Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2009

Grand, Gai Paris


Ten years ago I was eighteen and living alone (off of my parents) in Paris. Ah… youth, treasure only gods may keep… Anyhow, Paris was a dream city; not the darkish, seedy Baudelarian urban dreamscape, or even the fleeting Benjaminian fancy. New Millenium Paris for me was a fleshy and flushed Disney-musical-featuring-Julie-Andrews kind of day to day rêverie: absurdly lovely and innocuous. I remember early morning strolls and limestone and birds chirping and leaves turning red and buttery pastries that literally melted in your mouth. Since I was eighteen, I had to feel alienated too, so I wore black all the time and grew my hair long and put on a sullen face every time I went out. I listened to Fiona Apple and sat on bridges alone for hours till my ass froze. That was pretty much it.

I guess for the untrained eye it’s really difficult to notice how Paris can be alienating. First, just because it’s so f-ing beautiful. Second, because central Paris is caught up in a solipsistic detachment that only fluctuates between the gentle, romantic silliness of Amélie Poulin and the voluptuous, tragic silliness of Juliette Binoche in Trois Couleurs: Bleu. Third, because for all of its rocking political heritage, Paris seems convinced it has done enough for the improvement of mankind, content with milking the glories of yesterday and keeping the nasty spots well hidden under the rug. Those daily demonstrations on the Place de la République were just a great big hoax to me, particularly when my famille d’accueil kept a picture of the long-lost family country estate hung over their kitchen table, and they excused themselves for how rundown the street had become since all those “blacks” moved to the neighborhood, or when friends they had over for dinner tried to convince me that the very best thing that could’ve ever happened to us Mexicans would have been to spare Maximilian and remain a French protectorate. Never mind the horrid soirées rallye, pure pre-revolutionary pop.

Paris is patrician, classist, and reactionary to the pretty core, and Parisians know it. It has to be one of the most seamlessly segregated cities in the world. So, even though M. le Président’s call for a “Grand Paris” has tinges of boldness, the plot to make metropolitan Paris (tout compris, meaning the burning banlieus too) more sustainable, livable and equal by way of architectural and infrastructural Grands Travaux amounts to little more than Sarkozy trying to get his game back after loosing the title of young, brazen, charming guy-in-charge to Obama, or simply following Barack's lead of announcing great things and then scaling back. In the long run, marrying Carla Bruni might have a greater impact on the collective conscience of the French.

It's not that the proposals are necessarily poor or perverse in themselves. It's not that green belts and vegetable growing buildings and "urban substance stimulatrors" and techno-infrastructural corridors and a polycentric café-centered urban culture are necessarily bad things. Heck, some of the proposals are indeed quite poetic (even explicitly, calling for "poetic" tram-oriented transport to complement high-speed transit). It's just that in Paris, poetry is more than often a trap.

Despite Roland Castro's and the rest of the teams' good intentions, even the grandest of urban desgin schemes wouldn't be enough to pull Paris together. Not by a long shot. More than an urbanistic version of Paris je t'aime, what planning in the city needs is a François Bégaudeau-type urban antihero. The genius of Entre les mures is that it demonstrates that good intentions never cut it. There are no truly appalling conditions shown in the film. No poverty porn. The setting is a decent, modern, clean, multiculty high school (no graffiti or obtuse racial prejudice or vicious decay one can fight against and prove oneself against and overcome. This is no Stand and Deliver, certainly not Dangerous Minds), and the students are clearly well fed and surprisingly well-dressed. The teachers seem to be doing pretty okay too. Still, there is an unbreachable divide between the two groups, growing deeper by the minute as the movie rolls on. The kids find it impossible to cope with life, and the teachers can't do anything about it. Nothing. They are left to themselves, to their false yearnings and comings of age and their fake (urban) tribal belongings and their sense of needing something else but not knowing where to find it or even where to start looking. We're not faced with a purely outward, practical, spatial, functional problem here; but rather an all-encompassing malaise, a case of cultural exhaustion. It's not only that Paris is broken and divided: the real problem is that it's children are lost.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Slums‘R’Us


Go figure, but the “feel-good movie of the year” is apparently Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. Things must really be down when the filmic fairytale of choice has a sprawling slum built on a dump as a backdrop, when its protagonists are two poor little buggers turned orphans after their mom is clubbed to death in the middle of religious rioting, and when its highlights include mobsters blinding a kid with acid to earn bigger beggar bucks, caste prejudice, underage prostitution and a full-body dive into a brimming latrine. Sweet!

