Une reprise impossible? Effi Briest et la question de ses réécritures filmiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les quatre réécritures filmiques du roman de Fontane, Effi Briest, se trouvent confrontées aux éléments fondateurs des significations fontaniennes que sont : métaphore, temps, reprise. Chaque film les « traite » à sa manière. Ceux de Luderer (1970) et de Jugert (1955) éludent vite la question. Celui de Gründgens (1938) offre l’intérêt de se construire sur une théâtralité que le cinéma s’emploie à exhausser. Seul, le film de Fassbinder (1972) fait porter facture et interrogation filmiques sur la métaphore et le jeu face au réel. Assumant le statut littéraire du récit, le cinéma met dès lors en oeuvre un ensemble de processus spécifiques : fondu au blanc, reprise iconique, jeu de miroirs « glaçant » les personnages, effet de dissociation obtenu par la lecture off du texte ou par son inscription à l’écran. Le film, par suite, toujours déjà réécriture, entre oeuvre et reprise, élabore une polysémie architecturale que fonde tout un art de « rythmer les passages ».
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".