As i commented after reading your excellent piece, Robin, it's striking how we were both provoked to deeper thinking about the film by that closing statement, which I haven't seen addressed in other reviews.
One of the most reviled of buildings in Washington, D.C., is FBI headquarters, otherwise known as the J.Edgar Hoover Building. If you recall, the current Occupier of the White House called it "one of the ugliest" buildings in the city. Given the purging expected to go on there, it seems appropriate that its interior, as is that of brutalist buildings generally, is dark. Interestingly, according to a WBUR story about brutalist architecture, which quotes an architect, Mark Pasnik, defending the style, brutalist structures "were actually envisioned as being monumental symbols of how important the civic realm was." Note the past tense here, and the irony.
Presumably Trump would like the building better if it said Trump in gold-plated letters. Though I've seen examples of Brutalist houses, it does seem as if the style has been applied primarily to public buildings. They certainly convey that monumentality, but I'm not alone in feeling it is an oppressive monumentality. A host of such buildings together, for a civic center, for instance, would provide a perfect setting for dystopian tyranny.
How interesting the turn from the brutality of architecture to the film. I have never seen the movie, but it sounds intriguing. I don't remember any brutalist-style buildings in Soviet Russia. MB., because they used old buildings of 19century to cover up their brutality, so to speak. However, the brutalist style was explained more by the modernists' understanding of the necessity, as the Russian Constructivist architecture was banned by Communists later in 1940.
I should anticipate, Larisa, that whenever I reference Soviet or contemporary Russia, it may draw your particular interest. :)
While acknowledging that they are not examples of Brutalism per se, it was this kind of Soviet -- and, indeed, Eastern Bloc -- apartment housing that I had in mind.
In searching for that, though, I did come across information that Soviet Brutalism is considered one of the 20th century Soviet architectural styles -- though, again, as I mentioned to Maureen, it seems primarily for public buildings.
It is amusing. We, poor soviet citizens, were so happy to leave one room in the huge communal apartment for a separate apartment in the Khruschov's new buildings that we couldn't consider them brutal in any sense. It was our road to comfort and freedom to be alone. When I came to New York and saw the apartment buildings for cheap rent, they were not better than our former ones. I was surprised that foreigners consider our physical life so brutal. For us, not reading, e.g., Doctor Zhivago was more brutal than living in the regular, from our POV, "brutal" building.
Larisa, hah! :) I understand. I actually did read that the Khruschov-era housing was well-constructed and very livable for its inhabitants. My reference to brutalism regarding that housing was not about the quality of life in it but rather the aesthetics of it — of a general type with the Brutalist style, only less attractive still. You’re right about New York and other cheap urban apartment housing. You might even be talking about what in the U.S. we call “project” housing. It is aesthetically oppressive just as is the Brutalist style and the Soviet housing I reference. Generally speaking, that’s how people who live in it feel about it, though, of course, they prefer it to what might be their alternative.
Actually, that type of housing was awful: low ceiling, small rooms. Stalin's housing was much better, but the shortage was a huge problem. So we were happy to get something. Anyway, Russia is a country that always has problems.
Have this bookmarked to read when I have a long moment. I found this film to be quite compelling, Jay. And resonant for our times.
My take on it here https://open.substack.com/pub/remembertheworld/p/the-brutalist?r=djjtr&utm_medium=ios
As i commented after reading your excellent piece, Robin, it's striking how we were both provoked to deeper thinking about the film by that closing statement, which I haven't seen addressed in other reviews.
Brute in a suit, indeed.
Sheep's clothing. But the signature gives him away every time.
Thanks for the props for The Friction Section! (https://substack.com/@drdile0)
One of the most reviled of buildings in Washington, D.C., is FBI headquarters, otherwise known as the J.Edgar Hoover Building. If you recall, the current Occupier of the White House called it "one of the ugliest" buildings in the city. Given the purging expected to go on there, it seems appropriate that its interior, as is that of brutalist buildings generally, is dark. Interestingly, according to a WBUR story about brutalist architecture, which quotes an architect, Mark Pasnik, defending the style, brutalist structures "were actually envisioned as being monumental symbols of how important the civic realm was." Note the past tense here, and the irony.
Presumably Trump would like the building better if it said Trump in gold-plated letters. Though I've seen examples of Brutalist houses, it does seem as if the style has been applied primarily to public buildings. They certainly convey that monumentality, but I'm not alone in feeling it is an oppressive monumentality. A host of such buildings together, for a civic center, for instance, would provide a perfect setting for dystopian tyranny.
Art and Trump: Jay, you managed to put the paradox together and write another amazing essay about how we must choose the former and fight the latter.
Thanks so much, Mary. That's what I'm aiming for. as often as I can manage to do it.
How interesting the turn from the brutality of architecture to the film. I have never seen the movie, but it sounds intriguing. I don't remember any brutalist-style buildings in Soviet Russia. MB., because they used old buildings of 19century to cover up their brutality, so to speak. However, the brutalist style was explained more by the modernists' understanding of the necessity, as the Russian Constructivist architecture was banned by Communists later in 1940.
I should anticipate, Larisa, that whenever I reference Soviet or contemporary Russia, it may draw your particular interest. :)
While acknowledging that they are not examples of Brutalism per se, it was this kind of Soviet -- and, indeed, Eastern Bloc -- apartment housing that I had in mind.
https://www.archdaily.com/906765/why-soviet-architecture-isnt-the-answer-in-russia
In searching for that, though, I did come across information that Soviet Brutalism is considered one of the 20th century Soviet architectural styles -- though, again, as I mentioned to Maureen, it seems primarily for public buildings.
https://www.historyhit.com/striking-examples-of-soviet-brutalist-architecture/#:~:text=Characterised%20by%20the%20use%20of,brutalist%20architecture%20%E2%80%93%20the%20Soviet%20Union.
It is amusing. We, poor soviet citizens, were so happy to leave one room in the huge communal apartment for a separate apartment in the Khruschov's new buildings that we couldn't consider them brutal in any sense. It was our road to comfort and freedom to be alone. When I came to New York and saw the apartment buildings for cheap rent, they were not better than our former ones. I was surprised that foreigners consider our physical life so brutal. For us, not reading, e.g., Doctor Zhivago was more brutal than living in the regular, from our POV, "brutal" building.
Larisa, hah! :) I understand. I actually did read that the Khruschov-era housing was well-constructed and very livable for its inhabitants. My reference to brutalism regarding that housing was not about the quality of life in it but rather the aesthetics of it — of a general type with the Brutalist style, only less attractive still. You’re right about New York and other cheap urban apartment housing. You might even be talking about what in the U.S. we call “project” housing. It is aesthetically oppressive just as is the Brutalist style and the Soviet housing I reference. Generally speaking, that’s how people who live in it feel about it, though, of course, they prefer it to what might be their alternative.
Actually, that type of housing was awful: low ceiling, small rooms. Stalin's housing was much better, but the shortage was a huge problem. So we were happy to get something. Anyway, Russia is a country that always has problems.