I was recently feeling in a bit of a slump during the day and wanted to just go out and do something. I wasn't feeling particularly sociable, so a bar wasn't really an option. I just wanted to explore, see something new and have a change of scenery. After all, that is one of the main advantages of living in an actual city. I made sure to do that in the first few months, maybe even year, that I was living here. Unfortunately, I wasn't as diligent about exploration lately... I guess laziness really is a seductive mistress. So off I went, feeling it was just the right time to get back to it, and I ended up heading down to the South Side... *gasp* ... and I didn't get shot at either! I guess Chicago isn't really so bad, huh?
Chicago is one of the most important, if not the most important, city in the US for architecture. Yes, I am actually placing Chicago ahead of New York City as far as American architecture is concerned. Chicago was home to Burnham, Sullivan, Wright, and van der Rohe; the most iconic and influential architects in America. They brought their vision and artistic touches to a world which was going through a radical shift in technology. American architecture in the past 150 years arguably wouldn't be what it is if not for them, as they created differing dogma on how new materials are to be used, and how multi-story buildings should be erected. Remember, the use of steel, metal cables, elevators, and the understanding of wind currents' effects on buildings are essentially responsible for economically viable and architecturally stable tall buildings, high rises, and skyscrapers.
Most of the iconic buildings I see in Chicago are typically in the Downtown neighborhoods, like Merchandise Mart, Hancock Center, the Carbide and Carbon (or Hard Rock Hotel) etc. I figure I should make an effort to explore other neighborhoods, and where better than going to the IIT area?
Other South Side neighborhoods feature a lot of beautiful buildings as well, though they're more typical of the Beaux-Arts movement. I love that style, don't get me wrong, but I see Classical influences everywhere. For instance, look at Congress Theater, a building I see nearly every day, and tell me it doesn't resemble the Pantheon? So, instead, I wanted to see something more modern. IIT was the center of Modernism and International Style in the US, thanks to Mies van der Rohe. However, it also features some newer developments which bring it to the 21st Century. The one which interests me the most is the McCormick Tribune Center, which is a fairly recent project from Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas. It adheres to many elements of Modernism while also taking a lot of Post-Modern and avant-garde liberties. It is International Style adapted to the 21st Century, which is quite refreshing when you frequently see the dark steel and glass rectangles.
Other new International Style buildings in Chicago only differ slightly from its original ideals. Take, for instance, Aqua Tower. It's a really gorgeous building with a unique look. However, at the heart of it, you'll find a glass and steel rectangle just like any other International Style high rise or skyscraper. Aqua differs from International Style in its use of concrete balconies of varying shapes and widths. The balconies give it some theatricality and a wavy appearance. Functionally, it helps soften the impact of strong winds due to its height and proximity to the lake. However, that's really its only major deviation from Modernism. Ideologically, it actually coincides with Modernism, since its form indeed follows function. Obviously I'm not disparaging it, or other buildings in the same mold, but something more deviant would have been cooler to see.
I was recently reading an article about McCormick and thought it looked kind of interesting, strange, and perhaps even ugly, from photographs. However, I also figured that maybe it would look nicer in person than it does in photos. It was also unique enough from other buildings I would typically see to warrant a little sojourn to a land far away. Plus, I don't know what I think of Koolhaas' other designs. He has an affinity for the bizarre, like Seattle Central Library, which is not really my forte for architecture. But it's always fascinating to look at his work, and he isn't nearly as out there as some Postmodern architects. McCormick Tribune Center also looked more restrained than other things he has done.
You can see the influences of Mies van der Rohe in Koolhaas' design. It is a metal and glass building shaped by straight lines, after all. Koolhaas differed in many ways, however. His use of of color is one of the most obvious betrayals of Mies' International Style, which was colorless by design. Without even entering the building, the orange and yellow colored glass stand out along State St. They resemble the color schemes of the De Stijl movement (well, only primary colors ideally, though van Doesburg did use orange), but nothing like what would be reflected from the surrounding environment or in nature. Koolhaas also made use of various angles. This give the building itself a bit of theatricality which wasn't typical of Miesian architecture, since International Style was strictly square or rectangular in shape. It's a different take on using straight lines, without abandoning the Bauhaus aesthetic by adding in curvature.