So where’s the feel-good? I guess part of the movie’s success at the box office has something to do with a lingering taste for the exotic. People seem to love Slumdog’s blasts of color, frantic pace and raw spurts of life; they agree that “slums never looked this cool”. Yes, the Third World keeps filling the promise of a relentless lust for life, an irrational drive that keeps the poor folks south of the equator going, even when faced with dire conditions and painful obstacles. What “westerners” don’t realize is that all this seemingly exuberant vitalism has little to do with joie de vivre and is actually a crude survival strategy.

Slumdog is a watered-down version of the slumsploitation genre that grew popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, revealing the violent drag of Parisian banlieus, digging into the favelas of Rio and hovering over vecindades in the outskirts of Mexico City. Aside from the continental displacement (the sizzling streets of Mumbai and the swollen alleys of its informal appendix, Dharavi) the most notable shift is from the dominant dark undertone of the previous films to a cut-up, fast-track mode where darkness is reduced to “spice” and sideline for a puerile plot the masses can relate to: good guy vs. bad guys, rags to riches and love (and money, let’s not forget) conquers all.

As for the urban milieu, which even in slumsploitation flicks has a relentless and sobering presence, Slumdog reduces it to scenery, a collection of common places and fundamentally passive container. Even when the dogs turn to kings standing on the thirthy-somethingeth floor of soaring skyscrapers built on the margins of their rundown birthplace, viewers have no idea of how this massive urban change came about, what it means or how it relates to the squalor. And no one (outside of India) cares, really. It just seems to be part of the slums and the exotic “catching up” to the West. Part of the charm of the “escape” is that in the end we are confirmed that we know best and that our ways still hold their power and value (even at times like these, when the developed world’s own sense of power and value is failing). It’s actually funny, because in reality the First World appears to be falling closer to the Third, as global dynamics dissolve boundaries and hierarchies and everyday life gets messier, and connections with the “faraway” and “underdeveloped” reveal themselves closer to our own doorsteps that we ever thought, and the divide between city and suburb and exurb and slum is disappearing in both North and South.

The only feel-good I got from Slumdog was M.I.A.’s “Paper Planes” playing in the background. The song succeeds were the movie fails: in dressing up the contradictions and the piercing realities of the “underdeveloped” in a way that hits “developed” sensibilities without them even knowing it. Despite the fact that M.I.A.’s song immediately makes you want to smile and dance and enjoy the bustling creativity and rhythm this beautiful big-eyed brown-skinned girl from some faraway corner of the world has to offer, the minute you start the music leaves you with this weird aftertaste, this nagging realization that there’s something you’re missing, something you don’t quite understand, something that’s not completely right. The track, with its infectiously charming yet chilling kids-gunshot-cashregister chorus, is the type of “friendly dirt” that actually makes you think.


(Photo from Flickr user marcusfornell. The original full-sized color version can be viewed by clicking the photo. M.I.A. portrait by Napoleon Habeica, from babybabybaby magazine)

Monday, October 13, 2008

LWB Scores Kaufman Interview

Holy mother of pearl, archiblogospherites: Jimmy over at Life Without Buildings just put up a severely rad interview with the one and only Charlie Kaufman, who penned the landmark films Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Where is in awe, and bows down. From LWB:

Life Without Buildings recently had the chance to sit down and speak with Charlie Kaufman, who generously answered this excited-yet-slightly-nervous interviewer’s questions about film-making, the search for truth, and the role of architecture in his movies. Discussed: Synecdoche, the practicalities of first-time directing, Paul Auster, the lost art of wood carving, and the infinite potential of Las Vegas.

Read the interview here. Do it.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Gender Rolls of Cities


Today while taking silly internet quizzes about which Classic Leading Man and Classic Dame most matched my personality (don't judge), I noticed something interesting and, perhaps, subliminal. In the Leading Man quiz, choices for what kind of town to live in and what kind of dwelling were generally urban. The Classic Dame's choices for where to live, however, were exclusively suburban and/or rural.

