“INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND THE CINEMA: A HISTORICALGEOGRAPHICAL- LITERARY-PHILOSOPHICAL-SOCIOLOGICALPOETICAL VIEW OF THE FILM, THE ENGLISH PATIENT”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of an interdisciplinary perspective is demonstrated by way of a reading of the film The English Patient [Dir. Anthony Minghella, 1996]. The film is born in literature as it is based on a novel by the brilliant Michael Ondaatje. It is historical [Herodotus to World War II]; while demanding knowledge of ‘Middle-Eastern’ geographies; involves a sociology of race and gender relations; while being cinematographically philosophical and deeply poetic. What my paper “does” with The English Patient is to stress that without an interdisciplinary perspective the film is devoid of deeper meanings on several levels. Specifically, I address some of these meanings with extensive reference to two vital interdisciplinary concepts key to the film: ‘reversibility’ and ‘the other’. ‘Reversibility’ (the notion that all empires eventually fall or that all systems contain the means and mechanisms of their eventual undoing), and ‘the other’ (a concept of no mean import in a broad range of studies today) focuses on the positive outcome of the fact that we are all other to each other. I conclude that those who lament the disappearance of poetry in our time would do well to look for it, through interdisciplinary lenses, in contemporary cinema such as The English Patient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".