“It is characteristic of the vast majority of cities in the movies that they focus not on architecture per se, but on architecture as it affects, and is interpreted by, citizens” (Thomas 2003, p. 410).

Let me begin by voicing my disdain for this claim. As a general principle, I’m not too enthusiastic about broadly worded claims such as this. It seems as though Thomas has deliberately made this point very open-ended so that he could argue that “a certain presentation of architecture could be interpreted in such and such a way or has such and such effect…” – making infinitely grand leaps in logic for examples to fit the claim. Simply put, this sort of statement is often frustratingly difficult to argue against, because increasingly vaguely connected counterpoints would be made to these arguments, that by virtue of the claim, should be accepted. And even then, Thomas has the wording “vast majority” to fall back on.

Buying into Thomas’ claim does bring up some interesting examples, though. One thing our group discussed is how it is usually themes or elements of a city’s architecture that are highlighted in film. For example, the city of New York may be presented very differently when a story is told through the eyes of a new arrival in the city (with shots from street level of the massive buildings, and jump-cut montages of different iconic locations) as compared to when a story is told through the eyes of a PI or law enforcement officer (with aerial shots of the city-scape, showing the HUGE city they have to search to find the crook).

However, there are examples where architecture is not focused on in a way that it affects or is interpreted by its citizens. Tommy Wiseau’s so-bad-its-good independent drama The Room is one example of this – where the architectural shots of San Francisco appear to have very little effect on – or interaction with – the characters of the film. One example of this is a panning shot of the San Francisco skyline, which separates two scenes of the film for no apparent purpose. Comically referred to by Youtube film reviewer “The Nostalgia Critic” as ‘the screensaver while the movie loads’ , this shot seems to serve no purpose to further flesh out the character’s stories, nor the setting of the film.

This could perhaps be one reason Thomas uses “vast majority” — rather than a blanket “all” term — to accommodate for questionable directorial decisions such as those in the room. Another reason may be due to a film’s interchangeable / generic location of setting. If a film does not utilize a real-life city, the audience cannot associate certain attributes to such a city (for example, Las Vegas being a haven for partying and gambling as seen in films such as The Hangover; or the fictional creation of a town in The Truman Show (fittingly with the dome located just outside US entertainment megahub Los Angeles).

Nonetheless, it does raise an interesting thought to consider as a screenwriter — what pre-conceived expectations of a certain city setting exists within a potential audience?