In Abbas’ article, he mainly discuss the connection between architecture and films. Since they are all preeminently visuals, film can show audiences the architecture from the point of view of the city. Besides, Abbas mentioned the concept “disappearance”, which means that many architectures and histories were disappearing in the context of Hong Kong. However, I think what makes every city has unique charm lies on the experience of it, including the passing of architectures and histories.
In Bruno’s article, he skillfully compare the real time in reality and the ‘real’ time in the movie. It is important to transfer the real time in reality to the ‘real’ time in the cinema. If the derector do this job well, he can create ‘zero degree’ of film, which means the audience can get the emotions of the character and the author. For expample, if you want to show a man is sleeping, just give a few shots of the man in the bed before and after he sleeps. But if the whole movie is about a man sleeping, then I won’t regard it as a movie.
Chengtian, Huai 3035845978
It is great that you have taken up the challenge of analyzing both readings of L02. For a more in-depth analysis, you may consider focusing on either one text or discussing one or more specific arguments in the two readings. For example, you can expand your discussion about the disappearance of Hong Kong’s spatial memory and heritage or discuss in more detail how to translate “real time” to “reel time,” what is the significance of this transformation, and what are the corresponding cases. *Giuliana Bruno is a female scholar researching visual arts, architecture, film, and media.