MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W281643019

The Party's Over: Rollercoaster

2001· article· en· W281643019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCineaction! · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilm directorVerdictArt historyHistoryArtLawMedia studiesSociologyMovie theaterPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prelude: 'Efforts' and 'small films' Recently, in Toronto, a rare event: a filmmaker actually had the nerve to attack the reviewers for not liking his film. The filmmaker was David Weaver (who once long ago wrote for CineAction); the film was his first feature, Century Hotel. Weaver's shocking, unprecedented and of course totally unjustifiable behaviour produced a response that was surprising only in its length and obsessiveness (had, perhaps, a nerve been touched somewhere?): Geoff Pevere (who also once long ago wrote for CineAction) managed to take up almost a full page of the Toronto Star in his determination to put this young upstart in his place. (Was I alone in finding his response insufferably smug in its lofty scorn and condescension, its transparent desire to push a young and ambitious Canadian filmmaker back into the dark and lowly place he should never have dared peek out of? But then, I like Century Hotel...). One of Weaver's misdemeanours was to suggest that the reviews would have been different if the film had been French. This elicited further witticisms from Pevere, but I agree with Weaver: if Century Hotel had been made in France and had subtitles, the critical verdict might have been roughly the same, but the tone would have been quite different and far more respectful. I have noticed on several occasions a tendency in the reviews or the 'new releases' listings to describe Canadian movies as 'efforts' ('the latest Canadian effort'; Century Hotel, made in Toronto, was announced as a 'local effort'). I cannot recall ever seeing this term applied to films from elsewhere (The Wind Shall Carry Us as 'the latest Iranian effort'? Harry Potter as 'the new Hollywood effort'?). Canadian films (unless directed by David Cronenberg, or perhaps Atom Egoyan in his later works) are also categorized instantly as 'small', and I think we should ask ourselves exactly what this conveys, and by what criterion smallness or bigness can be gauged. The answer is clear: 'small' here has nothing whatever to do with subject matter, quality or ambition; it has to do exclusively with money, and is yet another proof of our insidious and all-pervasive corruption by capitalist values. Pevere was very positive about Bruce Sweeney's Last Wedding, yet he referred to it repeatedly as 'small'. The film is a devastating attack on the institution of marriage, its title to be taken literally: 'I say there shall be no more marriages...' (Bruce Sweeney as Hamlet). Is this a 'small' subject? It is offered as a bomb placed and exploded under the very heart of our culture. But of course it did not cost very much (relatively speaking) to make, and lacks stars, spectacle and 'special effects'. For me, Last Wedding is a very big film indeed; Harry Patter is a small film. I wonder how many people reading this article have even heard of Rollercoaster (or, perhaps, are expecting a critical exploration of the 1977 Sensurround 'effort', a disaster film in every sense, in which case I shall disappoint them). Scott Smith's film is also 'small': its budget was not exactly enormous, and I assume its cast of six (uniformly marvellous) actors were each paid somewhat less than the ten million nowadays taken for granted by major Hollywood stars, though they give performances as good, if not better. And the film is 'merely' about teenagers, our culture's disenfranchised, disenchanted and desperate members, and (more specifically) about teen suicide: a 'small' subject? I have to suppose it is, for most people. We read brief references to it in the newspapers but nothing is ever done so presumably no one cares, it not occurring to them that these same teenagers (the ones who survive) represent the future of our culture. But then, does anyone care about that either? Those who believe in the reality of global warming (notice, Torontonians, that it is, at time of writing, the beginning of December and the temperature is still well above zero) and the devastation of the environment appear to be in such a minority that they feel helpless, while the rest have long ago succombed to the capitalist lure of 'nowness' (you'll be soooo happy if you get that new car, the latest pop CD, the very newest shampoo, deodorant or perfume, the very latest in clothing, and have sex, sex, sex at every opportunity--how can you spare even a moment to think about 'the future of the culture' or some such troubling and difficult sort of thing, best left to impotent academics). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCineaction!Same topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207