Sketches of Frank Gehry

Went to see the film about Frank Gehry this evening with a friend. She didn't want to go but at the end she was pleased she went to see it and thought it was very funny and laughed about loads of scenes, quotes, people but I just thought it was sh*te. I've just checked imdb.com to see what else Sydney Pollack has done because I thought the film/documentary was so lacking in structure and argument - he was producer on Iris, a film that I much admired and thought was very touching and intelligent. Of other films he's involved with, I've seen The Interpreter and that makes sense for me to associate its director with this Gehry film.

I have never warmed to Gehry and this biographical film only served to strengthen my opinion. Of what I see and know of him, I don't like him.

One point I found amazing was Gehry's work process. His colleague, I think directly employed by him, is involved in software development. What initiative to employ someone to use technology and make it work for you. It is possible for the office to "scan" or record information digitally using a pointer on the model and this will generate 2d drawings. And Gehry can't use a computer! His reliance on teamwork and I assume capacity to direct that team is remarkable. There is no doubt that the structures he has succeeded in having built are mind-boggling.

Unfortunately the above was the most insightful the film got regarding the thinking, living, coordinating being that is an Architect. If this film was directed at architects then I think it gave them very little to chew on. If it was directed at a general audience then it regrettably only serves to further the public's cliched view of architect as brainbox talent with crazy ideas who has a past of bankruptcy and corporate jobs they would prefer to forget.

Gehry's therapist featured quite strongly in the film. I would have preferred to have met his dentist. The therapist claimed Gehry was lacking in confidence early on and other personal trite which no doubt we could all claim at some stage and which would be better kept between analyst and subject.

The only dissenting voice is Hal Foster who tries to make the point my friend made upon seeing Bilbao's Guggenheim - how can art be exhibited in this massive attention-seeking place?

Julian Schnabel turns up in a towelling dressing gown with brandy glass and sunglasses. Was it intended to be a laugh-out loud joke? And our own Bob Geldof's purpose in the film is to relate a story about how he was woken out of touring boredom by Frank's Vitra building in Germany. How it was learnt that Geldof had this story to tell I'd like to know and why it was thought telling it was warranted is something else I'd like to know.

I just love Philip Johnson. It was great to see him in this film. He said Frank knows light and what it does in a building. I think that was the one comment that wasn't nonsense in the entire documentary.