I am a swimmer; at least I use to be. I use to swim at least nine times a week and I use to compete on weekends at carnivals. I loved to swim and I like to think my technique was very good. After all I spent much of my time perfecting it, spending at least two hours, sometimes twice a day, guided by a thick black line in my drills, kick-board and swimming sets. So when I watched movies such as ‘swim-fan’ I always became agitated. Because the swimming style was so rubbish. If any other person watched that movie, and they probably didn’t, they would have thought maybe that the swimming style was fine. Well it was not. It was shocking; just as in so many other movies that depict swimming were, to me.
When I considered the movie The Fountainhead, I wondered what an architect would think about the portrayal of the architecture profession. After all Ayn Rand spent a considerable amount of time studying architecture. Ayn Rand admits to knowing little about architecture before she wrote The Fountainhead. Schleier states, “She consulted a lengthy bibliography assembled for her by a member of the New York Public Library staff, and another obtained from the journal Architect World” (p. 2). Rand also undertook an internship of two months with Ely Jacques Khan. I have included a picture of one of her buildings. She was able to learn a lot about architecture and for many architects the book is particularly memorable. This is strange because overall the industry is portrayed as a somewhat bureaucratic, unimaginative bunch that produces mediocre buildings that are afraid to challenge the tastes of the ‘mob’.
As for Roark’s designed buildings that feature in the film Schleier states the “film's architectural set designs…. added to its lack of credibility, since one of its major themes concerned the architectural profession and the purported genius of one of its members” (p. 5). The architect George Nelson characterized several of the sets as technical impossibilities and blatant examples of plagiarism. It is believed that Rand agreed with these critics and found the sets disappointing.
The portrayal of the architect profession in The Fountainhead has also been criticized. Lamster states “the characters.. do not so much as converse as declaim one another: in this architectural universe, dialog has given way to sloganeering” ( p. 23). The Fountainhead film would have us all believe it is expectable behavior for an architect to argue with his clients, make demands and act badly instead of adhering to professional conduct. I also wonder if the film set up a trend for the portrayal of architects. The scene where Peter Keating meets in a project meeting to collaborate with the client and other architects over the low cost housing project encourages a view that a devilish and ape-like attitude prevails amongst architects. Other architects suggest adding a human touch with a few balconies and a trimming over the entrance, showing a considerable lack of appreciation for the design. The scene peaks when an architect smashes the model with some sort of black cylinder. While it could be taken as just part of the films overall, melodramatic feel, in modern films which feature the architecture profession the ‘architect tantrum’ and other types of misbehavior have also featured. In Intersection Richard Gere, who plays an architect, reinforces this idea of the architect by throwing a sort of tantrum mid-construction site because his demands are not met. In Jungle Fever the African American architect played by Wesley Snipes is denied a promotion because, he believes, of the color of his skin. He proceeds to storm through the office pointing as buildings he has developed shouting “Mine! Mine, Mine!” It would seem that the architecture field suffers from no shortage of ego thanks to the Hollywood movie. For Ayn Rand someone who so painstakingly studied the field of architecture, regardless of whether she liked architects or architecture itself, she probably would have been disappointed at the portrayal of this profession.
References:
Lamster, M. 2000, Architecture in Motion Pictures, Princeton Architectural Press: USA
Schleier, M. 2002, ‘Ayn Rand and King Vidor's Film "The Fountainhead": Architectural Modernism, the Gendered Body, and Political Ideology’ in The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 310-331.
When I considered the movie The Fountainhead, I wondered what an architect would think about the portrayal of the architecture profession. After all Ayn Rand spent a considerable amount of time studying architecture. Ayn Rand admits to knowing little about architecture before she wrote The Fountainhead. Schleier states, “She consulted a lengthy bibliography assembled for her by a member of the New York Public Library staff, and another obtained from the journal Architect World” (p. 2). Rand also undertook an internship of two months with Ely Jacques Khan. I have included a picture of one of her buildings. She was able to learn a lot about architecture and for many architects the book is particularly memorable. This is strange because overall the industry is portrayed as a somewhat bureaucratic, unimaginative bunch that produces mediocre buildings that are afraid to challenge the tastes of the ‘mob’.
As for Roark’s designed buildings that feature in the film Schleier states the “film's architectural set designs…. added to its lack of credibility, since one of its major themes concerned the architectural profession and the purported genius of one of its members” (p. 5). The architect George Nelson characterized several of the sets as technical impossibilities and blatant examples of plagiarism. It is believed that Rand agreed with these critics and found the sets disappointing.
The portrayal of the architect profession in The Fountainhead has also been criticized. Lamster states “the characters.. do not so much as converse as declaim one another: in this architectural universe, dialog has given way to sloganeering” ( p. 23). The Fountainhead film would have us all believe it is expectable behavior for an architect to argue with his clients, make demands and act badly instead of adhering to professional conduct. I also wonder if the film set up a trend for the portrayal of architects. The scene where Peter Keating meets in a project meeting to collaborate with the client and other architects over the low cost housing project encourages a view that a devilish and ape-like attitude prevails amongst architects. Other architects suggest adding a human touch with a few balconies and a trimming over the entrance, showing a considerable lack of appreciation for the design. The scene peaks when an architect smashes the model with some sort of black cylinder. While it could be taken as just part of the films overall, melodramatic feel, in modern films which feature the architecture profession the ‘architect tantrum’ and other types of misbehavior have also featured. In Intersection Richard Gere, who plays an architect, reinforces this idea of the architect by throwing a sort of tantrum mid-construction site because his demands are not met. In Jungle Fever the African American architect played by Wesley Snipes is denied a promotion because, he believes, of the color of his skin. He proceeds to storm through the office pointing as buildings he has developed shouting “Mine! Mine, Mine!” It would seem that the architecture field suffers from no shortage of ego thanks to the Hollywood movie. For Ayn Rand someone who so painstakingly studied the field of architecture, regardless of whether she liked architects or architecture itself, she probably would have been disappointed at the portrayal of this profession.
References:
Lamster, M. 2000, Architecture in Motion Pictures, Princeton Architectural Press: USA
Schleier, M. 2002, ‘Ayn Rand and King Vidor's Film "The Fountainhead": Architectural Modernism, the Gendered Body, and Political Ideology’ in The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 310-331.
2 comments:
It really would be interesting to have an architect's perspective on The Fountainhead.
and haha, you would be horrified at my swimming technique!
I too found it interesting that Rand did her studying before writing the novel. She seems to capture a passion for buildings with such ease in the book! That's dedication for you.
When I thought a while about it, it started to become clearer that her epic descriptions of these magnificent buildings were more about their evocative nature and less about the technical terminology. She gives the impression that she knows every corner and crevice of the profession, but its the physical specifics I believe that she leaves to the imagination, so that we create these slightly impossible structures in our head. How can the film possibly do them justice?! :)
Post a Comment