MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539510133 · doi:10.1080/17400300500213495

BETWEEN BRECHT AND ARTAUD

2005· article· en· W1539510133 on OpenAlexaff
Elena del Río

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Review of Film and Television Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrueltyIrrational numberCarnivalesqueAestheticsArtSign (mathematics)LiteraturePsychoanalysisPsychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reconsiders the significance of the performing body in Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun by supplementing the well‐documented influences of Brechtian theatre and Sirkian melodrama with the rarely examined influence of Antonin Artaud's theatre of cruelty. In this analysis, the Brechtian and Artaudian perspectives emerge as complementary, rather than oppositional, models. I argue that in Fassbinder the Brechtian distanciation effect prevents his concern with emotions from sliding into clichéd sentimentality, instead fostering the emergence of a more confronting affective dimension in both the actors' performances and the viewers' experience of the film. Through a detailed examination of Hanna Schygulla's gestural and kinetic language in two crucial scenes, I suggest that Fassbinder reconciles historical/social and affective/individual concerns by blending the Brechtian concept of the body as intelligible social sign and the Artaudian concept of the body as irrational force exceeding social and linguistic boundaries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Review of Film and Television StudiesSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207