A city can be shown in film as generic or special through the use of colors, lighting, objects, styling and characters. Abbas argues that a city is either one or the either, but I would disagree as what a city is depends on the person who is looking at it. For example, New York city, the most famous city in film is often perceived with lively characters that live differently in the different neighborhoods, some being rougher and some being more easy going. At the same time, someone less into film would regard New York as another generic American city with a lot of people and tourists, as it is less familiar to them than those who’ve invested countless hours seeing the Big Apple through the many cinematic perspectives. A place of community would only seem generic if not much of it’s characteristic’s is known to the audience or have experiences that they personally have had in them.
3035721392
Carson Wong
How does one’s perception of a city defines what a city is? Consider the differences and overlaps between what a city is literally and how it is experienced and perceived. Whilst a city comprises the myriad of experiences of its inhabitants, there is more to the city than simply its human inhabitants. To a large extent, the idea of the divide between the city and the country is a construction rather than a reality. One’s perception of a city through film, say New York, is an understanding of the city or an aspect of it in a particular way (as you have raised), and if continually perpetuated may produce a dominant idea of the city, but does not stand for what the city really is. The tendency towards genericness occurs with repetitive persuasion.