Modes of Intersubjective Address in <i>The Central Character</i> (1977) and <i>Our Marilyn</i> (1987)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the use of intersubjective modes of address in Canadian feminist experimental film between 1979 and 1987. It compares Patricia Gruben’s The Central Character (1979) and Brenda Longfellow’s Our Marilyn (1987), noting how the use of experimental forms of address in both affectively blur the distinction between diegetic and non-diegetic space, unsettling the certainty of the spectator’s viewing position. The article counters the reading of feminist avant-garde film from this decade as being engaged in disruptive practices. While dissonance and dislocation are a part of the history of feminist experimental film aesthetics, the article argues it is equally necessary to map moments of resonance and intersubjective exchange in these films. Gruben and Longfellow’s experiments with cinematic address are framed as important interventions into dominant forms of representation that expand the range of possibilities for both the image of woman onscreen and the feminist spectator in the audience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".