Eujin Lee
3035993701
Tsutsui’s Oh No, There Goes Tokyo:
The title “Oh No, There Goes Tokyo” indicates the frequent occurrence of destructive events in Tokyo. The tone of the title is casual, implying Tokyo’s historical vulnerability to catastrophic events. By taking an example of a Japanese pop artist Murakami Takashi, the author insists that Japanese visual culture was heavily influenced by the lingering trauma of these events and vulnerability. The films mirror the anxieties towards war and natural/man-made hazards, and one of the major functions of the film is to alleviate them. The monster film in Japan is very detailed and meticulously filmed, juxtaposing the traumas and histories.
Abbas’ Hong Kong culture and the politics of disappearance:
Transitioning to the Abbas’ Hong Kong culture and the politics of disappearance, capturing a space of disappearance like Hong Kong is challenging because it is non-descript and it adapts easily to the any descriptions. In my opinion, the key characteristics of Hong Kong’s architectural identity is building and rebuilding as I have noticed that the old and new buildings coexists in Hong Kong.
It is awesome to reflect by associating the 2 readings of Lecture 7. The last sentence “Oh no, there goes Tokyo…but it will be back, and it may even be better than before” might shed light on your analysis of the title “Oh No, There Goes Tokyo.” Regarding the discussion of Hong Kong and Japan (especially, Tokoy), I would suggest framing 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).” As you have demonstrated that both Hong Kong and Japan were facing “disappearance” even though they are under the distinguishable circumstance. So, how did films present the 2 sorts of “disappearances” differently and similarly (like the ghost film in Hong Kong Vs. the monster film in Japan)?