My Architect, Myself
The mystery of Louis Kahn's life was as compelling as his buildings.
Thirty
years after his death, his filmmaker son goes in search
of the true Lou
with the documentary My Architect.
The Metropolis Observed
June 2003
| |
![]() |
| Nathaniel Kahn and his father, the architect Louis Kahn. | |
| |
|
| |
![]() |
| Philip Johnson and Nathaniel Kahn outside the Glass House. Courtesy Nathaniel Kahn |
|
Louis Kahn created some of the most important buildings of the twentieth
century: the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth; the Salk Institute in La
Jolla, California; the National Assembly Building of Bangladesh, in Dhaka.
His buildings were monumental, deeply rooted in materials, and full of mystery.
And yet the deepest mystery surrounding Kahn remained secret throughout
his life. When he died of a heart attack, in a men's room in Penn Station
in 1974, obituaries said he was survived by his wife, Esther, and a daughter,
Sue Ann. But it turned out that Kahn had lived a life split four ways: work,
his traditional family, and two women and the children they bore him.
Nathaniel Kahn, son of Harriet Pattison, a landscape architect who worked
in the Kahn office, was eleven when his father died. Now 39, the writer
and director has recently completed a documentary entitled My Architect,
a deeply affecting look at a complicated man. For the film Nathaniel
interviewed dozens of architectural luminaries, Vincent Scully, I. M. Pei,
Frank Gehry, Robert A. M. Stern, and others, including his half-siblings. Metropolis executive editor Martin C. Pedersen talked to Kahn about
the film prior to its screening at the New Directors/New Films Festival
in New York. The film will be released in theaters this fall. (For
information see www.myarchitectfilm.com.)
Obviously the search for your father has been a lifelong quest. But what
happened in your immediate past that made you want to make this film
now?
I think you get to a point where your curiosity gets the better of you.
As a little boy, I didn't see much of my father's world, I just had a key
hole-size glimpse of it. But what I saw of it was fascinating. You
also want to know about the man who came before you. I'd made other films,
but this is something that I had avoided for a long time, because it's scary
to go back. You don't know what you're going to find. There's always
the risk of embarrassing yourself: here comes what appears to be a nearly
middle-aged man asking questions that a child asks. That was difficult.
Was it the sort of film you always knew you were going to make but
kept putting off?
No, I kept trying to do it in other ways. I wrote a screenplay about a son
who discovers that the father he thought was dead isn't, which of course
was always a dream of mine. It sort of reverberates throughout the film.
As a little boy, I never quite believed that Lou was gone. I would always
look for him in crowds. I'd see a white-haired man turning the corner and
think maybe it was him.
Did you always know that you were going to be the main protagonist in
the film?
No. One of my biggest struggles was: what would the character of the son, me, be
like in the documentary? For a long time I tried to ask interview questions
that were more objective. But when I got that footage back, I'd look at
it and think, "You know what? This is a movie anybody could make."
The search for your dad is what propels the story, but if someone goes
into the theater not knowing about Louis Kahn, they come out knowing a lot
more about his architecture.
There was a very fine line to tread there, because the narrative drive
of the film is a son looking for his father. But along the way the
father happens to be a well-known architect. I felt that it was important
for people to experience what his architecture was like. One of the traps
that people who write about architecture often fall into is that they merely
describe the buildings as objects. When you experience Lou's architecture,
it always gives you a feeling.
You have a lot of amazing footage of your father. Where did you find it?
The most important source was the Museum of Modern Art. They have a collection
of films shot by Hans Namuth and Paul Falkenberg, who did a film
about Lou while he was alive. Peter Namuth, Hans's son, and MoMA generously
allowed us to use the outtakes.
Did you know what was in those films?
No. One morning fifty boxes of tape arrived. My producers and I went
through the film and put it up on reels. And it was like Christmas
morning! Now another kind of filmmaker might look for Lou speaking
cogently about architecture. But I was interested in the way he moved, the
way he walked, the way he talked, the way he looked confused, things that
revealed his personality. I couldn't resist using those shots. We use Lou
a lot like a ghost. He's someone who appears and then is gone. So for quite
a while you see little glimpses of him, which was always the way I saw him.
In a way, the film was like conjuring him, bringing him back from the
dead for two hours.
