I asked myself, after walking out of the movie theater, why couldn't I pull away from the emotions of "Columbus"? It doesn't seem to make sense. The building that attracts the heroine for a long time and continues to give her strength is only embodied in the film as a flat image that cannot be walked into and felt. When the male protagonist asks her what a specific building means to her, she finally gives a completely personal reason - the image is silent at this moment, and the audience can't even hear her description of her private experience, let alone actually experience it. Once experienced.
Apart from that, the audience can still get a lot of knowledge from it. Lectures on architecture are fascinating, at least for a layman like me. After watching "Columbus", many people (like me) will probably have a practical interest in this real-life town and its famous buildings. I doubt that the film is getting support from the public finances, because it would be no exaggeration to single out the empty shots of the buildings showing them and say they could make up a city propaganda film.
Of course, this knowledge of architecture has nothing to do with its appeal as a feature film (plus I don't know anything about the art of architecture). No amount of knowledge can guarantee that the distance from the heart of the protagonist will be shortened. The source of spiritual power is always private and inaccessible to others. This is a film about modernism, using modernist architecture to tell the spirit of modernity. The main characters are the carriers of the spirit of modernity. No one in the film believes in the value of transcendence, be it Western monotheistic religions or East Asian family-based ethics. Of course, this doesn't mean they don't believe in anything, but it's up to them to decide what value they believe in. So does the audience. Just as the heroine refuses the hero to lecture her about her life choices, the film also refuses to lecture the audience on the value level. Well, the ABC of architectural appreciation is enough.
The above is all about the "cold" of "Columbus", its temperature, what is that kind of thing that pulls the audience in? Where is its common ground with the audience? Perhaps it is the constant failure of the self-determination search for value that the film presents. The heroine says, I'm [not sure] if architecture really heals me. This is an absolutely sincere confession. But it is also because of this failure that the possibility of an individual's access to others is opened, and people turn briefly outside themselves. The heroine and the hero meet at a low point in their lives, and the audience meets the film at a perpetual failure.
Therefore, people who will be moved by this film will be somewhat narcissistic and self-pity. What makes Columbus superior to this audience is that it transforms the frustrations of modern people into the inner link of modernity realizing itself, at least showing such a possibility. At some point near the end of the film, the protagonists, on their own (who are defined by their entire past, including past failures), make the decision to face their future lives and accept all uncertainty. Of course, the film [can't] tell the audience how to make that decision. It's just saying: I understand you; you see, it's possible to take this step.
I was very moved.
View more about Columbus reviews
