Despite the weather, I think the second city walk was much more successful than the previous week. Namely, because people had a better idea of what to do and what to expect and offered a more in depth analysis of the spaces. Cinetone studios was a lot easier to research than Tuschinski last week as there was a much wider range of research materials available as well as many more films relating to the location – as opposed to the 2 we were limited to with Tuschinski. However, this did mean we had a lot to say and I think we ran over time quite significantly! What I found particularly interesting was a return to this relationship between reality and representation, or representation within representation – a studio space within a film – and the effect this has on spectators. With the Holland’s Hollywood clip, the superficiality of the film industry and built/movable aspect of the studio was highlighted yet the lyrics of the song discussed the romanticised aspect of film that everybody craves to be a part of regardless of this falsness. I also find interesting a studios ability to create scenes not possible in the external, ‘real’ space, almost a claim that scenes shot outside the studio are ‘reality’ when in actual fact all film can do is present representation. All adding to the illusion of cinema – another thing we can link to Baudrillard and simulacra (something I will expand on in my final presentation).
Unfortunately our video discussion of the Penz/Tati text failed to work so I was not able to reflect upon it. However the text was not too theoretical but more a case study of Tati’s work, so there was not too much to pick apart. Although we did find a great similarity between Tati and De Certeau’s attitude towards the city and the tension they both see between this idealized, romanticized city concept and the reality of the expanding, planned, modern city. With regards to the functioning of the films, I personally am not convinced by this particular app. I think it’s a great idea to record class discussions to have material to return to when performing research as often it’s too difficult or fast paced to take clear notes at the time. The 360 degree is also useful to decipher who is doing the talking. However, I think the fact that the app is able to record videos for 8 minutes is a definite limitation – big parts of our discussion were lost and thus it was not clear who contributed what. I agree that large part of the discussion were more summaries but I think that’s inevitable when each member of the group has read a different text, in the groups where we had read mutual texts, things were able to get more in depth and comparative. However, this summarising did come in useful when watching the videos discussing texts I hadn’t read, as it enabled me to get a clearer grasp of their concepts.