“The architect and the filmaker have much in common. Their professions demand a combination of courage, determination, and hubris that allow them to impose a personal vision on an often unreceptive world.”
As the architect and maybe more than an architect, the job of filmaker is an other way to compete with God, creating new worlds that can be similar to the real one or completely different. Indeed, following just his imagination and his dreams, the director invents new places filling the void of the set, creating a new world, making his own dreams come true.
As Truffaut says, making a movie “means improve life, set it up in his own way, extend childood games[...]”. We can easily assert that the filmaker is a mix of a child and God, the feeling of game and the feeling of omnipotence. As a matter of fact a movie is a manipulation of the World, it's an improvement of it. The movie, as a dream, is a projection of wish. The filmaker's wish.
More than an architect, a filmaker can create new urban spaces without borders, the only rule he has to follow is a good screenplay and, of course the budget.
Doesn't matter what's the job, money always play a key role.
There are a lot of common qualities in architecture and film. Space, for example, plays a key role in both disciplines. Of course, architecture can't exist without space, but film need the illusionary volume where actors can play and the story can be told.
Another aspect in common between these two arts is the key role played by computer programs. These applications allow the creation of buildings and the “mise en scene” of movies that were unthinkable to create just few years ago.
So what? Maybe the only big difference between an architect and a filmaker can be found in the way they live the idea of time.
