Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The last three decades have been a time of changes in filmmaking. Film editing as a part of it it’s not immune to this set of transformations. The driving force is the digital revolution, but the level of changes comes in different dimensions. The filmmaking process brought a change in technology and equipment that impacted technical and creative procedures. The emergence of the internet, social networks, streaming platforms, altered the relationship between the spectator and the medium. Film language acquired the capacity to absorb styles originated in television and in other media and keeps evolving. Access to the tools is democratized. Any young adult can use a phone or a computer to edit video content that feeds social networks. The next step will be artificial intelligence and this whole transformative process is far from ending. Throughout this evolutionary process, the montage theories have remained relatively stable because they are very robust, but the scale of contextual changes requires an update to this different technological and cultural setting. This paper aims to answer this question by proposing a conceptual framework for creative film editing. The framework design is based on the theory of assemblage (Deleuze, Guattari; DeLanda), it identifies the two minimal essential elements of the process: filmic elements and relations. Filmic elements are concrete, relations are abstract. Editing is creating relations between filmic elements and shaping those relations to produce meaning and aesthetics. In assemblage theory all assemblages share three characteristics, they all have concrete elements, an abstract machine, and agents. The abstract machine is a space of possibilities determined by the concrete elements in which all relations are possible. The editor is an agent acting on an abstract machine. From this perspective, we can identify two processes of interaction between concrete elements and relations and they occur along different dimensions. One dimension defines the variable roles that an assemblage component may play, from a purely material role to a purely expressive role. These roles are variable and may occur in mixtures. The other dimension defines variable processes in which these components become involved and are referred to as processes of territorialization or deterritorialization. These two specialized expressive media are viewed as the basis for a second synthetic process called coding. Coding supplies a second articulation, consolidating the effects of the first and stabilizing the identity of an assemblage. For coding methods, we use models from the theory of editing that define “rules” on how to connect shots together. Continuity editing, for instance, is a set of rules that can be viewed as a specific code. This framework includes a model for grid analysis to grasp how the relations being crafted can affect the film experience from different perspectives, namely narrative, aesthetic, and discursive. With this framework we provide a conceptual model to understand the film editing process from its most basic components, allowing the editor to have a clear understanding of how he can affect the cinematic experience, thus providing tools and methods for critical analysis.
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 | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,114 | 0,059 |
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 ».