SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 44

Analysis of a Movie on the Relationship between Environmental Psychology, Architecture and Cinema: Soylent Green

Çevre Psikolojisi, Mimarlık ve Sinema İlişkisi Üzerinden Bir Filmin Analizi: Soylent Green

Ebrar Kuruçay Gök(YALOVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SANAT VE TASARIM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2911-1658
Ayşen Özkan(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GÜZEL SANATLAR FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2677-6133
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
1037–1067
Publication Date
2024-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that cinema and architecture extend beyond their temporal and spatial dimensions, revealing a profound integration with living spaces and a diverse array of life experiences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to explore the interplay between environmental psychology, architecture, and cinema in shaping cinematic spaces through spatial analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Examining the pivotal era of heightened interest in environmental psychology studies, particularly in understanding the reciprocal dynamics between physical surroundings and human behavior, the 1973 dystopian film "Soylent Green" was scrutinized using deductive methodology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that cinema and architecture extend beyond their temporal and spatial dimensions, revealing a profound integration with living spaces and a diverse array of life experiences.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sinema · mimarlık · çevre psikolojisi

Abstract

This study aims to explore the interplay between environmental psychology, architecture, and cinema in shaping cinematic spaces through spatial analysis. It also endeavors to provide insight into dystopian urban and spatial designs influenced by environmental psychology concepts, ultimately impacting the quality of these fictional environments. Examining the pivotal era of heightened interest in environmental psychology studies, particularly in understanding the reciprocal dynamics between physical surroundings and human behavior, the 1973 dystopian film "Soylent Green" was scrutinized using deductive methodology. The analysis focused on key elements such as personal space and its role in shaping self-esteem experiences, the diverse and intense activities within the behavioral environment, as well as obligations and privacy concerns in densely populated, spatially-defined settings. The findings indicate that cinema and architecture extend beyond their temporal and spatial dimensions, revealing a profound integration with living spaces and a diverse array of life experiences. Furthermore, it underscores how spatial behavior and environmental information exchange in cinematic environments are intricately linked to emotional responses and societal advancements.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sinemasal mekânın şekillenmesinde çevre psikolojisi, mimarlık ve sinema ilişkisini mekânsal analiz ve okumalarla irdelemek; bu kurgusal mekânların niteliğini etkileyen çevre psikolojisi kavramları kapsamında inşa edilecek distopik kent ve mekân tasarımları hakkında bir öngörü oluşturmaktır. Bu kapsamda, fiziksel çevre ve insan davranışı arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkilerin incelenmesine yönelik çevre psikolojisi araştırmalarının önem kazandığı dönem ile eş zamanlı olarak 1973 yılında gösterime girmiş olan Soylent Green distopik filmi üzerinden; kullanıcının öz-değer deneyimlerini gerçekleştirdiği kişisel alan, davranış ortamındaki faaliyet çeşitliliği ve yükümlülüğüne yönelik kalabalık, yoğunluk ve alansallık kavramları ile bu ortamlar içindeki statünün nasıl korunabildiğine dair mahremiyet kavramları tümdengelim yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda, sinema ve mimarlığın sadece zamansal ve mekânsal yapıları nedeniyle değil, aynı zamanda her iki disiplinin de temelde yaşam alanıyla iç içe olması ve çok çeşitli yaşam imgelerini bir araya getirme çabalarıyla da ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Mekânsal davranış ve çevresel bilgi etkileşiminin sinemasal ortama yansımasının, duygusal deneyimler ve sosyal gelişmelerle de ilişkili olduğu desteklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gök, E. K., Özkan, A. (2024). Analysis of a Movie on the Relationship between Environmental Psychology, Architecture and Cinema: Soylent Green. İDEALKENT, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 44, 1037–1067. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1445797

