Both Ackbar Abbas and Sue Harris discuss the relationship between films and cities.
According to Ackbar Abbas, there is a two-way relationship between them. For one thing, art is inspired by life but beyond it. So, more or less, the cities have some effects on the films, concerning how it is structured and designed. In some films, landmarks are stressed. For another, the flexibility of films Gove imagination or inspiration on the stable cities. With the improving film technologies, films can also influence the future cities to a great extent.
In Sue Harris’s article, she cites Fredric Jameson’s argument that “the conspiracy thriller is an allegorical cinematic form offering a reflection not simply on topical affairs but more on the functioning of the world system”. The film, Bourne Trilogy, is a reflection of the reality. It is concerned about security system and global politics. What’s more, this film also shows the fears of people about the random eruption of violence in the world cities in a post 9-11 world.
Song Yang, 3035772781
It is unclear how the two-way relationship you summarised respond to Abbas’ ideas. It would be great if you synthesise them with closer reference to the text as you attempted for Harris.
In your response to Harris, you have pointed out cinema is somewhat a reflection of reality. You may wish to delve deeper into how cities are filmed / used as sets differently in 70s action movies (The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, All the President’s Men), Bourne Trilogy, and other action movies to elaborate further. How does the scale of security concerns changes post-911 from national to global through movies?