My initial feeling about the film itself is bafflement. Beautiful buildings, of course. I've seen several of them in person, and they are much more than this film manages to convey. The buildings are conceptually/cosmologically so much more interesting than the conceptual tropes of the filmmaker "doing theory".
I have no problem with long, lingering shots of details on these buildings, but I found the Batman-esque camera angles self-indulgent and irritating in the extreme. Having visited many of these buildings, I was looking forward to seeing them anew, but these films (including the Goff & Maillart) told me nothing interesting about either the works or the architect – only about the self-absorbed director.
For the most part, Emigholz finds a great way of capturing the fine line between Sullivan's gigantism and his love for detail. Though, the intentional crookedness in his frames leaves an overly conceptual aftertaste, since it denies the buildings their (capitalistic) grandeur. I find it a little too blunt of an intervention against such a Randian worldview. History took care of that already.
While a good idea to show the works of architectural designers chronologically and there are some beautiful shots to behold it is also a film that can only be loved by those who are has the special interest to watch this architect's works and has not the chance to go there. It becomes too tedious for anyone else sadly.
Similar to Emingholz other architecture-focused film, this one is extremely queer. Again, the film is made of a series of short shots taken at various angles in various locations. The locations are identified, and in this film they all happen to be beautifully built banks. In each film, Emingholz is sure to pay close attention to not only the aesthetic aspects of the buildings, but the constructive aspects as well.
Terrible documentary. For some unknown reason virtually every shot in this film is at a cockeyed angle as if the buildings were villains on the 60s Batman tv show. If that weren’t irritating enough, most of them are incredibly amateurishly framed. Half the time it seems like Emigholz randomly pointed the camera. Two things come through in this documentary - Sullivan’s talent and Emigholz lack of it.
3 1/2 *'s....a natural soundtracked meditation on one mans style of composition of those most phariseeic of places, banks..i've never really thought about architecture much, sure i like the sydney opera house and well designed buildings (even modern banks, which all seem to, when they build new buildings, try to make it look neo as heck)...all in all a nice little short...
+ Brilliant way to introduce an architect to an audience. The movie compiles angles, sounds and point of views to show the building's interactions with its surroundings. - Absolutely soporific if seen in the wrong conditions. Need for an introduction about the director's approch (in MUBI Notebook)
This did not work for me and I did not make it through. I believe the use of the static movie camera, as opposed to still shots, is intended to help us to see the buildings as existing where life is continuing. That was somewhat interesting. However, in the cases that I saw, the multiple shots of each location didn't give me added insight. For me, nothing accrued, nor did I give myself over to a zen-like quietude.
Architecture as character. You suddenly realize these buildings have housed civilizations. Linked to history, but nothing is timeless, right? Canted angles illuminate architecture exists in a different perspective than humans. Incidentally, humans meander about like elusive worker ants. I feel like I'm watching Homicide: Life on the Street or Tanner '88 with no characters. American Midwest rep