One of the more unique elements of the building are the glass portraits. These are both the antithesis and the greatest tribute to International Style. Koolhaas clearly wanted to do something different with the campus. Glass portraits are obviously ornamental and decorative without offering any kind of practical function. That's a big no-no in the dogmatic ethos of Modernism. However, those glass portraits of Mies served as Koolhaas' way of paying tribute, yet bringing his values to the 21st century. It takes a lot of balls to deviate from the Modernist religiosity in the very epicenter of International Style, all the while maintaining adherence to it. This paradox adds more charm to the building.
The design element which I admittedly loathed in the photographs was that tube around the Green Line tracks. It's big, it's clunky, it's shiny, it's round, and it just doesn't go with the whole aesthetic and philosophy of the campus. It looks like something which belongs at a 70's disco, and looked as bad as disco music sounds. It wasn't even necessary, as engineers have said that there were other ways of reducing the noise from incoming trains, such as adding rubber to the tracks or wheels. Did I also mention it's shiny? Fucking shiny?! For cheap jewelry, or a cheap hooker in a seedy part of town, sure, who cares about shiny? But for anything else? No. Just no. For fuck sake, no.
In person, however, it actually didn't look all that bad. In fact, I actually kind of liked it. It adds a new dynamic to an area which is basically a bunch of glass and steel boxes (and abandoned lots; and abandoned buildings; and train tracks). I don't know why, but it somehow manages to fit in. Even on a more abstract level, its addition adds audible silence, while the McCormick building adds visual loudness; so there is this cool contrast... Ok, that's just stupid equivocation.
It was a short visit in the early evening, and it was kind of cold, so I didn't really explore the area much. I mean, I basically got off the train, walked around for like 10 or 15 minutes, said "what the fuck am I doing? Why am I outdoors? It's fucking freezing. I need a cold beer in a warm bar" and then jumped back on the subway (well, elevated train). However, I still enjoyed my little trip nonetheless, and I probably would have stuck around longer had the weather been warmer. It was a pleasant sight, a nice break in the day, reminded me of why I love Chicago, and reminded me of why I belong in a city. What I loved even more was that this is not in the Downtown area. This isn't even in the best neighborhood for that matter, if my classist barbs haven't been obvious enough. Yet there is still this brilliantly cheeky work of art publicly available for all to see.
If you live in a city, don't stay in a bubble. That's not what urban areas are for. A picture is worth a thousand words, but actually seeing something for yourself is worth a thousand pictures (did I just coin that?). I could write a book detailing a building... well, maybe not. I'd start having a really hard time finding what else to write after the tenth page, since I'm not an architect. I could include some pictures... ok, I can't, because I didn't take any pictures... I never take pictures in general since I'm not a tourist from Beijing and I'm arrogant as hell about my memory. But just seeing it for yourself is a whole different experience. So if you have a chance, take some time for yourself. Go out and see something. Go to an otherwise shitty neighborhood and find yourself a nice little dive or hole in the wall (whatever you like... food, booze, or, literally, glory holes in a wall, if that's your thing). Go into some of the cool stores and support local businesses. Most of all, just enjoy the city you live in, because there are so many gems to be found if you traverse off the beaten path.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
The 400 Blows (Les quatre cents coups) Review
François Truffaut's 1959 movie The 400 Blows is arguably the birth of the seminal La Nouvelle Vague movement. It was not merely his storytelling which captivated his audience. It was also Traffaut's photographic approach to filming, and his crafting of relatable characters and settings. His stripped down cinematography and screenwriting has been cited as major impacts on directors before and after him. I would even go as far as assuming he was a major influence on Seinfeld's earlier seasons, since “a show about nothing” is a clear legacy of the French new wave.
