I would like to discuss further the issue of the generic city. As it is, I personally think it is a tool for filmmakers to use the emotional attachment and shock factor to empower their films without raising too many issues. This is more prominent in films where the story is dark and closer to life. For example, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Transformers serious, we see specific cities being used as the background of the film. These films are so obviously fictional and out of the ordinary that viewers are unlikely to associate said city with the film. It’s a Wonderful Life, a vintage Christmas film, deliberately chooses an ambiguous American town to set its stage so as to not cast shade on any city as it explores the rampant racial issues that plague America. In this day and age, where the reputation of a film can be ruined by just one little thing, filmmakers may opt for the Generic City to minimize their risk of antagonizing viewers.
Li Ming Chak, David (3035785570)
You have presented some interesting views towards Abbas’ interpretation of Koolhaas’ Generic City with your own examples of the Marvel universe, Transformer series, and It’s a Wonderful Life. It would be great if you can start your response with specifying your definition of Generic City. I would argue that filmmakers didn’t just use generic cities as background to avoid critiques of wrongful portrayal of certain cities. Often, montages or reconstruction of certain cities constitute the site of the movie; the cities themselves are not important, but only specific generic elements. In my opinion, generic cities in films are atmospheric constructions which detaches their fictional selves from the real identifiable cities. I appreciate that you have raised a debatable issue to discuss and overall good effort!
A minor point to note regarding typos such as Transformer series as opposed to “Transformer series”.