Sur trois contraintes à l'adaptation cinématographique d'<i>À la recherche du temps perdu</i> de Marcel Proust : les cas de Visconti, Pinter, Schlöndorff et Ruiz
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse aux difficultés inhérentes à l’adaptation cinématographique d’À la recherche du temps perdu de Marcel Proust. Trois contraintes d’adaptation sont ciblées particulièrement, soit le problème de la longueur de la Recherche, la complexité de sa structure temporelle et la difficulté à transposer la narration proustienne à l’écran. L’auteur présente chacune des contraintes et offre une description des problèmes découlant de leur transfert du roman au médium cinématographique, pour ensuite analyser comment quatre tentatives d’adaptation ont tâché de résoudre ces contraintes. Les adaptations discutées sont les scénarios de Luchino Visconti (À la recherche du temps perdu) et d'Harold Pinter (Le Scénario Proust) ainsi que les films Un amour de Swann de Volker Schlöndorff et Le Temps retrouvé de Raoul Ruiz. La diversité des approches présentées par ces adaptations montrera l’intérêt et le défi artistique que constitue la transposition de la Recherche au cinéma.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".