Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context by Sonia M. Tascón (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HUMAN RIGHTS FILM FESTIVALS: ACTIVISM IN CONTEXT By Sonia M. Tascon New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015, 264 pp.REVIEWED BY LYELL DAVIESWith dozens of human rights film festivals staged around the world each year, Sonia M. Tascoris Human Rights Film Festivals: Activism in Context is a much-needed study of these festivals, and a useful addition to film festival scholarship more generally. Examining the meeting of human rights discourses and cinema in the film festival setting, Tascoris study is all the more relevant since, as she points out, those working in the human rights arena may know little about cinema and accept films-particularly documentaries-uncritically, while filmmakers, even those who profess a concern for social justice, may know little about human rights. Adding further complexity, film festivals have historically been launched to meet needs that are distantly removed from human rights, such as to fuel cinephilia or promote national cinemas.In her study, Tascon wisely avoids presenting general claims about the numerous human rights film festivals in operation and directs her attention to two festivals, the Buenos Aires-based Festival Internacional de Cine Derechos Humanos (FICDH) and New York City-based Human Rights Watch International Film Festival (HRWIFF). Central to Tascoris argument is that regional film festivals interpret human rights in different ways to meet local needs. Probing the schedule of films programmed by FICD H following its launch in 1997, Tascon argues that during the festivals early years it focused on the exhibition of works depicting themes related to Argentina's military dictatorship of the 1970s and early 1980s. She calculates that in the festival's first year more than two-thirds of the films exhibited were either about or produced in Argentina, with a significant number of these directly exploring the junta's brutal rule or its aftermath. By choosing to screen the films that it did, the festival's conceptualization of human rights was a response to recent events in Argentine history and underlying its choices was the subtext of seeking to encourage the resuscitation of a radical, oppositional Argentine cinema of the kind crushed during the military's rule. Tascon reports that over time this focus has changed with topics linked to the negative effects of globalization taking a prominent place in the festival's program, as well as a higher ratio of films made outside Latin America. Nonetheless, she argues that the prominence of films depicting themes related to Argentina over the course of FICDH s history illustrates that a major thrust for the festival has been nation building within Argentina, rather than a broad call for international human rights.Examining HRWIFF, Tascon describes a different trajectory. Launched in 1988, HRWIFF was the world's first human rights film festival and is an offshoot of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a U.S.-based organization created during the Cold War (as Helsinki Watch) to monitor human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. The author argues that HRWIFF has commonly followed HRW s framing of what is, or is not, a human rights issue, selecting films that focus on human rights abuses beyond the U. …
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".