MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901372910 · doi:10.1093/fs/kny243

<i>Les Cinéastes animaliers: enquête dans les coulisses du film animalier en France</i> . Par <scp>Maxence Lamoureux</scp> <i>Les Cinéastes animaliers: enquête dans les coulisses du film animalier en France</i> . Par LamoureuxMaxence. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2017. 252 pp.

2018· article· fr· W2901372910 on OpenAlexaff
James Leo Cahill

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterFilmmakingDocumentary filmHumanitiesArtArt historyWildlifeExhibitionPanoramaCartographyMedia studiesGeographyHistoryVisual artsSociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The year 2004 was the best of times and the worst of times for cinéastes animaliers, or French wildlife filmmakers. Luc Jacquet was completing La Marche de l’empereur (The March of the Penguins), which would shortly break global box-office records and exemplify the popular renaissance of French-made animal cinema. The École de cinéma animalier des Deux-Sèvres (also known as the Institut francophone de formation au cinéma animalier de Ménigoute, or IFFCAM), dedicated to training students in the art and ethics of wildlife filmmaking, admitted its first class. But Canal+, one of the major private television channels, announced that it would cease funding original wildlife content, a decision that threatened to foreclose a robust future of the genre in France. These overlapping events form key points of reference for Maxence Lamoureux’s fascinating three-part study of French wildlife media. Part One draws upon thirty feature films made between 1954 and 2014 to sketch a ‘socio-history’ of the film animalier, which the author defines as camera-made (non-virtual) documentary and fictional media featuring non-domestic animals (p. 44). Part Two provides a sociology of wildlife filmmakers as a class of professionals. The final part conducts case studies of two emergent organizations: the degree-granting IFFCAM and the advocacy group Réalisateurs naturalistes animaliers refusant de disparaître (RENARD), founded by director Marie-Hélène Baconnet in response to the Canal+ funding retraction. Lamoureux provides a detailed panorama of wildlife media production, distribution, and exhibition during what may come to be known as the trente glorieuses of the genre (1990–present), due to the increase in productions characterized by a highly cinematic ‘French touch’ (p. 63; in English in the original) born of the specificities of a funding system where properties were made for release on the big screen with subsequent programming on television. The author’s double competencies as an IFFCAM-trained filmmaker who also holds a doctorate in sociology are effectively put into conversation across the book’s fourteen chapters. The methodology combines a sociology of creative labour that draws upon anonymized interviews with forty filmmakers with thick descriptions of the specific techniques for filming animals and poetic passages evoking the milieux where the films are made. As the title suggests, the focus is primarily on a typological analysis of the professional cinéastes who make wildlife media — their sense of identity, ethos, work experiences, and professional networks — and not on the films or the animal life captured by the camera. Lamoureux treads lightly through the literature and methods of cinema studies proper and leaves it to the reader to consider reverberations with the rich theoretical and philosophical writing on animals and animality contemporaneous with the period examined. Scholars writing on animals and media in the French context would do well to inform themselves with the practical concerns of the métier covered in this book. My sense is that those who will benefit most from Lamoureux’s welcome contribution to the small bibliography on the subject are current and future students of IFFCAM, although the text certainly merits a wider readership from advanced students and scholars working in the overlapping fields of cinema and media studies and animal studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207