The 400 Blows tells the story of ne'er-do-well adolescent Antoine Doinel and the trouble in which he often finds himself. The plot itself is fairly uneventful. Some mischief and its consequences, a foreseeable chain of cause and effect and effect and effect. It is not a deeply complicated plot in which multiple sequences of events take place from the start of the movie to the end. With that said, that was clearly never Truffaut's objective for The 400 Blows, and this is a characteristic which made much of La Nouvelle Vague so groundbreaking and alluring.
The strength of The 400 Blows lies in Truffaut's masterful crafting of realistic characters within the post-war Parisian backdrop. A largely impoverished metropolitan area which was still on the road to economic recovery. Unlike the typical portrayals of Parisian settings, which focus on beautiful architecture, romance, passion, culture, food, and ostentatious wealth, this was not the norm of the city and its inhabitants. Portrayals as such in general are fantastical and whimsical as a fairy tale, albeit in an urban backdrop; yet even more so in France within 15 years after the end of World War II. Truffaut shows what the late 50's was like for those who were not part of the higher social echelon adorned in Chanel and Dior. Their homes were small, rooms needed to be multi-functional, food was bland and quantitatively modest, and the typical conditions of Parisian public schools would get its American counterparts shut down. Such impoverished, uncouth, and abusive conditions are the perfect catalyst for the events which follow.
Even more resonating than the environment was Truffaut's portrayal of Antoine, the movie's protagonist. Like many subsequent new wave films, The 400 Blows was a character study of its main protagonists. There were very few actors who played any sort of prominence throughout the film; which mainly consisted of Antoine. To a lesser degree, his best friend, mother, step-father, and teacher are featured, but they were instrumental roles helping explain Antoine's personality and predicaments. Other extras, such as fellow school children, merely served to help create and accentuate a setting with no more significance than other pieces of the backdrop.
Of course, these factors were largely utilitarian due to budget constraints. Regardless, these characteristics are what made the earlier era of La Nouvelle Vague the beloved and groundbreaking movement it was. These filmmakers had to make use of creative and experimental ideas to compensate for other inequities. Exploring psychological themes, writing stories which resonate on a deeply personal level, and creating a photographic aesthetic, all compensate for a lack of budget while still stimulating and entertaining the audience. Creativity can be inexpensive. Traveling to multiple sets, or hiring a large production team with loads of extras, would need a heft budget.
Antoine is the archetypal everyman. He is somewhat mischievous, but no more so than typical children his age. He skips class, shares pinups, and draws on the wall. Most of us have done the same things, including myself. He was not alone in his misdeeds, just as most of us had our peers. He just had the misfortune of being the one who always gets caught. He was either following the crowd, following the ill given advice of his best friend, or trying to assert his adolescent sense of independence and self-identity without the experience or prudence to do so wisely... like most teenagers. There are times when he got in trouble for being misbehaved. Then there were times when he got in trouble for not doing anything wrong, aside from being foolish. Then there were times when he was actually behaved and still got in trouble anyway. In fact, the latter of which characterizes the times which led to the direst consequences.
We are also given insights into his closest relationships. He did not care much for his teacher, but the guy wasn't exactly likable (not that he could be blamed, those students were little shits; you, dear reader, would have beaten the crap out of them too, and you're lying if you say otherwise). He wasn't fond of his mother, but she was openly resentful that she ever bore him. He had an interesting rapport with his step-father, but even that was shallow and reduced to sharing a few humorous comments with one another. There was no love between them, considering how easy it was for him to fully wash his hands of Antoine. None of these authoritative and older characters think much of him, and they make their sentiments abundantly clear to Antoine. The most loving and loyal relationship he had was with his best friend. Unfortunately, this friend was an idiot and a terrible influence on him, thus being a main cause of his misdeeds.
Antoine, while not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, longs to prove his self worth to his detractors. He wants to demonstrate his resourcefulness and assert his independence to those who are his most outspoken critics, and openly regard him as cretin inevitably destined for failure. At the same time, he also clearly doesn't have much hope for a better tomorrow, so direr consequences mean less and less to him as he has less to lose. The only time he shows a noticeable degree of sadness for his life circumstances is upon his arrest. You can see him shedding a few tears while he stands in the back of a police wagon staring at the free world he will no longer experience - the last asset he had to hold onto. That is until he quickly adapts and accepts his placement alongside thieves, junkies, prostitutes, and possibly murderers, in incarceration.
As the movie progresses, the amalgamation of these factors both move along the plot, and explain the evolution of Antoine from a mischievous kid drawing mustaches on pinups to being placed in an observation center for juvenile delinquents. During questioning with the counselor, which serves as a bit of a soliloquy, he elaborates on some other shady things he has done. However, he never indicated doing such things on his own accord. He was not the worst of his peers, but he faced the worst of the consequences, which is understandably disheartening.
Antoine's story is told in a way which not only makes him an underdog, but a deeply human character. Although the circumstances and relationships during my childhood were very different than his, I cannot help but feel sympathy for him as I watch his life unfold. At times, I even feel a connection to him. I may be presumptuous in saying this, but I would surmise that nearly all of us has truthfully said "I didn't do it," or "everyone else was doing it" (which, in effect, makes it an acceptable social norm) at some point during our childhoods, adolescence, or even adulthood. Imagine if that kind of injustice was more common than not? Wouldn't that have made us disenchanted with the wisdom of our elders and elicit our rebellion? The people who are supposed to socialize and educate him openly express their disdain and lack of faith that he will ever amount to anything. That's not exactly a reassuring image to build the self-esteem of an adolescent. How else could he have been expected to behave?
This was the power of Truffaut's vision and why this movie was such a resounding success. He was able to create a dynamic character through balancing a minimalist plot with complex relationship dynamics and settings. I have seen this movie a number of times, and I don't see myself getting bored of it. If I could only give a 10/10 to a mere handful of movies, this would undoubtedly be one of them.
The 400 Blows tells the story of ne'er-do-well adolescent Antoine Doinel and the trouble in which he often finds himself. The plot itself is fairly uneventful. Some mischief and its consequences, a foreseeable chain of cause and effect and effect and effect. It is not a deeply complicated plot in which multiple sequences of events take place from the start of the movie to the end. With that said, that was clearly never Truffaut's objective for The 400 Blows, and this is a characteristic which made much of La Nouvelle Vague so groundbreaking and alluring.
The strength of The 400 Blows lies in Truffaut's masterful crafting of realistic characters within the post-war Parisian backdrop. A largely impoverished metropolitan area which was still on the road to economic recovery. Unlike the typical portrayals of Parisian settings, which focus on beautiful architecture, romance, passion, culture, food, and ostentatious wealth, this was not the norm of the city and its inhabitants. Portrayals as such in general are fantastical and whimsical as a fairy tale, albeit in an urban backdrop; yet even more so in France within 15 years after the end of World War II. Truffaut shows what the late 50's was like for those who were not part of the higher social echelon adorned in Chanel and Dior. Their homes were small, rooms needed to be multi-functional, food was bland and quantitatively modest, and the typical conditions of Parisian public schools would get its American counterparts shut down. Such impoverished, uncouth, and abusive conditions are the perfect catalyst for the events which follow.
Even more resonating than the environment was Truffaut's portrayal of Antoine, the movie's protagonist. Like many subsequent new wave films, The 400 Blows was a character study of its main protagonists. There were very few actors who played any sort of prominence throughout the film; which mainly consisted of Antoine. To a lesser degree, his best friend, mother, step-father, and teacher are featured, but they were instrumental roles helping explain Antoine's personality and predicaments. Other extras, such as fellow school children, merely served to help create and accentuate a setting with no more significance than other pieces of the backdrop.
