Does it Matter Who Directs the Story? Comparing Québec’s Immigrant Cinema and the Cinema of Immigration Through Case Studies of Karaman and Deraspe, Villeneuve and Bensaddek
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If it is true that “[c]inema has from its inception been transnational, circulating more or less freely across borders and utilizing international personnel” (Ezra and Rowden 2006, 2), it is equally indisputable that cinematic traditions have historically reflected and reinforced national, regional, or ethnolinguistic identities. The cinema of Québec is a case in point, such that Bill Marshall’s choice of title for his 2001 landmark study, Quebec National Cinema , generally went unremarked upon. Since the turn of the millennium, however, “other” or immigrant stories are receiving increased interest and representation on screen. The crux of the current terminological dilemma is that while theorists of accented, diaspora, exilic, or transnational cinema tend to privilege films made by immigrant directors, a significant number of Québec films about immigrant experiences have been made by non-immigrant directors. Drawing on films released since 2010 by Onur Karaman, Sophie Deraspe, Denis Villeneuve, and Bachir Bensaddek, I discuss how they defy or destabilize the terminological landscape and propose the distinction between immigrant cinema and the cinema of immigration, the latter of which, I argue, embraces films made about immigration by non-immigrant directors. By bringing together examples of the cinema of immigration and immigrant cinema, this article examines the issues raised by the expanding inclusivity and popularity of stories of and by Québec’s ethnocultural “others.”
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".