In the article, Hong Kong is described as city of heterogeneity and contradictions as disappearance develops tendency towards timelessness, placelessness, yet also proposes need of cultural identity. When narrating architecture, movies are double-edged swords. For viewers, films may be the only window to have a glimpse of Hong Kong’s landscape, hence fostering one-dimensional understanding towards the city. Even me who grew up here sometimes subconsciously take what’s portrayed in films as the only “architectures” in Hong Kong, neglecting what constructs the remaining dull yet essential part: urban vernacular. The city is not only the old Hong Kong with traditional Chinese-styled teahouse; not only British-styled colonial buildings; not only the modern metropolis with contemporary skyscrapers. It is a blend of the three, yet much more than that as anonymous high-rise blocks seem to be the only solution to hyperdensity. Could there be better solutions to give Hong Kong its cultural self-definition?
Kwan Yin Kiu 3035934391
Your discussion on Hong Kong’s architecture and its performance in films from a dialectical perspective is commendable. As you have written: “movies are double-edged swords.” On the one hand, Hong Kong’s culture and urban spaces rely on visual language’s expression and transmission. On the other hand, we should also be vigilant against the visual tyranny brought by films. I appreciate your note on how film can easily neglect the urban vernacular. Hybrid types of culture and space inform Hong Kong’s cultural self-definition. This understanding encourages further reflection on how the “old” and “new” are contemporaneous and how “continuities” and “discontinuities” can coexist (p75).