quantity, not quality.
we are going to start doing this every month, so get to posting. (self included)
Continue
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
7.11.09
11.9.09
notes from the studio moleskin...
(an early morning elevation for you)
this is going to be a simple post, as i am quite tired.
we might think of the following as rules we might try to keep in the back of our minds throughout the design process, and also just as fun observations.
in the context of urban catalysis:
1. it is not master planning.
2. it is not a house.
3. don't be a boyscout.
architecture nerdy things:
1. denise scott brown: if you want to know what the yale soa was doing in las vegas in the late 60's, watch the sopranos intro.
2. "dirty realism" & the film clerks actually discussed as a legitimate form of research for a convenience store program.
3. "urban ritual" and predicting the actions of local populations
4. a publication of naida and i's weekly angry rants about the death of urbanism and architecture not being poetry (sorry roz).
5. the danger of architectural proposals resulting from fantastical, functional rationalisms.
(collected notes from professors moran, sisko, and sanin for studio grey matter)
p.s. : guess what's going down this weekend!
Continue
21.8.09
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.
Continue
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.
Continue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
