sh·ift n. – a change in position or direction.
Suppose we have to conceive the formal concept of shift given cinema, that something non-trivial arises. For cinema already contains movement implicitly, the change in frames, i.e., movement, is a “trivial” expression for that is the necessary condition of cinema. If so, what could shift be?
A mode to express shift: the dissection of the frame. There are three dimensions – x, y, z. However, in the particular setting (the buildings), there is rarely any activity beyond a few frames that capture meaningful visuals. Furthermore, the combinations x-z and y-z is an isomorphism (flip the frame).
Dissection of the frame proceeds horizontal. In those horizontal blocks, the z-axis shifts in and out of space, leaving that cross-section of trailing movement. It has to trail temporally to induce the shift. Similarly, the movement proceeds along the x-axis. Now, because the frame is shifting against itself, we can reintroduce the “trivial” shift (between frames) as something non-trivial. To represent the nascent next frame, one dissected block after another, to invigorate the shift anew.
As a minor consequence, there are cursed geometries created through the rearrangement of the buildings. Matsumoto approaches this with the utmost rigor, and as a result: beauty. I would have loved seeing more types of dissection (perhaps a grid as a natural next step). Perhaps that work requires addressing the possibility of dissection itself, thus necessitating a shift 2.