Film Studies Panel: Interrogating (Through) Reception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Perverse Interest': A Reception History of The Boys in the Band Dr. Matt Bell In an otherwise negative review of William Friedkin’s The Boys in the Band (1970), a writer for Variety praised what he described as the film’s inherent “perverse interest.” My paper begins with an examination of the thought so suggestively encrypted in this phrase, a textbook example of projection, through which the reviewer attributed to the film what must in fact have been his own (homo)sexual curiosity. Using this review as the point of entry to a more thorough reception history, my paper discusses three key forums in which the film has been assessed: the mainstream press of 1970, which tended to review The Boys in the Band in the erotically repressed mode of Variety; the emergent gay liberationist discourse of the 1970s and 1980s, typified by the writings of Dennis Altman, Arthur Bell, and Vito Russo, which tended to reject the “negative images” inscribed in it; and popular gay history, including Charles Kaiser’s 2007 book The Gay Metropolis, which has tended to view it as a period piece. Based on these simplifying appraisals of the film, and in response to its rather stunning neglect by scholars, my paper ultimately calls for bold reassessment of the film in light of developments over the past three decades in academic fields including LGBTQ studies, critical race studies, and queer theory. Perception and Reception Talk: Localisms and Working Class Heroisms in the Cultural Work of the Hui Brothers Dr. Sean Allan My presentation looks at the film work of Hong Kong celebrities Michael, Samuel and Ricky Hui. I will focus primarily on the films they made together, but I will also look at each brother separately, with attention to Michael’s directing, Samuel’s singing and acting, and Ricky’s acting. I will situate both their popularity during their active period within the contexts of Hong Kong popular cultural and political history as well as their continuing popularity. I will consider as well the aesthetic components of their abilities to affect an audience. The project looks at reception from a variety of angles. First, it interrogates the limits of how Hong Kong cinema history is conceptualized. Second, it interrogates the way local Hong Kong audiences are conceived by outsiders. Thirdly, it considers the limits of corrective, a consideration of a proper way that an interested figure can recognize both the complexities of localisms and popular cultural rhetorics and the lacunae that result from any sort of critical inquiry. Canadian Popcorn: Representations of Culture in Popular Canadian Film Dr. Eric Weeks My presentation examines the ways in which Canadian films represent Canadian identity and culture. When looking at a snapshot of Canadian films released in more recent years, an increasing number have been made that deal with various aspects of Canadian culture, and achieve as much in popular, accessible ways. What is most appealing about these movies is how they approach their subject matter. Some specific examples of films that evoke this sense of “Canadianness” include a comedy about curling (Men with Brooms, 2002), a hockey-themed musical (Score, 2010), and a buddy-cop action movie that also explores the strained relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada (Bon Cop/Bad Cop, 2006). Far from being a dusty documentary or staid historical drama, many Canadian films that reflect that country’s history and identity could be considered “popcorn” movies, those films that appeal to a broader audience, enjoy a wider theatrical release, and may often be seen as simply entertainment and lacking a deeper message. Instead, however, I contend that films such as these are better able to express elements of Canada’s national identity, particularly when positioned against an overshadowing American film industry.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".