MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405640639 · doi:10.1080/17400309.2024.2421684

‘The All-American Smile:’ the deconstruction of Robert Redford’s star persona in David Lowery’s <i>The Old Man &amp; the Gun</i>

2024· article· en· W4405640639 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Review of Film and Television Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconstruction (building)PersonaArtStar (game theory)Art historyLiteratureHumanitiesPhysicsAstrophysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the way Robert Redford’s star persona operates within David Lowery’s The Old Man & the Gun (2018), a contemplative deconstruction of the heist genre, that borrows a great deal from Redford’s persona, while deliberately subverting any elements that could be considered heroic. After establishing a theoretical framework based on the work of Richard Dyer and Richard deCordova, this paper surveys key Redford roles as it traces the parameters of what Dyer calls a star’s ‘structured polysemy’ or what deCordova defines as ‘symbolic identity’. A close reading of Lowery’s film reveals the way that Redford’s persona, and the white male romantic leads it represents, is challenged, problematized, and deconstructed through a blending of Redford’s persona into the life of Forrest Tucker, a septuagenarian bank-robber. The film’s frequent allusions to Redford’s career meld Tucker and Redford together as they expose the hollow nature of Tucker’s pursuit of masculine action. Redford, who was over eighty during production, embodies the futility of Tucker’s quest by being placed in the postures of his youthful roles (astride a horse, for example), offering an ironic contrast to his most iconic characters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Review of Film and Television StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207