Emergence

Visual Music

Sounds

There were various sound screenings that I had the pleasure of listening to. The one thing I have to say about them is that they all stirred up questions in my mind about how sound can be used to set the tone for something. Obvious you say? Yes, but a key point in knowing what sound is about. Sound is the structure in which we all rely on daily and take full advantage of without really understanding it objectively. We are so captivated by movies and the visuals we fail to recognize that amazing score that really drove the visuals and the emotional content the film had home making the movie so great. Architecture is a soundscape that is underused or rather, downright neglected and omitted from being a crucial point of how the space is experienced. This is a great tragedy in architecture today that is likely to be vastly unrealized.

Play Time (1967)

Interface. That is the best feature of this film. The way in which people meet and interact whether it be with objects or other people around them. This film is a master of the way we interact with things and the interface used to do so in.

There are brilliant ways that Jacques Tati shows this. How we are confused one moment due to the odd layout of a building, or the tricky system used to open a door or call upon someone via intercom. From brooms to dustbins, chairs to rails, even the sounds made by the space around us or our own noises made by us.

Everything has a method or a manner in which it is used and interacted with. Tati shakes up these known methods as if to say, “perhaps they are confusing enough already, do we really need more confusion?” Simple is too simple, and too dumbed down becomes out of place and misunderstood. A comment is made that we are complex creatures enough, so why make our environments so futuristic we can’t use them or we are forced to become out of place ourselves? Is that really necessary? Isn’t it enough to make a way for people to interact on a fundamental and base level? Can’t this be done easily without pulling out all the stops we become out of place among the things or environments we create?

Koyaanisqatsi (1982) / Naqoyqatsi (2002)

After the screening of Koyaanisqatsi and Naqoyqatsi right after, I noticed something in particular. Aside from being shot in the same sort of way, I decided to take a look at the movie from an architecture student standpoint. Less objective and more critical of what was happening architecturally in the film. I wanted to take a particular interest in this for this film due to the broad scope these two films seem to employ.

A problem that architects have today is gathering the broad general interest of the public in architecture. The very nature of the thing they spend 95% of their days in. Not only does the architect have trouble gathering this interest, but once the public takes interest in a particular building it is quick to fade right after. It might even be safe to say that the only successful “architecture” that is seen is the night club venue. A direct representation of the effect architecture has on the public. It might be a successful club or venue for a while, but after a time the lights fade, then the crowds, and then the space is transformed into an upscale restaurant or something similar.

The architecture when shown in these two movies can show an interesting dynamic. Or rather, the architecture that is shown can take from the more interesting dynamics shown in the film. Why else would anyone watch two films that are extremely long with no spoken narrative during this time and age out of all the choices there are now? The images are captivating, they provoke a response, they are easily accessed and clearly understood, or understood enough to guide the viewer into a desire to want to see or know more about the subject presented.

The reason these films are captivating relies heavily on the viewer taking a direct interest in the content of the images being presented. If a building is supposed to be something we see even more often than these lengthy films, then why are they so bleak to look at? Why are the structures so uninspiring? Is it akin to thousands of poorly made films and a few gems that are revered by the public along with the cult hits? Is architecture following this model? I doubt it. Architecture has thousands of years of experience making that an unlikely or at best, a poor excuse.

These two films are inspiring because they can show different elements of our world in an almost downright negative aspect and still leave you curious as to what humanity will do next. This claim is only even more validated by the fact that this is a trilogy that spans over the course of 20 years. That’s just from when the films were released, that doesn’t count the actual timeline of the footage shown. It is my own personal opinion that architecture can easily find a method or two or five that these films use and exploit every single great aspect shown out of them. Architecture needs a positive face-lift, maybe the Hopi have a phrase for that too?

Lessons of Darkness (1992)

For me, the feature I found the most interesting was the lack of pinpointing exactly what was being shown during this film. The more film savvy or politically knowledgeable viewers would know that the Kuwaiti oil fires are the main feature here as well as the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

I found this interesting mainly because it posed a method of thinking for a question I believe the movie potentially poses to the viewer. Does it really matter what spawned this outcome? The reasons behind this, do they matter? Do they matter in the face that these “creatures” as the workers are called, will return to their fire again in the end.

The main question is posed at the end of the fire when the fires are relit. “Has life without fire become unbearable for them?”

I found that this process of questioning was interesting. Normally the facts that provide the background as to why the situation was there to begin with would be of interest to a viewer. This is clearly dismissed as it is never mentioned in the film. This leads me to think that the fact that it is known that the end result will continue to repeat itself is enough information on its own. Whether or not the viewer accepts this as their own personal belief that this is enough information is ultimately left up to them, but the film presents a clear view on the subject.

