“No Magic against Love,” or Dark Seduction Redirected: Perspectives on the Fantasy Film<i>Krabat</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: By drawing on material from popular legend and children’s literature, Marco Kreuzpaintner’s film Krabat presents a series of conventional leitmotifs—seduction by dark powers, a pact with the devil and ultimate redemption through love—to explore the tensions implicit in master-disciple relationships common to religious formulations. In depicting how a young boy was compelled to enter under a demonic master’s protection, Krabat exploits the complex intersection of the fantastic genre, magical lore and structures of discipleship. The film is about growing up, about friendship and death, group dynamics, seduction “to the dark side,” and finally, in terms of a positive message, about love which is capable of overcoming everything. Even though the film has no theological intention in the strict sense of the word, Christian values are conveyed by way of narrative elements that have been absorbed and transformed over the course of the reception history devoted to the Krabat material. In addition to marking the shifts between the genre of the literary fantastic and cinematic fantasy, this paper investigates Krabat’s rich intertextuality and demonstrates how its examination may contribute to understanding the provocative interface between literary, cultural and religious studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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".