming blockbusters. Instead, the room was pitch black and György Ligeti’s Atmospheres (1961) blasted through the speakers. I used my phone-flashlight to locate my assigned seat; then, for the next two hours and 40 minutes, I sat transfixed by 2001’s sublime visuals, silences, and musical accompaniment. Exhibiting 2001 in this setting was perfect. While this was not my first viewing, given my comparatively small 40-inch TV I was seeing it here with fresh eyes. Two of the authors in Fenwick’s Understanding Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY begin their respective chapters with their initial encounters of the monumental film. Fenwick recalls feeling perplexed and engrossed by “The Dawn of Man” sequence and, for Rachel Walisko, 2001 was her first truly “existential experience” (183). For many of 2001’s viewers the film is undeniably a transformative experience, whether they are watching it for the first time or the tenth time. Alongside this new era of IMAX exhibition comes a new era of scholarship to which Fenwick’s collection is a valuable contribution. Partially emerging from a 2016 conference entitled Stanley Kubrick: A Retrospective, Fenwick’s Understanding Kubrick’s 2001 builds a bridge between older methodologies and interpretations of the film and new methods and research undertaken after the opening of the Stanley Kubrick Archive (held at the University of the Arts, London and the London College of Communication) in 2007. According to Fenwick, Understanding Kubrick’s 2001 “represents a wide-ranging examination from a number of standpoints about one of the most important and influential films in cinema history” (11). The volume contains six parts and twelve chapters. The chapters detail the film’s production history and narrative, assess its representations of masculinities and technology, and outline its philosophical import. They are relatively short, similarly structured, and almost all equally engaging. Most of the contributions will appeal to a general audience, as well as to curious 2001 fans and established Kubrick scholars. 410 SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, VOLUME 46 (2019) Fenwick begins the volume by outlining the stakes of his project and situating it within the broader field of Kubrick studies. Before each section, he provides brief overviews of its chapters and some further reading. If one were to read the book cover to cover, however, beginning at the end is advised. Filippo Ulivieri, one of the leading Kubrick scholars in Italy, provides “the first systematic attempt at reconstructing the entire chronology of Kubrick’s endeavor” (204). He starts in February 1964 and Kubrick’s lunch with Columbia Pictures’ Roger Cara—here, the director pitched the idea for a “serious science-fiction film.” Ulvieri then moves through Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s collaboration on the story and Kubrick’s four years of work with dozens of crew members; he concludes with the film’s premiere and its negative reviews. While the genius behind 2001 is undeniable, Ulvieri’s chronology of the film’s production indicates that its success also hinged upon extensive and diverse collaborations. One small change to 2001 could have altered its fate entirely (e.g., Kubrick conceived several monolith designs and considered a physical alien, a prologue of scientist interviews, and a...
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.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle