The film work of French director Jacques Tati could be considered as the perfect reflection of the mid-20th century European post-war building paradigm, a period of time plenty of transformations perfectly echoed by cinema. In particular, Tati’s film work reflects the European post-war citizen’s concerns about the consequences of massive constructions built in their desvastated urban centres, as well as the development of functional cities proposed by the Athens Charter (1931). But, on top of that, an analysis of Jacques Tati’s cinematography allows for an approach to modernity from different perspectives, such as mobility, urban design, new buildings, working spaces in the new tertiary districts, housing -traditional, modern, and experimental-, or furniture design during the post-war period.
Embodied by his alter-ego –Monsieur Hulot,- Tati curiously interacts with the new geometric constructions of neutral facades and questions the break with the French building tradition, highlighting the opposition between the nostalgic past and modernity of the 50s and 60s, affected by the fierce consumerism of the new welfare state. The functional, volumetric, aesthetic and even chromatic confrontation between both built worlds –traditional vs modern- invites the viewer to an exercise of meditation and criticism on the European modern architecture of that period.
Tati’s film look is particularly focused on two basic concepts: on the one hand, his attention addresses Le Corbusier’s famous mechanistic house which is materialized in the ultra-modern Arpel house (Mon Oncle, 1958) and designed, in turn, when the development of other important experimental dwelling prototypes like Alison and Peter Smithson’s House of the Future or Jean Prouvé´s houses was taking place. It must be highlighted that Jacques Tati’s criticism was not addressed to modern architecture itself but to the wrong use that citizens could make of it.
On the other hand, Tati focuses on the Miesian prism through the office buildings that shape the city of Tativille in Playtime (1967). It was a big, modern city built specifically for the film shooting, and based on the almost identical residential and tertiary urban fabrics already active in the main European and American capitals those years. Tativille would work as an autonomous city, having several facilities at its disposal and with the goal of getting integrated and consolidated into the Parisian urban weave. However, its final use was, unfortunately, quite different.
In conclusion, an analysis of Jacques Tati’s film production allows for an approach to modern post-war architecture and urbanism, as well as to the socio-economic context that favoured its growth and expansion. As a result of this, Jacques Tati’s film production constitutes a suitable visual tool which, even nowadays, is consulted and shown due to its clarity and humour, and at the same time invites citizens –viewers- to participate in an architectural criticism exercise that, so far, had been reserved to architects.