MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390341092 · doi:10.1215/00182168-11085389

World Socialist Cinema: Alliances, Affinities, and Solidarities in the Global Cold War

2023· article· en· W4390341092 sur OpenAlexaff
Jessica Stites Mor

Notice bibliographique

RevueHispanic American Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueCinema and Media Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIconMovie theaterDownloadCitationMedia studiesHistoryArt historyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Of the many new works that have begun to uncover the cultural history of the Cold War from the vantage point of critical peripheries, Masha Salazkina's new book is perhaps one of the most comprehensive and accessible to cover the movement of ideas through Soviet spaces of Afro-Asian exchange. It examines a key strategy of internationalist solidarity, that of creating cultural affinities and intimacies, between different parts of what Salazkina calls the “socialist world,” through the use of cinema.The main focus of the work is the Tashkent Festival of Cinemas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the many cinematic universes that came into contact through its participants. It is organized around two major objectives: describing the evolution of the festival, its early selections and accomplishments, and taking a look at key themes that emerged both intellectually and politically through festival programs. One chapter carefully explores women's and gender issues, another takes on questions of socialist models of industrialization, and an excellent concluding chapter assesses the role of armed struggle, both on-screen and off, in various open conflicts to which festival attendees would be vitally connected or otherwise encouraged to see as relevant to their own struggles.Salazkina has an incredible talent for storytelling, offering a glimpse into fascinating personalities and remarkable events that shaped the encounters of African and Asian, and later Latin American, cineasts through the 1960s and 1970s. One example is the particularly revealing story of Sonia Amelio, a Mexican folkloric dancer invited to tour the Soviet Union. Salazkina uses this example to highlight gender tensions in the experience of performers traveling through Moscow and on their way to more remote cities, hearing criticisms of the “star system” and observing the celebration of the “progressive” films that documented the lives of working women (pp. 156–57). She examines gendered discourse in the reception of artists like Amelio not only by her hosts but also by delegations that interpreted her “risqué” act through their own perceptions of what socialist liberation might mean for women (p. 156).The book fills a critical gap in scholarship of this period in attempting to uncover the way that central Asia under Soviet rule participated in the crafting of internationalist, nonaligned, and tricontinental forms of resistance. It demonstrates that not only did filmmakers and their interlocutors find ways to join their comrades in anticapitalist struggle, but they also held space for critical dialogue over the emergence of a global hegemony of two superpower states. As these figures met under a Soviet microscope in what is now the capital city of Uzbekistan, a site not as well trafficked as major sites in the socialist and decolonizing world such as Havana or Algiers, they encountered a very controlled environment in which to be asked to consider revolutionary propositions. Salazkina discusses the preparations made and the events planned for these guests, but she also details the many ways that the Tashkent festival allowed participants a degree of freedom to observe and critique the surveillance and posturing of the state. This view of the Taskhent festival as a site of resistance to even Soviet power, to an extent, illustrates the power of international solidarity movements to succeed in shaping political imaginaries despite their relative lack of material agency. Importantly, the work offers an alternative vision of development for internationally oriented national film industries with socialist rather than capitalist market orientation.One of the most illuminating arguments of the book involves the reception of Vietnamese and Palestinian filmmaking at the festival. In both highlighting the praise for cinema coming from these struggles and registering the intense debate that these films engendered, the book demonstrates the power of film to foster discussion on ideological approaches to militancy without falling into the trap of being seen as propaganda or necessarily as in direct support of violence. Salazkina is able to illuminate the intense debates taking place through the social spaces of cinema and to show how critical networks of South-South support could be nurtured through solidarity filmmaking. She uses these fairly well-known cases to set up a further example, that of Bangladeshi cinema. The conflicts of the Bangladesh Liberation War are often studied in isolation from these other movements. Salazkina, however, does a remarkable job reconstructing a history of interconnectedness and conversation between South Asian filmmakers working to raise awareness about Bangladesh and their counterparts in Afro-Asian solidarity organizing elsewhere.Beyond its major contributions to the study of transnational cinema, solidarity movements, and socialist cultural forms, this work offers an impressive model of cinema scholarship. Salazkina explores documents, archives, and geographies of an unprecedented variety in order to provide a comprehensive picture of what took place in Tashkent. This book should be mandatory reading for students of methodology across the many disciplines of cinema studies.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
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: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,289
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,686

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · 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
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHispanic American Historical ReviewMême sujetCinema and Media StudiesTravaux en français237 207