Don Juan w powieści Vitaliana Brancatiego oraz w filmie Alberta Lattuady czyli o demityzacji uwodziciela z „Don Juana na Sycylii”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present article is twofold: firstly, to demyhicise the famous “rooster” – a Sicilian Don Juan, both in the novel of Vitaliano Brancati (1907-1954) and in Albero Lattuada’s movie (1967), and, secondly, to present the allegoric and social aspects of the Sicilian provinces (Catania) and of a Lombardy metropolis (Milan), rich in anthropological and symbolic components of the time. In the movie, the two roles, that of the husband – Juan, and of the wife – Ninetta confront each other, and, this way, the myth of the eternal “playboy”, Don Juan, is debunked. Juan changes his life refusing to follow the libertine tradition of the 18th century, and his “romantic” success is no longer one-time; he remains a husband faithful to his wife. The wife, however, distances herself from him, becoming a female “Don Juan”. During the first party in Milan, Ninetta not only dresses up as a man, but even suggests him changing his life, to have the possibility of a libertine life. This way, two personalities of different cultures crash: that of the North (Swiss-Lombardy) and of the South (Sicilian); consequently, tradition crashes with a new lifestyle. The director attempts at (re)reading individual stories of Brancati’s heroes as a huge market, where everything is sold or is for sale. In the complex allegoric masquerade of the Italian society, Lattuada stabilizes a parallel between being humane and having the virtue which personalizes almost everything. Therefore, under the teaching of his allegory, his humour is underlined in giving the feather an inhuman, enigmatic and comic character in the bourgeois social relations between the Sicilians and the Milanese; which constitute the plurality of the national identity in the united Italy after 1861.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".