Wrong side of the road

On its release in 1981, Ned Lander's 'Wrong Side of the Road' won that year's Jury Prize at the Australian Film Institute Awards. Emphasising the film's status as a pre-eminent Australian production, the theorist and critic Sylvia Lawson, writing in 2013, called Wrong Side of the Road 'the best Australian film of 1981 and indeed of many other years'. Progressing at a restrained pace, it breaks 'Hollywood conventions (which most Australian films obediently copy) about what constitutes a proper narrative focus', with the result that the film stands as 'something of an event in Australian cinema'. In this way, Wrong Side of the Road is the 'first narrative feature to take the experience of a contemporary Aboriginal group [of characters] as its theme instead of using them as contrasts or complements to the main action'.

From the inside to the outside. Architecture Venice Biennales 2014 and 2016

The comparison between the Position Statements of the latest two Venice Biennale of Architecture, Fundamentals, directed by Rem Koolhaas in 2014 and Reporting from the front that Alejandro Aravena prepares for 2016, is an evident sign of the internal stress that architectural practice has been suffering during the last decade. Koolhaas intensively focused on the immediate past whilst Aravena presents a Biennalle strongly decided to explore possible alternatives for the future of Architecture. The first one tried to define the core, theessence, the most elemental particles that utterly compose Architecture. The second looks at the boundaries, the periphery, the outskirts, the limits of the discipline. Fundamentals was theoretical, personal, abstract, compact and aesthetic. Reporting from the front will be practical, collective, concrete, permeable and ethical. This fertile antagonism or counterpoint between both approaches is too frequently understood as incompatible. However, as a matter of fact the coexistence of these two different perspectives within architectural practice is the mostdistinctive feature of the complex contemporary architectural landscape. The insertion of the analysis of both position statements within the historical evolution of the Venice Bienale since 1980, allows a reinterpretation of the antagonism between the two exhibitions and evidences some lines of thought and action in the architectural world. Following the war industry terminology that Report from the front has chosen, Aravena identifies with precision the theatre of operations; the space and time that is requesting an urgent response from architecture.Previously Koolhaas had defined the armament that Architecture has available to undertake this crucial mission: to define the role and relevance of Architecture in the immediate future. Until now, battles in the front have been a guerrilla warfare. More reactive than proactive. Battles for survival more than for experience. Necessary but, at the same time, insufficient. Valuable actions in radical contexts; heroic acts in extreme situations; occasional infiltrations that find their final reason for being in their own audacity. Time has come for these counterattackarchitectures to evolve from protests to proposals.

Democratic corporealities of love : the architectural cinema and eroticized publics of Pauline Kael

The American film critic Pauline Kael’s career interestingly parallels the Cold War period but nobody has explored this yet. Filling that gap, this essay constructs Kael’s writings and critic’s persona as a contribution to a discourse of international democracy. Kael was part of a generation of American critics who took seriously the importance of art to politics. However, she goes further than her contemporaries by energizing this relationship through her emphasis on corporeality—both on screen and off screen—and on the eroticized body. A discernible philosophical lineage runs from Plato’s version of love as described by Socrates in The Symposium to Kael’s writings and bodily habits. In this lineage, love is figured as relational and desiring. A second line of relationship between Plato and Kael is in the way they each connected erotic discourses to the very similar architectures of the andrôn (men’s quarters), for Plato, and the modern American cinema or screening room, for Kael. Plato and Kael draw out the inherent spatial energy of these places (which is most evident at the borders of andrôn and cinema) through the interactions they construct of images and talk with the erotic, love-based relationality of bodies. They thereby maximize the bodily powers of these architectures as places where a public of differences and (inevitably) “loose” democracy might form. Kael’s advocacy doesn’t suggest a formal political program so much as a more feminine democracy of erotic discourses allied to an energizing architecture suitable to the accumulation of plural, participatory corporealities.