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Adiloğlu, F. (2005). Sinemada mimari açılımlar: Halit Refiğ filmleri. Es Yayınları.
  2. Akarsu, H. T., Erdoğan, N. ve Özbursalı. T. (Der.). (2020). Sinemada mimarlık. YEM Yayın.
  3. Akbari, P. ve Sattarisarbangholi, H. (2016). Architectural design based on environmental psychology perspectives. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication – TOJDAC, Special Edition, 807-813.
  4. Allmer, A. (2010). Sinemekân, sinemada mimarlık. Varlık Yayınları.
  5. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Brooks Cole.
  6. Altman, I. (1976). Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 7-29.
  7. Avcı, M. (2021). Ütopya içinde distopya: Herbert George Wells’in ‘zaman makinesi’. Temaşa Erciyes Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi, (16), 192-202.
  8. Baldassare, M. G. (1976). Residential crowding in urban America (Order No. 7715598). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (302818428). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/residential-crowding-urban-america/docview/302818428/se-2
  9. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.
  10. Barker, R. G. ve Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its Children. Ill: Row Peterson.
  11. Baum, A. ve Korman, S. (1976). Differential response to anticipated crowding: Psychological effects of social and spatial density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34(3), 526-36.
  12. Baum, A., ve Singer, J.E. (Ed.). (1985). Advances in environmental psychology (Volume 5): Methods and Environmental Psychology (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003052944
  13. Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D. ve Loomis R. J. (1978). Environmental psychology. Saunders Company.
  14. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free Press.
  15. Carr, S. (1970). The city of the mind. Proshansky, H., Ittelson, W., ve Rivlin, L. (Ed.), Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting içinde (518-532). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  16. Craik, K. H. (1972). An ecological perspective on environmental decision-making. Human Ecology, 1(1), 69-80.
  17. Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 403-422.
  18. Çakın, Ş. (1988). Mimari tasarım, insan, toplum ve çevre ilişkileri. İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi.
  19. Dear, M. (1994). Between architecture and film. Architectural Design, (112), 8-15.
  20. Edney, J. J. (1974). Human territoriality. Psychological Bulletin. 81, 959-975.
  21. Edney, J. J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 31–47.
  22. Erdoğan, N. ve Akarsu, H.T. (2023). An evaluation set proposal on the interaction of cinema & architecture for improving the creative and aesthetic dimensions in architectural art and education. DEPARCH Journal of Design Planning and Aesthetics Research, 2(2), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.55755/DepArch.2023.20
  23. Ergin, S. (2015). Mimarlık ve sinema etkileşiminin sinemasal mekâna etkileri ve Nuri Bilge Ceylan sinemasından bir örnek: Uzak [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=t1grLnPFkTY64OKPFTLZlA&no=EAeT5fSmdNoCQQJJtQSnFA
  24. Erk, G. K. (2009). Architecture in cinema: A relation of representation based on space. Lambert Academic Publishing.
  25. Eroğlu, A. (2003). Mimarlık, kent ve sinema ilişkisi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi]. İTÜ Tez Koleksiyonu. https://polen.itu.edu.tr/items/11596ad6-8051-499a-9376-a7a2e483fd4e
  26. Eryılmaz, Ç. (2017). Çevre söylemlerine göre çevre konulu filmlerin analizi. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (1), 117-147.
  27. Evans, G. W. ve Stokols, D. (1976). Theoretical and empirical issues with regard to privacy, territoriality, personal space, and crowding. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 3-6.
  28. Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., ve Schroeder, A. (1996). The role of interior design elements in human responses to crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 41.
  29. Evans, G.W. (1979). Design implications of spatial research. Aiello, J., ve Baum, A. (Ed.), Residential crowding and design içinde (197-215). Plenum Press.
  30. Festinger, L. (1975). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford Univ. Press.
  31. Fleischer, R. (Yönetmen). (1973). Soylent Green [sinema filmi]. ABD: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
  32. Freedman, J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. Freeman.
  33. Gifford, R. (2002). Making a difference: Some ways environmental psychology has improved the world. R. B. Bechtel ve A. Churchman (Ed.), Handbook of environmental psychology içinde (323–334). John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday & Company.
  35. Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization. N. J. Smelser ve W. T. Smelser (Ed.), Personality and social systems içinde (541–548). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/11302-050
  36. Göregenli, M. (2021). Çevre psikolojisi: İnsan mekân ilişkileri. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  37. Greenberg, C. I. ve Firestone I. J. (1977). Compensatory responses to crowding: Effects of personal space intrusion and privacy reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.637
  38. Grigor, M. (1994). Space in time, filming architecture. Architectural Design, 64(11/12), 16-21.
  39. Gürkaynak, İ. (1988). Çevresel psikoloji: Doğası, tarihçesi, yöntemleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000993
  40. Hall, E. (1969). The hidden dimension. Anchor.
  41. Harrison, H. (1996). Yer açın! Yer açın!. Metis Yayınları.
  42. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of in¬terpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
  43. Imamoglu, V. (1975). Spaciousness of interiors: its meaning, measurement and relationship to some architectural variables (Order No. U411786). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (301230682). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/spaciousness-interiors-meaning-measurement/docview/301230682/se-2
