<i>Amarcord</i>/Am'l'arcord. Fascism, Memory, and the Visual in Federico Fellini and Renzo Renzi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This essay reflects on questions of visibility and invisibility in the representation of Fascism through a study of the visual memory of Fascism in Amarcord and the photo-essay “Il Fascismo involontario,” which Renzo Renzi, Bolognese critic and longtime friend of Fellini, wrote in 1975 in direct response to the film. After retracing the roots of Amarcord to Fellini's collaboration with Renzi, the essay maps their contrasting stances toward memory: for Fellini, a delivery from the past; for Renzi, a practice of working-through. The essay explores the optics of Fascism in Amarcord through an analysis of the influence of photography and television on the filmic image and a reflection on the relation between visibility and invisibility in Fellini's cinematic spectacle. These visualities of Amarcord are then discussed in dialogue with the photographs accompanying Renzi's text, thus bringing to the fore the differing status of the trace in the two authors. While in Fellini's film the trace is an embodiment of cinematic pathos, in Renzi's critical reflection with photography, the trace becomes the site of what Roland Barthes defined as the “mad” encounter with the past, the site where Fascism is confronted as the “intractable,” a stubborn point of (in)visibility in Italy's past.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".