The last word on the Bloomberg-era of New York City. (well, not the LAST last word, but you know what I mean)
Tangentially, I’m reminded of Matt Jones’s awesomely thought-provoking 2008 blog post about the urban differences between the Bourne and Bond franchises. Jones writes that “there’s no travel in the new Bond”; there are simply “establishing shots of exotic destinations.” By the end of a Bond film, you simply “feel like you are in the international late-capitalist nonplace,” a geography with neither landmarks nor personal memory.
Compare the geography of James Bond, then, to the spaces of Peter Greengrass-directed Bourne films. These films are “set in Schengen,” Jones writes, “a connected, border-less Mitteleurope that can be hacked and accessed and traversed—not without effort, but with determination, stolen vehicles and the right train timetables.” Indeed, Jones memorably suggests, “Bourne wraps cities, autobahns, ferries and train terminuses around him as the ultimate body-armor.”
Rather than Bond’s private infrastructure expensive cars and toys, Bourne uses public infrastructure as a superpower. A battered watch and an accurate U-Bahn time-table are all he needs for a perfectly-timed, death-defying evasion of the authorities.
via BLDGBLOG: Nakatomi Space, an article actually about Die Hard as an architectural film. Nifty stuff.