Wojcik’s reading covers the concept of “Apartment Plot as a Genre”, explaining an apartment is not just a setting of the film, but also explaining the narrative. Moreover, apartment plot also locates in domestic urbanism. It shows the character’s identity like class, ethnicity and economic status. The second concept is “apartment plot as an intertext”, where apartment acts as a support of the storyline. The last concept on contextualizing the apartment plot mentions a quote that film gives the “viewers a dwelling view”, giving them a “touristic view”. I think it is related to the concept of “non-place”. Some architectural scenes can be non-places, visually allowing viewers to feel the space, evoking their interest to be part of the visual space. But if we put non-place in an architectectural context, it’s all about the physical experience in it. So film can also give the audience a feeling of non places for audiences, even the audience are not physically in it.
Indeed, the apartment (in film) is not just a setting or set but also explicates the narrative, reveals identify and serves as intertext in relation to the film plot. Its interesting the you see film as giving audience a feeling of non place. Do you feel too that, on the contrary, film makers try to create meaningful and identifiable spaces in remote sites or built sets in nondescript places like warehouses, etc.? For more contemplation on the notion of non-place and the creation of places into spaces, read this text together with de Certeau’s Spatial Stories and Marc Auge’s Non-Places.