This reminded me of an interesting contrasting example of urban gender associations. A map created for Richard Florida's new book, Who's Your City, shows the gender imbalances in cities across the United States. In contrast to the urban/rural perceptions associated with classic movie stars, older, grittier, more densely populated cities (aka more urban places) typically have much larger concentrations of women as compared to men. While San Francisco, Charlotte, and perhaps Minneapolis provide notable exceptions, women seem more likely to live in places like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and DC, while men dominate the populations of more auto-dependent places, like LA, Dallas, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

I wonder where that discrepancy might come from.


Links:
The Classic Leading Man Test

The Classic Dames Test

The Singles Map (Richard Florida)

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Urbanffffinds 025

Urbanism revelation of the week: cities need more giraffes. And camels.












Saturday, December 1, 2007

The Linkdump

NaNoWriMo 2007 is officially over! Congrats to all of the participants around the world who made it past the 50,000 word mark before midnight last night. As for me, I crossed the finish line around 11:30pm. Now I'm trying to catch up on my reading from the past month. Here's a quick jolt of urbanism for all you lazy folks spending Sunday in bed with a laptop and a latte. Happy December, everybody!

Contemporary World Tour goes to Brasilia {} dezeen scopes out the Wind Dam {} The difference between community and "associations, citizen committees and commissions" {} Coney Island wasn't broke, but they fixed it anyway {} A great piece on Jean Nouvel (or: Rupe hasn't killed the WSJ yet) {} The Antisuburbanites {} Toronto embraces its ugliness {} Invisible Landmarks in LA {} GOOD on Homeboy Industries {} Age-old rule #834: Don't understand it? Call it a gimmick! {} Check out the clusters on this map {} Belfast murals at WebUrbanist {} Sarcasm, light rail, and overbearing parents {} Digital Urban calls for a Second Earth {} Who's squatting the squatters? {} The corporatization of Universities {} Bad planning Mixtape {} The World Edition on architecture in Bucharest {} The Urban Planning Generation {} Commercial Revitalization Conundrums {} 26 Different Endings {} Incredible Nonphotography (photo credit) {} Guerilla culture in Paris via Spacing Wire {} Bannerman: The Willy Wonka of Weaponry {} Getting serious about agriculture {} Obama's urban agenda {} Cheering congestion in Sydney {} Gentrification: flood or forest fire? {} Mobile Metrix {} Report from Pakistan {} Downtown revitalization goes Hollywood {} Brazil halves extreme poverty {} Neighbors Project's 7 Rules for talking about gentrification {} The Happiness Project on the benefits of wandering {} Jane Jacobs podcast! {} The best sites for urban photography {} Milwaukee's industrial legacy is fading {} Wikiurbanism {} Miss Representation strikes again {} The City Fix (great transportation blog, added to sidebar) {} Cool Town on Trendwatching's 8 trends for '08 {} Integrating transit and land use

Friday, July 27, 2007

WEEKEND READING: July 21-27, 2007


Good stuff good stuff good stuff this week. If you're from or going to be visiting Chicago this weekend and don't have time to read them all, skip straight to item seven.

ITEM ONE: All About Cities poses the question "What makes cities great to visit?"

ITEM TWO: Building on the urban agriculture theme from earlier this week: Pittsburgh's Pop City -- the kind of pragmatically upbeaet media outlet that every city should have at least one of -- covers urban farming in that city.

ITEM THREE: Sheer awesomeness from the construction of Amsterdam's new subway: "7,000 mirrors hung in clusters of three on buildings along the 2.4 miles of the route that's underground. Measuring devices shine infrared beams onto each mirror once an hour, measure the reflection, and feed data into a central computer. After triangulating, the computer raises the alarm if any building shifts more than 0.5 millimeters in any direction. A millimeter is the thickness of a paper clip."

ITEM FOUR: Life Without Buildings describes every architecture student's vision of Hell.

ITEM FIVE: Those crazy Londoners have come up with a unique way to direct tourist traffic in their city: Vibrating rings.

ITEM SIX: Paris is not car-friendly. Raise your hand if you're surprised. (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)

ITEM SEVEN: Last but not least, Chicagoans looking for something to do this Saturday afternoon should head over the DIY Neighborhood event in Logan Square. It's the first event for a promising new urban community-focused nonprofit called Neighbors Project, which will soon be starting chapters in Brooklyn and San Francisco (or so I'm told).

Have a freakin' awesome weekend, folks.

(Photo from Flickr user shadeofmelon.)