Abbas used “exorbitant city” to describe the cities whose impression is exaggerated, even deviated from original identity, being “representable only as the cinematic city”. While Hong Kong frequently appears in big-budget Hollywood movies, protraying luxurious skyscrapers and urban landscapes to generate exotic visual appeal, the real Hong Kong is supplanted. There seems a paradox between emphasizing on a city’s characteristics, and disappearance of authentic identity in global cinematic gaze. I agree with Abbas that such an exorbitant city is “phantasmagoric”, and “labyrinthine”, in the sense that hyperbolic exhaustion on the city has distorted its genuineness, living true identity invisible and not legible.
Abbas also described the increasingly homogenized and urbanized city as “generic city”. However, I doubt his statement that such fading of identity is not a loss but destined and deliberate, with shedding of character being a global liberation in nature. For me, this is a rather burlesque and pessimistic outlook, and I think that tradition, identity and characteristics should always be guarded against homogenization even facing cinematic gaze.
Sze Lui
3035799337
You pointed out how the depiction of Hong Kong in blockbuster movies and noted how the depiction of the “real Hong Kong” was inferior. I would suggest first situate your definition of the “real Hong Kong” so that your audience wouldn’t be left wondering. That way, you may better construct your argument. Also, interesting take on how the cultural disappearance of identity is rather a deliberate choice. Despite deliberate, would you think it was a conscious choice?