Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each September, the Toronto International Film Festival grants discerning spectators a chance to experience wonderful films from all over the world, many of which may never appear again. Forget all the hype, the red carpet, the paparazzi; think of the chance of seeing the latest film by Abbas Kiarostami, Pedro Almodovar, or Hou Hsiao-hsien. So quiet and so subtle, Hou's Cafe Lumiere will probably never surface even the most specialized theatres of North America. A film will gain, however, at least a limited exhibition is the one I wish to present this account--Notre Musique, by Jean-Luc Godard. In Purgatory, the central section of Notre Musique (2004) by Jean-Luc Godard, there is a sequence concerns the reconstruction of the single span, stone arch bridge Mostar, a medieval town south-west of Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina. Spanning the Neretva River, the bridge was built by the Ottoman Turks 1566 of 456 blocks of stone, hundreds of which fell into the river when the bridge was destroyed 1993 during the Croat-Muslim war. Although Hungarians initially salvaged the stones from the river, the reconstruction was initially supervised by a French architect, Gilles Pequeux, (spelled Pecqueux the film's credits, the correct spelling is without the c) not to restore the past, he explains, but to make the future possible. He is talking to Olga Brodsky/Nade Dieu, a young Israeli Jew of Russian origin who is tormented by the irresolvable tensions between Israel and Palestine and who, Judith Lerner/Sarah Adler, another Israeli Jew, has come to Sarajevo to visit a country in which reconciliation seems possible. This sequence brings together three elements inform the film. First there is the international, multi-cultural mix. Along with professional actors, the film contains the actual presence of Pequeux, the architect; of Pierre Bergounioux, a French writer; of Juan Goytisolo, a Spaniard who recites his poems (without subtitles) while squatting amongst some ruins; and of Mahmoud Darwich, a Palestinian writer who is interviewed by Judith. They have all come to Sarajevo for the annual European Literary Encounters and, of course among them, interacting with them, is Jean-Luc Godard. Secondly, this sequence also establishes the two young women, Olga and Judith, who bear a strong resemblance to one another--the one moving towards darkness (as the press hand-out explains), the other towards light. Both want to understand these ethnic conflicts. Although Olga falls more and more deeply into despair when she thinks about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, Judith finds hope the reconstruction of the bridge, taking pictures with her digital camera as if to capture at least traces of this once conflicted country the effort to understand its relevance to her own. Finally, there is the bridge itself. Rebuilt from fragments retrieved from the past, being meticulously reconstructed by numbering all the shattered stones order to re-assemble them order, like learning a new language, as Pequeux explains, this process of reconstruction is what Godard has been doing with cinema all his life. He has constantly been building bridges--between the old and the new, between documentary and fiction, between film and video, between the real and the imaginary. There is also a psychological bridge between the young women, as if they are separate parts of the same endeavour, the recto/verso of the same pain. Olga is more committed to the real, Judith to the imaginary. Olga's despair at the situation with Palestine leads her to contemplate suicide, preferably some self-sacrificial way. Echoing the existential ultimatum put forward by Albert Camus the 1940s, she explains to her Uncle Ramos/Rony Kramer, himself an Israeli Jew living France, that will be total liberty, when it's the same to live or die. That's my goal, she explains. Drole de but! …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".