Among the contenders for the Oscar for Best Picture this year is The Brutalist, a drama about a European architect dedicated to the principles of a movement known as brutalism. The movement traces its origins to the 1950s to a style of architecture that emerged in the United Kingdom. That style went on to spread around the world, embraced especially by postwar urban planners—eventually becoming hugely divisive among the public.

Among the contenders for the Oscar for Best Picture this year is The Brutalist, a drama about a European architect dedicated to the principles of a movement known as brutalism. The movement traces its origins to the 1950s to a style of architecture that emerged in the United Kingdom. That style went on to spread around the world, embraced especially by postwar urban planners—eventually becoming hugely divisive among the public.

What is the political ethic of brutalist architecture? Why does it emphasize the use of concrete? And did public planners debase the architectural movement?

Those are just a few of the questions that came up in my recent conversation with FP economics columnist Adam Tooze on the podcast we co-host, Ones and Tooze. What follows is an excerpt, edited for length and clarity. For the full conversation, look for Ones and Tooze wherever you get your podcasts. And check out Adam’s Substack newsletter.

Cameron Abadi: Brutalism is an aesthetic with very clear architectural principles, but its founders also claimed that the aesthetic was connected to a political worldview. What is that political ethic, and what is its connection with the underlying aesthetic?

Adam Tooze: The distinctive thing about brutalism is that it comes out of its epoch, its time. And, as you say, it’s a movement that acquired a label in the early 1950s and was a quite conscious effort by a group of young architects, initially in Europe, but then with notable exponents in the United States.