Distance and proximity: the spectatorship of trauma and film viewing in postmillennial Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are all spectators of the times to varying extents. With the commencement of the twenty-first century, our spectator experience began to transform, becoming more scattered, divergent, and unsettled in response to technological advancement and the decline of consensus around social values, cultural meanings, and political agendas in the face of changes. In post-handover Hong Kong, a breach of meaning has been cumulatively caused by divided opinions on priorities (e.g. economic, democratic) and intensified by the contested narratives around history, identity, and reality. In the aftermath of the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill (Anti-ELAB) Movement, a discursive construction of authority and legitimation has taken place in legislative affairs, a renewed school curriculum, and official speeches, among other organized patterns of action. Against this backdrop, this paper will focus on the spectatorship of trauma that has been generated by community screenings and documentary filmmaking. Two case studies will be presented in terms of their distance (distant vis-à-vis immersive) from the epicentre of these traumatic events. The first case study will explore the spectatorship of visual trauma, in which authoritarian experiences were transmitted through social movement-themed documentaries (e.g. Ukraine’s Winter on Fire) and drama films (e.g. South Korea’s 1987 and A Taxi Driver) that gained popularity and stirred up noise in Hong Kong in the lead-up to 2019. The second case study will explore traumatic responses through bodily reactions to pain and suffering as captured in post-2019 Hong Kong cinema. On the whole, the paper will demonstrate how viewing experiences embody shared and individualized responses (e.g. resistance, resilience, retreat) and how understanding spectatorship allows us to discern the social sentiments, cultural implications, and affects generated at a particular time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".