Choreographing theory: an analysis of Édouard Lock's<i>Amelia</i>(2002) questioning the limits of feminist and poststructuralist perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Édouard Lock's dance film Amelia (2002 Lock, E. dir. 2002. Amelia [DVD], Montreal: Opus Arte. [Google Scholar]) is the focus of this essay. Second‐wave feminist and poststructuralist perspectives inform the analysis of this piece of contemporary dance. Laura Mulvey's male gaze theory and Julia Kristeva's theory of the semiotic and symbolic realms of representation are explored and critiqued, whilst Jacques Derrida's deconstruction forms the basis of the poststructuralist inquiry. The work of dance scholars including Ann Daly, Susan Leigh Foster and Ann Cooper Albright is drawn upon in relation to applying these theories to dance. This analysis demonstrates how dance, and specifically Lock's work, questions the limits of feminist and poststructuralist theories. The dissection of binary oppositions is a feminist and poststructuralist concern and as such, this common strategy is investigated through Amelia. Application of feminist and poststructuralist theories demonstrate that Lock's choreography presents ambiguous gender identities and challenges the boundaries of balletic convention whilst also acknowledging the necessity of conventional frameworks of identity. This analysis serves to highlight Lock's choreography as a valuable tool for comparing feminist and poststructuralist theories and leads to useful lines of questioning in each.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".