Synopsis
This film, conceived by Francesco Garutti and directed by Shahab Mihandoust, explores the controversial story of the planning and politics of a series of overpasses that span the parkways of Long Island, New York. These bridges were commissioned in the 1920s and 1930s by the public administrator Robert Moses. The story suggests that the bridges were designed to prevent the passage of buses, thereby allowing only people who could afford to own a car to access Long Island’s leisure spaces. The film addresses this topic through interviews with four scholars who, in the 1980s and 1990s, debated possible interpretations of the case: Bernward Joerges, Bruno Latour, Langdon Winner, and Steve Woolgar. The film alludes rather than explains. It interweaves reportage with the abstraction of theories. It mixes the deafening sound of automobiles with the singing of the birds along the parkways of Long Island, which are now almost one hundred years old.
A word from Tënk
The film Misleading Innocence (Tracing What a Bridge Can Do), produced by the Canadian Centre for Architecture in 2014, remains, more than ten years later, strikingly relevant. This documentary centres on a key question: do artefacts engage in politics? Its essence lies in the contrasting perspectives that are brought into dialogue within it. A political scientist, an urban planner, a sociologist of science, a philosopher, and an anthropologist debate this question based on a very specific case: the more than 200 low-clearance bridges built between New York and Long Island by urban planner Robert Moses in the 1920s and 1930s.
Views are divided on this question and the case in question. On the one hand, some argue that these structures were intentionally designed to favour car traffic alone, thereby preventing buses—and consequently their passengers—from accessing Long Island, an insidious way of perpetuating class divisions and favouring those who could afford to own a car.
Conversely, others dispute the notion that these artefacts should be interpreted as having a political motive. In their view, attributing an ideological intention to a concept or an object, based solely on the final product and its repercussions, would be difficult to justify.
Drawing on this specific case, the documentary raises broader, ever-relevant questions: can one claim total objectivity in the development of the built environment? Does it necessarily reflect dominant political ideologies? Can one truly control the full range of meanings, uses, and consequences it will generate?
Roxanne Labrèche P.
Independant Curator and Artistic Director
