MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4231437591 · doi:10.1353/cj.2021.0007

Introduction

2021· article· en· W4231437591 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanna Hearne

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of cinema and media studies · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueArtistic and Creative Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndigenousPerforming artsFilmmakingSociologyMedia studiesFace (sociological concept)Performative utteranceAestheticsHistoryGender studiesVisual artsArtArt historySocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Joanna Hearne (bio) Māori writer, director, and performer Taika Waititi's land acknowledgment at the 2020 Academy Awards ceremony might be the biggest Indigenous moment at the Oscars since 1973, when Marlon Brando declined his award and Sacheen Littlefeather took the microphone in his place to make a statement supporting the American Indian Movement's occupation of Wounded Knee. Waititi's acknowledgment of the Tongva, Tataviam, and Chumash as "the first peoples of this land on which the motion pictures community lives and works" ricocheted across the internet.1 Indigenous responses ranged from Nick Martin's remarks about the "dissonance" of land acknowledgments in the face of public apathy on Indigenous issues to Heperi Mita's deeply appreciative contextualization of Waititi's achievements within a Māori "filmmaking whakapapa."2 Whakapapa is often defined as "geneaology," the ordering of generations and the relations among their stories, although the term also entails broader concepts fundamental to Māori worldviews and epistemologies; Mita invokes it here to foreground Indigenous relationality across multiple generations of filmmakers. Indeed, this moment—Waititi's win and his speech—has multiple genealogies, some obvious and others more hidden, because Indigenous participation in film and media production has occupied contradictory positions of invisibility and hypervisibility for a very long time. In the face of long-term erasure from the screen—with Indigenous participation both limited and often [End Page 152] unacknowledged—"our presence is our weapon," as Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg poet and scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson writes.3 While Simpson uses "presence" broadly to indicate Indigenous survival of "centuries of attack," I cite her phrasing here to point more specifically to the resilience and endurance of historical and ongoing communities of Indigenous performers and filmmakers. Recognizing this presence and power re-centers Indigenous participation in North American film and media; it draws our attention to offscreen production networks and infrastructures, interventions in regimes of redfacing, and the leveraging of hard-won screen visibility to support political resistance movements such as #MMIW (missing and murdered Indigenous women) and #NoDAPL (No to the Dakota Access Pipeline). Building on Dakota scholar Philip Deloria's work, we find "Indians in unexpected places" in film and media.4 Faced with screen images of "vanishing Indians," we see evidence of Indigenous presence, from early cinema to the Hollywood studio system to independent media arts to contemporary television and digital media. Through historical recovery and print, digital, and interview research, we "re-credit" the work of Indigenous performers, filmmakers, and digital media artists, making visible their pathways across professional and political networks.5 In recognizing and documenting these artists' Indigenizing strategies, we Indigenize the historical record and expand the field to include new readerships. When we Indigenize film and media history, we are able to ask new questions: What were the stories of the uncredited extras seen in film backgrounds or alongside white stars performing in redface? Who were they and what were the conditions of their participation? What behind-the-scenes negotiations took place between directors and producers and the Indigenous consultants they hired for productions? When Indigenous performers were embedded in productions or exhibitions, how did they use the limited power and visibility they had within the system—or, through publicity, outside of it—to further agendas related to labor, representation, or community concerns? How did Indigenous filmmakers, performers, audiences, and other participants form their own professional or fan communities around shared concerns such as casting, training, and activist interventions in systems such as Canadian media arts organizations or social media platforms? How did they translate concerns with political sovereignty to aesthetic choices for the screen? The scholars in this dossier address these questions by centering Indigenous media genealogies—and more broadly, Indigenous ethics of care and relationality—in both content and methodology. This In Focus analyzes Indigenous performance networks as forms of offscreen community building and activism in relation to screen media. Indigenous participation in mainstream and independent film industries has been the subject of significant historical recovery, even as scholars also address the emergent forms of Indigenous media activism arising with new digital [End Page 153] platforms. The essays collected here investigate Indigenous offscreen practices either independently or alongside...

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)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,463
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,784

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
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)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,075
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of cinema and media studiesMême sujetArtistic and Creative ResearchTravaux en français237 207