Tsutsui’s work acutely captured the unseen wounds of natural disasters, war, and atomic bombardment that lurked behind the artistic incarnations of monsters and fictional apocalypses. Further still, it went beyond recognizing the haunting specters of past catastrophes to argue for the presence of “a strand of optimism woven tightly into the Japanese apocalypse imagination.” This enlightening perspective resonated with my sentiments when watching Godzilla (2014). In this movie, the gigantic reptilian monster is not portrayed as a merciless destroyer but as a god-like restorer of equilibrium on Earth. His arrival, which causes the old artificial environment to collapse, also lays the groundwork for futuristic rejuvenation. So far, Tsutsui’s writing has raised a question that can be universally applied to all places undergoing deconstruction and reconstruction:
What are the root factors driving the frequent renewal and redevelopment of an area?
Abbas responds to this question with reference to a place known for its constant regeneration and renovation — Hong Kong. In his writing, Abbas elucidated the transformation of Hong Kong’s architectural style from colonial to global, fostered by economic restructuring and development. This distinct feature of economic growth resulted in an architectural system replete with “disappearance,” “reappearance,” “innovation,” and “replication.” To someone who is new to Hong Kong such as myself, these traits are clear. Glancing out my hotel window during quarantine, my gaze was pulled to the closely packed high-rise structures in Central and Causeway Bay, between which almost no gaps can be traced. These buildings speak for the dense population driven by international commerce, yet constrained by the limited exploited geographical area. In this way, architecture vividly discloses the culture, history, and identity of the place on which it rests.
Name: Sun Haofu
UID: 3035977410
I appreciate your insightful analysis of the conception of “destruction & reconstruction,” particularly, framing your discussion by combing Tsutsui’s and Abbas’ essays. Also, It is fascinating to hear your personal experience, which vividly unfolds a broader discussion of Hong Kong’s “disappearance,” “reappearance,” “innovation,” and “replication.” Besides, I would suggest expanding your analysis based on the sentence that “Tokyo or Hong Kong—tend to be a mixture of all three kinds outlined in Isozaki and Asadas typology: they are real, surreal, and hyperreal all (P.77).” Hong Kong and Japan were facing “disappearance” even though they are under the distinguishable circumstance. So, how did films present these two sorts of “disappearances” differently and similarly (like the ghost film in Hong Kong Vs. the monster film in Japan)?