Of course, these factors were largely utilitarian due to budget constraints. Regardless, these characteristics are what made the earlier era of La Nouvelle Vague the beloved and groundbreaking movement it was. These filmmakers had to make use of creative and experimental ideas to compensate for other inequities. Exploring psychological themes, writing stories which resonate on a deeply personal level, and creating a photographic aesthetic, all compensate for a lack of budget while still stimulating and entertaining the audience. Creativity can be inexpensive. Traveling to multiple sets, or hiring a large production team with loads of extras, would need a heft budget.
Antoine is the archetypal everyman. He is somewhat mischievous, but no more so than typical children his age. He skips class, shares pinups, and draws on the wall. Most of us have done the same things, including myself. He was not alone in his misdeeds, just as most of us had our peers. He just had the misfortune of being the one who always gets caught. He was either following the crowd, following the ill given advice of his best friend, or trying to assert his adolescent sense of independence and self-identity without the experience or prudence to do so wisely... like most teenagers. There are times when he got in trouble for being misbehaved. Then there were times when he got in trouble for not doing anything wrong, aside from being foolish. Then there were times when he was actually behaved and still got in trouble anyway. In fact, the latter of which characterizes the times which led to the direst consequences.
We are also given insights into his closest relationships. He did not care much for his teacher, but the guy wasn't exactly likable (not that he could be blamed, those students were little shits; you, dear reader, would have beaten the crap out of them too, and you're lying if you say otherwise). He wasn't fond of his mother, but she was openly resentful that she ever bore him. He had an interesting rapport with his step-father, but even that was shallow and reduced to sharing a few humorous comments with one another. There was no love between them, considering how easy it was for him to fully wash his hands of Antoine. None of these authoritative and older characters think much of him, and they make their sentiments abundantly clear to Antoine. The most loving and loyal relationship he had was with his best friend. Unfortunately, this friend was an idiot and a terrible influence on him, thus being a main cause of his misdeeds.
Antoine, while not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, longs to prove his self worth to his detractors. He wants to demonstrate his resourcefulness and assert his independence to those who are his most outspoken critics, and openly regard him as cretin inevitably destined for failure. At the same time, he also clearly doesn't have much hope for a better tomorrow, so direr consequences mean less and less to him as he has less to lose. The only time he shows a noticeable degree of sadness for his life circumstances is upon his arrest. You can see him shedding a few tears while he stands in the back of a police wagon staring at the free world he will no longer experience - the last asset he had to hold onto. That is until he quickly adapts and accepts his placement alongside thieves, junkies, prostitutes, and possibly murderers, in incarceration.
As the movie progresses, the amalgamation of these factors both move along the plot, and explain the evolution of Antoine from a mischievous kid drawing mustaches on pinups to being placed in an observation center for juvenile delinquents. During questioning with the counselor, which serves as a bit of a soliloquy, he elaborates on some other shady things he has done. However, he never indicated doing such things on his own accord. He was not the worst of his peers, but he faced the worst of the consequences, which is understandably disheartening.
Antoine's story is told in a way which not only makes him an underdog, but a deeply human character. Although the circumstances and relationships during my childhood were very different than his, I cannot help but feel sympathy for him as I watch his life unfold. At times, I even feel a connection to him. I may be presumptuous in saying this, but I would surmise that nearly all of us has truthfully said "I didn't do it," or "everyone else was doing it" (which, in effect, makes it an acceptable social norm) at some point during our childhoods, adolescence, or even adulthood. Imagine if that kind of injustice was more common than not? Wouldn't that have made us disenchanted with the wisdom of our elders and elicit our rebellion? The people who are supposed to socialize and educate him openly express their disdain and lack of faith that he will ever amount to anything. That's not exactly a reassuring image to build the self-esteem of an adolescent. How else could he have been expected to behave?
This was the power of Truffaut's vision and why this movie was such a resounding success. He was able to create a dynamic character through balancing a minimalist plot with complex relationship dynamics and settings. I have seen this movie a number of times, and I don't see myself getting bored of it. If I could only give a 10/10 to a mere handful of movies, this would undoubtedly be one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)