Through my reading, I believe that movies and architecture are mutually influential and partly involved, although the inner structures and expressions are complex and multifaceted.
The film is a new art form made up of a fusion of photography, music, painting, and architecture, while architecture always provides a prototype for a work of art. The audience is interested in the plot, the atmosphere, or merely as a means to relieve boredom, which uses the screen and the sound as a medium to produce a moving image. The spatial sequence of architecture, on the other hand, usually consists of a beginning – a build-up – a climax – a transition. I believe that both are the same in that they always take place simultaneously in both time and space, and it is the feeling of being in them that is most compelling.
The production of images in a movie encapsulates the physical construction of space in architecture: the director elaborates a story on one or more themes by orchestrating the development of the story, portraying the characters, and designing the expression of the camera, while the architect designs and creates a series of storylines through the combination of different spatial elements.
Name: XIONG RUOZHU
UID: 3036103781
I really enjoy your words in comparing the ‘production’ of films and architecture. The methods of description you adopted are very sensible and have made the two subjects comparable. It will be even better if you can include slightly more on the ideas that Barthes introduced in his writing to enrich your content.