Like many of my peers, I found some faults in Timescapes at the Museum of the City of New York. As I pulled back the curtain to the mini-theater on the 2nd floor of the museum, I found that the size of the room compared to the screens was problematic. Luckily, I found myself seated in the back row; however, those who sat in the front probably left with a sore neck trying to take in the panoramic screens. Furthermore, while the three screens were visually appealing, the film did not give ample time to take in what was happening on all three screens, even in the back row. I often found myself feeling like I had missed something.
Although many have criticized Timescapes for being monotonous and nothing more than what one could learn from a textbook, the short film isn’t getting the credit it deserves. I don’t believe the intention of the film was to be anything more than illustrating the settlement of New York throughout history. Through the use of detailed maps and photographs, you see New York’s development unfold over 390 years. It makes you realize and appreciate how old and rich our history is.
Timescapes purpose was to give a glimpse of the settlement of New York; it’s meant to be generalized, especially due to its time constraints (a short 22 minutes). I understand now why downtown has more fragmented grids, whereas uptown is one large grid. I know now that the names of the boroughs originated from Native Americans. For those searching for more personalized stories and faces behind the history lesson, I felt the photographs offered a unique perspective. The juxtaposition of images from different eras showed that New Yorkers are all connected, whether they are from 1900 or 2000, we all live in this great city and call it home.
Even though there were a few kinks here and there, Timescapes proved effective in its purpose. With a few adjustments to the presentation of the material, I feel the narrative of New York’s development would be perfected.
