عنوان مقاله [English]
Film theoreticians such as Tom Gunning, Miriam Hansen, Anne Friedberg, Leo Charney, James Donald and Giuliana Bruno emphasize on the simultaneity of the invention of the cinema and the formation of modern cities in the world. Cinema, in effect, seems to have grown up in the context of modern cities. Film’s evolution, stirring away from theatrical static space and the single boundary of primitive filmmaking (fixed camera, moving actor) towards the spatial fluidity and complexity of contemporary cinema, has been concurs with the city dynamics. Scholars like Simmel, Benjamin and Kracauer, referring to cinematographic qualities of the images such as sequential and superimposing movements in large cities, emphasized the significance of cinema in perceiving the environment of modern cities, and believed multilayer film by its nature, more than any other media, has the capacity to represent the complex characteristics of a metropolis. The early filmmakers not only depicted urban spaces, but also screened these images to their audiences as the collective masses. With the circulation of motion pictures through the labyrinthian network of metropolis, as Miriam Hansen points out, cinema had acted as a bridge between people and the city and also helped to shape the image of the city in their minds. In this way, cinema had provided a horizon for experiencing modernity for urban dwellers. The interaction between filmmakers and the urban space continued through the subsequent decades, especially in German expressionism, Italian neorealism, American noir and the French new wave films. In many examples from these cinematic genres, the context of urban space plays significantly in the demonstration of the emotional texture of film's characters. Moreover, directors also by projecting psychological moods of characters on urban spaces endow different and distinctive emotional dimensions to cities. Any cinematic space may be connected to another by non-linear and complex methods. In film, due to a myriad of variables relationships, every space might be connected to any other space and every relation can produce unpredictable meanings. The spatial relationship in the film is not a kind of continuous and closed system. Filmic techniques have facilitated open systems and structures that know no boundaries. In many films, filmmakers not only represent the cityscapes but also invent their own cinematic city by using spatial combination among disparate parts of the city with the help of cinematic techniques like montage. The influence of reel landscapes in the filmic cities on real cities should not be ignored. Nowadays, cinema has moved beyond serving as a mere representation of urban spaces to challenging the traditional limitations of urban planning. In the same way that movies have borrowed from the dynamics of modern cities, urban spaces have reciprocally been developed in close interaction with cinematic spaces. This interaction has intensified in the past decades more than ever. It might be argued that in contemporary cities, a kind of intertwining relationship between urban plans and cinematic plans has been forming our perception of urbanity.