Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was a pleasure to see new films from John Sayles and Ken Loach at this year's Festival. It was a chance to consider the distinguished careers of these tenacious left-wing directors. Their new films were not greeted with much attention or celebration; there even seemed something incongruous about their appearance amidst the hyper-commercialism of the Festival. It made me reflect on the kind of space and spectatorship that the Festival presents each year. Foremost, in its space, for a few days, the Festival hosts the full marketing machine of modern Global Hollywood, in Toronto. It becomes a setting for a sequence of galas--vacuous by definition--inflating mediocre movies into premiere events. Multiplexes are filled weeks later with the lame products. local print and electronic media devolve into full tabloid inanity, an onslaught of gushing night and day. Celebrity culture supposedly obsesses the city. Crowds of star seekers cluster pathetically outside luxury hotels. One hopes for a Day of the Locusts eruption. Last year, there was an eruption. commercial space was unexpectedly politicized by the Festival itself. A Festival spotlight celebrated Tel Aviv, introducing a selection of Israeli films with the language of tourism brochures. In the year of the vicious war on Gaza, the aggressively rightist Israeli government and the ongoing brutality of the occupation, this was obviously provocative. Toronto filmmaker John Greyson initiated a protest that was joined by hundreds of local and international filmmakers, artists, academics and activists. Feelgood Festival coverage was constantly interrupted and even stars took sides; ferocious counter-attacks by Israeli lobbyists and supporters just drew more attention to the politics. What intensified the conflict was that the Spotlight on Tel Aviv fit with the Brand Israel public relations campaign that had been going on in Toronto over the previous year. Ads, billboards and shows in other elite cultural institutions had been part of an effort by the Israeli state to use propaganda and cultural diplomacy to burnish its more than tarnished international image. For example, the Royal Ontario Museum hosted the Dead Sea Scrolls, considered war plunder by the Palestinian Authority and international law; Israeli pottery was featured at the Ceramics Museum. Israeli strategy rightly figured the slavish devotion to Israel-right-or-wrong by the Conservative federal government and solid support from the Canadian ruling class, who fill the boards of such institutions, would make Toronto a welcome test market. Festival programmers lamely defended their choice but Israeli officials gloated about the PR connection so public embarrassment continued throughout the Festival's 10 days and beyond. It was certainly the most politically exciting Festival ever. (For an excellent analysis of the Brand Israel campaign and the protests in Toronto, see Eric Walberg, The Battle in Canada: Brand Israel Teflon vs. Palestinian Reality, www.counterpunch.org/walbergl 0192009.html). [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Nothing quite so politically interesting happened in 2010. While the Hollywood apparatus did its predictable job, this Festival was really devoted to self-promotion with the opening of an attractive new Festival centre. This year's Festival space was all about architecture and real estate. Of course, cultural capital has always been connected to real estate. Here, the relationship between an exemplary neo-liberal public institution increasingly dominated by private capital, the constant reinvention of cultural consumption, and the priorities of real estate development and speculation was especially clear. attractive new centre, in grating corporate branding, the Bell Lightbox, features theatres, galleries, restaurants, bars, a library--always a great aid to CineAction--and, of course, a gift shop; it is a cinephilic funhouse of high-end shopping. And it is all supported by 48 floors of condominium sales Indeed, that connection between real estate and elite cultural institutions has been particularly prominent in Toronto for the last 5 years. …
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".