I’m not interested in the dialogue of the film as to if the knowledge beforehand is important or not. What does interest me however is the ability to leave out crucial information and shape the opinion of the viewer at the end of the film and leave a lasting impact. It is very similar to brainwashing, but more subtle.

This ability of control is intriguing to me. Instead of preaching through a book, the use of a bleak landscape and a few “interviews” are used. Overall it kind of leaks into your brain; the questions. Thoughts begin to emerge of your own processing through the information presented. It is a method, again, a very subtle method, but delivered in the right manner has led this movie to be produced and revered worldwide.

So, what I got out of watching this movie the most was the knowledge that through subtle use of imagery and a dash of seemingly relevant human contacts, a personal detective story will play out in a viewers mind, leading them through their own dangerous game of cat and mouse, eager to find the answers themselves.

Wild Blue Yonder (2005)

The alien speaks of life in space. Humanity is devoid from any ties that might bind them to Earth. Completely isolated and alone. “You are truly an island,” the alien says.

I’m not sure if I can believe this pessimistic view. The alien is an alien to Earth. The statement itself is ridiculous. How can we be alone in space when the alien knows that there is life outside of Earth.

This leads me to believe that the alien must mean something else. Most everything the alien says is negative. I doubt that the alien would make a film just to say a few negative things and let that be that. So I’ll take another approach. A more positive one from the negative vein it seems to have come in.

Since I’m from Earth, I’ll use an Earth example. Hawaii.

If in space we are truly an island and that is that, surely this can’t be a bad thing. Hawaii is composed of many islands. It just so happens that this semi-unique trait is what makes Hawaii so popular. You can travel from island to island, each island with its own unique experience.

If I’m an island in space, does this mean that other people can hop on and off of me? Am I led to believe that I am bigger than other things in the cosmos on such a grand scale. Or, does this mean that I’m an island that can hop onto other islands, larger and smaller than I am. If I drift into other islands, will I make a continent? Is this the way of the universe. The separation of worlds into smaller islands that travel out and become smaller worlds and grow through a community, a vast network of small islands from different worlds? Then creating a smaller world until eventually smaller pieces separate from the then large world and take on a voyage of their own? This process sounds familiar at many different scales here on Earth. I doubt being an island could be so bad then as long as the island is always within something else, which it would have to be, otherwise we couldn’t call it an island as it would have no outside context to define itself in. So being an island couldn’t be that bad…..

Solyaris (1972)

The most interesting feature presented throughout the film is the effort it puts into being a full blown cinematic completely absorbed in the vein of transcendentalism. I was curious as to why it showed the lake flowing about in the beginning of the movie and after seeing the entire film it has revealed itself much to the same points that the movie makes about its own philosophy.

Starting the movie out with the lake and then the bustling city forced upon the viewer by being shown a four and a half minute car ride and then back to the lake again, but with scenes of the Ocean interspersed leads to many different conclusions. What is clear however is that a point is being made about the conversations held between the characters.

Using first one of the more memorable quotes as shown on popular film website IMDb, you can almost see how the entire movie was scripted and storyboarded out though this one quote.

“Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit.” – Dr. Sartorius

In that quote alone you can see the movie play out once viewing it to the end. The scene starts with Nature, man was created by Nature and thus inhabits that Nature as shown by the city. As Kris Kelvin approaches “Truth” which could be perceived as the space station he is fated to “Knowledge.” This is all that is important to Kris as revealed later when it is said by Hari that Kris is the one who is most true to himself and the most “human.” Kris is later proved to be the most human when Dr.Snaut says, “Man needs man!” as the most important goal of all to find. He states that man needs a mirror instead of other worlds. The only contact that is important is contact with our own kind. This view itself is reinforced by the fact that the “apparitions” or “guests” on the space station themselves are humans. The Ocean gives the people on the space station as well as Burton when he was a pilot the very necessity they craved from their own consciousness, contact, with man. The ominous and omnipotent Ocean said to be a conscious entity could almost be viewed as a life force, ebbing and flowing about like time. Professor Messenger, aptly named was the first supporter of the mission to further the study and research of the Ocean.

So to summarize, Kris finds his fated Truth through gaining Knowledge and figures out that the rest is bullshit because all he needs is man. This for him is found in the form of his late wife (who can only stay on the space station).

“Well, anyway, my mission is finished. And what next? To return to Earth? Little by little everything will return to normal. I’ll find new interests, new acquaintances, but I won’t be able to devote all of myself to them.” – Kris Kelvin

Possibly shown that the island Kris returns to where his father is shows Kris crying at his feet because where the lake is “without man” Kris has lost what he desired most.

“No man is an island.” – John Donne