This article gives me deeper insight into the relationship between cities and films. There are two ways to look at a city in cinematic practices: “generic” and “exorbitant”. In a global sense, a generic city, as its name suggests, has few or no unique characteristics, with its buildings and streets suitable to be anywhere. But things are a little different as for exorbitant cities. According to Abbas, they have two key features: “instability” and “eroticism”. “Instability” means that the city is an ever-changing space, both in itself and in ways to perceive it, making it impossible to be well reflected using still images. And “eroticism” has another meaning here: the complexity of the inhabitants’ social relations seem to break down and reconnect constantly, giving people desire and puzzlement. Such an important idea is valuable to me since it gives me new ways to appreciate architecture, cities, and even the world in films.
This is an excellent reflection to Abbas’ piece on the exorbitant and generic city. You have demonstrated with clarity the ability to explain these concepts in your own works and consider the complex conditions of the city as a constantly-evolving organism. Well done!