There's a scene toward the end of the film that's my favorite piece
of footage. The camera pulls through the window. Lou is sitting at the table,
drawing. When he folds his hands, we see charcoal all over his fingers.
Then the camera pans up to his face. To me that is my father. It is absolutely
the salient image for me of Lou. He came from this little island off of
Estonia, where his face was badly burned as a small child, where he himself
was touched by fire, and his preferred drawing material was charcoal.
He never got far away from that visceral feeling of "This is color;
I am applying color to a piece of paper."
One of the things I liked about the film was that its narrative
wasn't literal or strictly chronological.
Documentaries that are more subject-based often use people as recurring
voices. They interview eight or ten people and then sort of manipulate them.
It's a pretty tried and true documentary style, the talking-head film, and
it's highly effective intellectually. But I think it's highly ineffective
emotionally because on a journey you don't suddenly have someone who you
met a year ago pop up and tell you something. There is a unity of time and
place. I met Philip Johnson once. All of the scenes with him, all of the
moments I could use, were in one place, the Glass House. I met Moshe Safdie
in the desert and instead of saying, "Let's find a nice place
to hang out, because I want to use you in a lot of different places in the
film," he and I took a little walk in the desert. It's one of
my favorite scenes because it was literally one take. We had this conversation.
It happened one afternoon, and it was gone. That's the way so much of life
is. And always the way I thought encounters with my father were.
How did your view of your dad's work evolve during the making of the film?
I always felt like his buildings were monumental and beautiful, but in a
way they seemed rather distant when I first saw them. But as I moved
through them, and later filmed them, I felt the tremendous acts of
imagination that had gone into making them. I think that he walked through
them in his mind. Here was an architect who asked questions, like: what's
my building going to be like when it's raining? What's this room going to
feel like if I'm sitting in the corner? You can start to think of his buildings
as endless acts of imagination. I felt very connected to him by imagining
him imagining these places.
How did you approach his buildings as a filmmaker?
One of the biggest no-nos in filming architecture is panning, because
that's just moving the camera. People don't pan when they look at something.
They move through space. So the filming that I did early on? I threw
all of that out. Honestly, I probably filmed those Yale buildings fifteen
times, and I still don't think I've done it right. The moment we got away
from the feeling of "we need to show what this building looks like" and instead used the buildings as a stage set, letting people use them as
a way to jog their thinking, that was when they became interesting and easier
to deal with. For instance, the scene at the capital in Dhaka, when the
architect comes up to me at the end of the film. We didn't set that
up. He kind of accosted me, wanting to know what I was doing. Yes, I knew
the top level of the building would be a great vantage point, but it wasn't, "OK, I want you to stand here; this is a good background." Somehow
he was speaking from the building. It was a meeting that the building made
happen.
That seems to be one of your favorite Kahn buildings. Do you remember
seeing it for the first time?
Absolutely. We had a number of friends over there who acted as guides for
our crew. When we arrived I told one of them, "I want you to take me
to the capital, but I don't want to see the building until I can really see it." So the guide said, "Well, why don't we blindfold you?" As we got near the building, I could actually hear the open space around
it. The city of Dhaka is insane. There were rickshaws, crazy baby taxis
driving all over the place, a sort of constant chaotic bedlam, and then
suddenly off to the right there was this silence. They took me out of the
car. The ground got soft. We walked over some grass. Then I could hear birds.
The traffic was behind us now. Our guide, whose name was also Kahn,
spelled K-H-A-N, asked, "Are you ready?" I said, "Not yet.
Give me a minute." I prepared myself, realizing, This is the last
building of my father's that I'm going to see for the first time. So in a way I was coming to the end of something too. "Ready?" Khan asked again. "Yes," I said. "Am I facing it?" Khan
took off the blindfold and I burst into tears. It was the only time that
happened. I've been moved by places before, but seeing that building was
so astonishing. It's such an incredible structure. Very pure. Usually it's
hard to end a film. But I knew that when I was in Dhaka the film
was over. I knew that we were done, there was nowhere else that I could
go. And there's something wonderful about that because it's how stories, mythological
stories, end. You journey to the end of the earth and find the answer.
Metropolis www.metropolismag.com
© Bellerophon Publications, Inc. 2003, All rights reserved.


