The main point I’ve learned from Abbas’s text is the relationship between film and the metropolis and the effect on the audience. Every city has its own unique tangible and intangible heritage that can evoke specific imageries but may not be immediately noticeable through a still image and rather better shown through direct experience. And Abbas claimed one way to form this experience is through a cinematic image. My initial reaction to the text was “Wouldn’t a city’s specific imagery instead limit a director’s creativity when utilising the space?”. After some thinking, I came to an obvious that although one imagery of a city can be more overpowering than another, there is no way a city can evoke just one imagery. I believe depending on the genre of the film, the same old building in the street can appear creepy or historically beautiful, it would depend on which aspect of the space the director focuses on.
Rachel Gayoung Kim 3035812165
I appreciate that you pointed out the perception of a city through cinematic lens is not limited to a singular imagery of a city; and film makers should transcend that limitation in their work. Your response would greatly benefit from using Abbas’ notion of exorbitant city and generic city (borrowed from Koolhaas) to elaborate your comments further. To discuss in greater depth, it would be wonderful if you can cite some movie references to strengthen your argument.