What do architecture and film have in common? Just like film, architecture should not be completely transparent at first glance, it should touch us from the very first moment, but it should also disturb us, it should elude us a little at first in order to enrich us and our everyday lives in the end and for much longer.
“Architecture must …” what actually?
We need to talk.Not necessarily about Wolfi, Peter and Reinhold. No, about the matter itself. To this end, let’s try an – admittedly amateurish – look at film before we talk directly about architecture again.
We see a woman getting off a bus, we see a doctor looking out of the window of a clinic, we observe the woman with his eyes. Later, we see the woman riding her bike through the countryside, through the forest. We hear the sounds of the surroundings, the rustling of the leaves almost overloudly and immerse ourselves directly, almost physically, in the respective scenery. The scenes take their time, everything is told with great calm, the connections are slowly revealed like the peeling of an onion. The story develops, things are not predictable after a few minutes, the dramaturgy is not necessarily complex, but sophisticated, quiet – no “fast food” or gravy maneuvers à la ARD Degeto, no sepia filters, and always only well-dosed and highly precise film music. But it’s not about some kind of anti-story either – the narrative is of the highest quality and sophistication. Nothing is hidden behind misconceived avant-garde ideas, as might have been attributed to some exponents of the New German Cinema of the 1970s. And the images are also naturally stylized, cinematically exaggerated – they are part of a kind of referential observation of film history. Nothing is naive. Everything is deliberate and skillful.
And what happens to us at the end of such a film by Christian Petzold or other representatives of the so-called “Berlin School” such as Christoph Hochhäusler or the Dardenne brothers from Belgium? We are moved or even disturbed. The images will linger – often quite unexpectedly, perhaps when we walk through a forest somewhere, or catch ourselves thinking something. We got involved with something for an hour and a half or two hours, gave it space to develop. And yes – it didn’t disappoint us with a cheap punchline, or such a punchline didn’t put everything back into the simple right light. No, we are left with questions, images, impressions, in the end: “experiences” that cannot be fully explained, but lie in the wonderful mix of emotion and reason and sharpen our perception of reality!
In short, it has to be said: Just like film, architecture should not be completely transparent at first glance. It can touch us from the very first moment, but it can also disturb us, it can elude us a little at first in order to enrich us and our everyday lives in the end and for much longer.
Sorry, but that would be a bad time for glass wedges through old wholesale market halls, but also for all too much romanticizing – and certainly for parametric façade sauces, where a lack of intellect is to be drowned out by screeching!
“So architecture must be …? Be suitably brittle!”
To be continued …












