Epilogue by Shimul Javeri Kadri | ADFF:STIR Mumbai on 11th January 2025
A reflection on E.1027 – 'Eileen Gray and the House by the Sea', exploring the visionary work of Eileen Gray and the enduring impact of modernist design.
Shimul presenting at ADFF:STIR Mumbai
A Little Bit About Eileen Gray
Eileen was born Irish in 1878. She was landed gentry from her mother's side, and her father was a landscape painter, but her parents parted ways when she was 11. She studied fine art at the Slade School in London, moved to Paris where she designed interiors and furniture, lived through two world wars, much heartbreak, oblivion and then recognition, and she finally died at the wonderful age of 98 having been through almost a century of amazing world events.
The Voice of Eileen Gray
Understanding her, getting under her skin. While I enjoyed this "cinema as theatre format," I did wonder about this woman and who she really is. Some of her quotes do tell us more.
For me this film was about her free spirit - "I like doing things but I hate possessing them" - evident in the way she left the house within two years of building it! She studied art but she was an avid "maker." Connecting dots - comfort, emotion and beauty - through the furniture she designed - pieces that we have all seen and used. Incredibly modern despite having been designed a century ago!
Other nuggets from "98 facts about Eileen Gray" compiled by the Irish Independent: "She was not propelled by her ego. Artistic fulfilment for Gray was a function of the creative act, rather than measured in applause or financial gain. Almost every major piece of furniture she designed was for somebody she loved. Her art was neither narcissistic nor motivated by self-expression."
Poster: E.1027 - Eileen Gray and the House by the Sea, Credits : IMBd
About the House
She built this house from 1926 to 1929, living at the site, having conversations with the masons. She was 51 when it was complete. At some point in the film she says "Modern Architecture is too intellectual" and she emphasises comfort and emotion. When I first saw the film it was hard to understand how and why this home became a battleground for architecture and now a museum. However, it's the little details that make the house what it is.
Image of the House, Credits : IMBd
The integration of furniture, thoughtful interior design and architecture such that every need is fulfilled in a creative beautiful way:
Rounded walls that decide where to stop before the ceiling begins
Niches
Detailed pieces of design, custom made lights
Stencilled instructions - turn right or left, where pillows are kept
Everything that speaks of inhabitation by people
As the film shows, she built it for her need to internalise in peace as well as for Badovici's more extroverted life due to which she finally left the house in 1931 - itself an amazing act of regaining freedom without possession or ego.
Historical Context and Questions
The subject of this film is important from two perspectives:
First, how did history forget and then revive its interest in Eileen Gray until 1968? Was it the turning point in world affairs where equality and feminism were beginning to revive History to Her story? What propelled the rediscovery after several decades of anonymity? I would like to highlight the journalists and scholars who dug deeper and revived her authorship of the house, the furniture as well as all the work that was burned down in her Paris apartment in 1944 by the retreating German army. The revolutionary movements of the 1960's did create a turning point in viewing the world through more democratic lenses and feminism was one of these. The stories of several important women, Simone de Beauvoir, Frida Kahlo, even Charlotte Perriand were reclaimed in its wake and I think Gray is one of them.
And the second and more relevant question today - Why was Le Corbusier obsessed with this house and why did he paint these murals?
Snippet from the Movie, Credits : IMBd
Le Corbusier's obsession with the house is now legendary and apparent from the film and his statements: "it embraces me with its motherly arms" - a statement that will be grist for the mill of the Oedipal complex. The way Le Corbusier wined and dined his way into Badovici's heart - a hilarious scene in the film - and the trip to CIAM, all of which led to the outcome that he was allowed to create the murals that have become the point of contention that this film focuses on.
The War on Architecture
In an article by Beatriz Colomina, professor at Princeton University School of Architecture, titled "War on Architecture: E1027," she writes:
"Why then did Le Corbusier vandalize the very house he loved? Did he think the murals would enhance it? Certainly not. Le Corbusier had repeatedly stated that the role of the mural in architecture is to 'destroy' the wall, to dematerialize it. In a letter to Vladimir Nekrassov in 1932, he writes 'I admit the mural not to enhance a wall, but on the contrary, as a means to violently destroy the wall, to remove from it all sense of stability, of weight, etc.' The mural for Le Corbusier is a weapon against architecture, a bomb. But 'why then to paint on the walls... at the risk of killing architecture?,' he asks in the same letter, and then answers: 'It is when one is pursuing another task, that of telling stories.' So what then is the story that he so urgently needs to tell with Grafitte a Cap Martin?"
Herein lies a story that is relevant to all of us today.
Snippet from the movie, Credits : Bozar
A house that perhaps epitomises the original tenets of the modern movement where form follows functions, where there are no flights of fantasy - no shouting, no declarations of egoistic possibilities - twists turns contortations. It is quiet, intelligent and emotional and its author wished for it to stay that way. Le Corbusier's mural screams out his obsession with the house and the author.
Did he resent that her modernism was the real one? The house as a machine for living but with the emotions of the living? Did he recognise that modernism had cut people out in its quest for the machine aesthetic and that he was perhaps one of the greatest culprits?
Colomina and several other critics today speak of Le Corbusier as "the colonist" with respect to this house. A coloniser is one who wields power in order to extract. It seems apparent that he was wielding power - one of the murals represent Gray and Badovici intertwined with a third figure which could be interpreted in many different ways but certainly with references to her sexuality because Badovici is represented as a woman. Le Corbusier and Badovici systematically effaced Gray's authorship in various references to the house, to the point that it was considered Badovici's work and in later years, Le Corbusier propagated it more for his murals than the house.
However, if a coloniser wields power to extract, what was he extracting? Eileen Gray's persona. The one that validates emotion, the one that creates without the need to possess, the one that designed without the need for validation. Everything that we love about design.
And yet, why do egoistic vengeful men rule the world - of design, politics, and life? I leave you with this question.
Shimul presenting at ADFF:STIR Mumbai
Commentaires