  44. Kaplan, S. (1972). The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new functionalism. American Psychologist, 27(2), 140-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h003267
  45. Kates, R. W. (1971). Natural hazard in human ecological perspective: Hypotheses and models. Economic Geography, 47(3), 438-451.
  46. Kaya, N., ve Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(3), 301-309.
  47. Kılıç Çalğıcı, P. (2013). Çevre psikolojisi kavramlarıyla bir filmin analizi: THX 1138. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 30(2), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2013.2.5
  48. Kızılaslan, S. (2021). Peyzaj mimarlığı kapsamında sinema sanatında mekân tasarımının değerlendirilmesi: Avatar filmi örneği. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 11(2), 548-565. https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1049048
  49. Kızılaslan, S. (2023). Sinemada ütopya kavramının çevresel psikoloji açısından irdelenmesi. E. Akmeşe ve Z. Akmeşe Demir (Ed.), Sinema ve ütopya- sinemada ütopik ve distopik imgeler içinde (211-223). LİTERATÜRK Academia.
  50. Konuk Kandemir, N. ve Kiraz Demir, S. (2022). Birey, toplum ve çevre ilişkisi bağlamında sinema: 2040 belgesel filmi örneği. NOSYON: Uluslararası Toplum ve Kültür Çalışmaları Dergisi, (10), 122-133.
  51. Köseoğlu, E. ve Kıyak, L. (2023). Ters Yüz animasyon filminde zihinsel ve çevresel mekân analizi. İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 38-57.
  52. Kupritz, V. W. (1998). Privacy in the work place: The impact of building design. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(4), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.008
  53. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. (Çev. F. Heider ve G. M. Heider). McGraw-Hill.
  54. Loo, C. (1977). Beyond the effects of crowding: Situational and individual differences. Stokols, D. (Ed.) Perspectives on environment and behavior içinde (153-168). Springer.
  55. Lyman, S. M., ve Scott, M. B. (2017). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Gutman R. (Ed.). People and buildings içinde (18-26). Routledge.
  56. Lynch, K. (2015). Kent imgesi. (Çev. İrem Başaran). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  57. Metin, O. ve Ünal, Ş. (2022). İçerik analizi tekniği: İletişim bilimlerinde ve sosyolojide doktora tezlerinde kullanımı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 273-294.
  58. Namazian, A. ve Mehdipour, A. (2013). Psychological demands of the built environment, privacy, personal space and territory in architecture. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(4), 109-113.
  59. Neumann, D. (1996). Acknowledgments, in film architecture: Set designs from metropolis to Blade Runner. Prestel.
  60. O'Herlihy, L. (1994). Architecture and film. Architectural Design, 64(11/12), 90-91.
  61. Pallasmaa, J. (2001). The architecture of image: Existential space in cinema. Rakennustieto.
  62. Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of intimacy. Psychol. Rev., 83(3), 235-45.
  63. Penz, F. (1994). Cinema and architecture-overlaps and counterpoints studio-made features in the film industry and studio-based experiments in architectural education. Architectural Design, (112), 38-41.
  64. Pol, E. (2007). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (II): From architectural psychology to the challenge of sustainability. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8(1/2), 1-28.
  65. Proshansky, H. M. ve O'Hanlon, T. (1977). Environmental psychology: Origins and development. See Ref., 415, 101-129.
  66. Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H. ve Rivlin, L. G. (Ed.). (1976). Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  67. Raven, B. H. ve Rubin, J. E. (1983). Social Psychology. (2nd Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
  68. Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. ve Phares, E. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  69. Schmidt, D. E., Goldman, R. D. ve Feimer, N. R. (1976). Physical and psychological factors associated with perceptions of crowding: An analysis of subcultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 279-89.
  70. Sells, S. B. (1969). Ecology and the science of psychology. See Ref., 20, 15-30.
  71. Sells, S. B. (1971). Environmental assessment: A context for the study of human behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.
  72. Set, F. ve Lekesiz, F. (2019). Sinemada distopya ve “Şarküteri” filminin distopya kavramı çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 117-125.
  73. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. The behavioral basis of design. Frentice-Hall.
  74. Sommer, R. (2002). Personal space in a digital age. Bechtel, R. B., ve Churchman, A. (Ed.). Handbook of environmental psychology içinde (647-660). John Wiley & Sons.
  75. Sözen, G. ve Boyacıoğlu, E. (2020). Sinema ve mimarlığın mekânla mutlak ilişkisi: Otomatik Portakal. Mimarlık, 415, 54-59.
  76. Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 49-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916576008001
  77. Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253-295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.29.020178.001345
  78. Sundstrom, E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of room size, intrusion, and goal-blocking on nonverbal behavior, self-disclosure and selfreported stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.4.645
  79. Tanyeli, U. (2001). Temsiliyet nesnenin temsili sanalın sanallıkla ifadesi. Arradamento Mimarlık, 141, 11-66.
  80. Thibaut, J. W., Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.
  81. Tolman, E. C. (1951). Behavior and psychological man. University of California Press.
  82. Watson, O. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. Mouton.
  83. Westin, A. (1970). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
  84. Wills, J. (2021). 'What is the secret of Soylent Green?': Using Richard Fleischer's dystopian movie Solyent Green (1973) to discuss enduring environmental challenges. Journal of American Studies, 55(5), 1263-1268.
  85. Worchel, S. ve Teddlie, C. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and social psychology. 34, 30-40.