“Koolhaas HouseLife” a movie for architects

more information

It seems to me that I would not be wrong, if I say that for most of the people the movie  “Koolhaas HouseLive” touches upon the question of priority of convenience and functionality comparing to beauty of form and design. If we ask any experienced architect about it, they might find this question too abstract, nonsensical or just too simple, because theoretically speaking there is no need to oppose this two criteria and practically speaking the best way to solve this problem it to find a compromise.
The movie itself gives the same expected answer to this question, in that way it does not try to be more interesting to architects.  First time I have seen architects watching this movie on Venetian Biennale of Architecture 2008 and I was surprised how infatuated with this process they were and which emotions they felt. So I tried to figure out why does this happen.
Architectural design contains elaboration of great number of details and ideas in different scale and complexity level, all of them should satisfy the client and might demonstrate personal vision of architect of this house. It might be argued that as much ambitious and experienced a creator is, so much is developed his own style. For most of the people the main authors principles of design are visible, but usually only architects could really understand them.
The is a very good example of Rem Koolhaas’s personal style. In 1998 when the project was constructed it was exceedingly attractive to architectural community that had good opinion about Rem Koolhaas’s masterpiece and his style. Many architects wanted to be the author of this house very likely. So far the project is still investigated by many architects trying to look into the drawings and photos and study the style; they criticize it or are delighted with it.
But still what is the difference between the perception of this film by architects and usual audience? For usual viewer this film simply shows housekeeper’s work and her thoughts about this Rem Koolhaas’s house, for some it is information, for others it might effect their opinion. But for any architect-viewer this film presents absolutely different story, because from architects’ view Rem Koolhaas is not a concrete designer in this film, he symbolizes any designer at all. And the housekeeper’s personal opinion is not personal for an architect-viewer, is opinion of all the inhabitants, visitors and other people who are not architects. And exactly this illusion that follows architect-viewers perception forces all of them to focus on every charwomen’s word and wait for the verdict.
And sometimes the verdict says that the house that has huge windows from floor to ceiling instead of outward walls.  The minimum of columns and barriers and large overhangs produces the impression of the construction that might be suddenly broken instead of architect idea about light constructions that introduces the outside nature inside. Such ideas sound usually funny for architects. But after they watch a quarter of the film they gradually realize that charwomen’s opinion is not as nonsensical as they thought and sometimes architects ideas might be nonsensical. Because if most of the concepts are not perceived or used in the right way and sometimes make daily exploitation even harder (as the dark door on white façade that burns the grass that grows in front of it), so why does architects make them? And after architects-viewers realize these they usually laugh in the self ironical way until the end of the film.
I suppose that the greatest merit of authors’ of this film is the feedback that they get from architects. Because at the same time they forced them to laugh and seriously ask themselves one more time about most important and principal questions about the design (including the question of priority of functionality comparing to beauty of form) and rethink their vision.