500 Days of Summer: In Review

So, recently, I saw the film '(500) Days of Summer.’ It was an honest tale of expectations, perceptions, love and life. However, one facet, among the particulars, that gave the film tremendous depth was the level of detail given to the appreciation of the subtle, captivating urban spaces that remain unspoken in daily interactions. I think the film was largely about the details – the details of relationships, the details of a woman, and the details of everyday life. The film really takes the time to focus, in a very intimate way, on subtleties that a good author will walk through with you – that you would not have noticed otherwise. The details really give this film a rich quality that you can lose yourself in. And, as Mies would say, ‘God is in the details.’

In speaking about the details, I loved all of them – the music choices, the costumes, locations, casting, coloration, editing, cinematography – it was all marvelous. It is pure elation. It bathes in misery. It is honest and heartbreaking. It allows a series of opinions on love. The sequences are all individually crafted and edited in a way that takes advantage of the often-overlooked fact that this is a film. It could be a novel, a short story, a poem, but it is not – it is a film and ‘500 Days’ should be a film; it takes advantage of the medium to tell the story.

The main character, Tom, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, is a greeting card writer and an aspiring architect. He is a romantic and a head-case, however I think this enables him to find beauty creeping up between the cracks in the sidewalk that most would walk right over. Los Angeles becomes a place in the film, with the help of carefully chosen locations, a genius dance sequence, a park bench and actual Richard Neutra sketches, the film really gives you a sense of place.

In addition to capturing ‘place,’ Gordon-Levitt’s character actually has something to say about place, architecture, and urban design. While the commentary is a little brief and understated at times, he finds beauty in an overlook that looks into a downtown flooded with one too many parking lots. He discusses what he sees though - how there is potential and a subtle captivation in the view to a city. He actually takes the time to voice what he thinks of art, architecture and the city – something very rare in film.

Similarly, there are two sequences in the film where Tom takes time to notice the details of Summer (hair, smile, knees etc.). These sequences are something memorable not because Tom merely mentions them, but that each of her details is totally open to interpretation, as a city is – it could be a cute haircut or a stupid 60’s throwback – it could be an intimate view of a city or an ugly view plagued by too much parking. In other words, perception becomes a choice – it is not forced. The film has an acute understanding of the meaning that we attach to places and to people – and that those meanings run much deeper than physical appearance.

I think it is easy to take a critical position and dismiss a city or a view because of what it lacks - one too many parking garages, way too much asphalt, not enough density, and so on. What Tom navigates well, is the ability to resist the modernist urge to write away history and get lost in what something could be. I don’t think Tom would be one to theorize about a new ‘ideal’ type of urban environment or way of life, rather, he represents an embrace of the ordinary along with the hopes of what could be.

Additionally, here is a music video done by some of the same cast and crew.