Attaching Hollywood to a Surveillant Assemblage: Normalizing Discourses of Video Surveillance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines video surveillance images in Hollywood film. It moves beyond previous accounts of video surveillance in relation to film by theoretically situating the use of these surveillance images in a broader “surveillant assemblage”. To this end, scenes from a sample of thirty-five (35) films of several genres are examined to discern dominant discourses and how they lend themselves to normalization of video surveillance. Four discourses are discovered and elaborated by providing examples from Hollywood films. While the films provide video surveillance with a positive associative association it is not without nuance and limitations. Thus, it is found that some forms of resistance to video surveillance are shown while its deterrent effect is not. It is ultimately argued that Hollywood film is becoming attached to a video surveillant assemblage discursively through these normalizing discourses as well as structurally to the extent actual video surveillance technology to produce the images is used.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it