The Royal National Theatre is United Kingdom’s one of the three most eminent publicly funded art venues. It is through the unsparing nature of the audience around the world that the theatre still runs. Denys Lasdun, the architect of the building, finds a perfect balance between the horizontal and the vertical elements which appears to be contrasting when compared to the neighborhood. This creation lies peacefully next to the River Thames in the South Bank area of central London. There has been a considerable debate for a very long time about the appearance of the structure to be “an aesthetic of Broken Forms” or “clever way of building a nuclear power station.” Lasdun was known for unfolding his career at the peak of the Modern Movement. He worked around functionality and the new brutalism in Britain. He was seen evaluating ways of inserting modern buildings into the conservative city, keeping in mind the spirit and the historical relevance of the place. Justifying that, he paid great attention to acquiring the “quiet” interior of the theatre, which included the lighting, sign posting, fittings, the auditorium seats, a change from the stucco and mirrors of theatres. He even made sure to select the crockery and cutlery for the restaurant in accordance with the theme and the aesthetic of the whole building. Both internally and externally, it is surrounded by a rough cast concrete surface that shows the imprint of the sawn wooden planks used in the casting process itself. This complex process explains why it took approximately 25 years to be constructed and to get completed in 1976. This building focuses majorly on the brutalist form of architecture, which many people look at it for. Brutalist architecture is a style that transpired during the 1950s in United Kingdom as one of the post-war reconstruction impacts. Brutalist buildings are recognized by minimal construction and showcasing the building materials and the structural elements and not the decorative designs. This style highlights making use of bare, unpainted concrete or brick. They are usually all about angular geometric shapes and focusing on a monochromatic color palette. Some other materials which are also focused on are steel, timber, and glass, but they aren’t as important as brick or concrete. Concrete, whereas is a very difficult material which could be beautiful only if its raw nature is exposed. Circling back to the building, the fact that it almost looks like stratified concrete is what led Prince Charles to relate it to a nuclear power station. Lasdun based the design of the building on the idea of “architecture as urban landscape.” Lasdun’s use of concrete isn’t just symbolic of brutalism but also to the be able to echo the stone on Waterloo Bridge and the Somerset House. The formwork of the wooden board is enough to convey the “archaic” feel that Lasdun was inclined towards. The fact that it is not a replication of any other commercial building gives it more individual character. Lasdun brought more character to the building when he convinced the board of theatre directors, designers and technical experts to assign him for the job without a team and let him make a debut in theatre design. This seemed like a very theatrical move to the board as they mentioned but inclined furthermore to let him do the job. While building The National Theatre uses the concept of varied masses that break down the volume of the complex, the exterior of which is dominated by the fly towers for the Open theatre and the Proscenium theatre. The two seem to be connected through a horizontal outdoor terrace across the width which Lasdun refers to as “Strata.” One of the theatres is the open- stage theatre, the Oliver. Which happens to be shaped like an ancient amphitheater. This theatre occupies a large area away from the bridge running alongside one of the sides of the site. It happens to be the taller one out of the two and is oriented at 45 degrees from the orthogonal grid from the rest of the structure. He was cautious enough to dulce the view to St. Paul’s cathedral from the rolling terraces. The Proscenium theatre, a little smaller in size when compared to Oliver, sits on the bridge not the forget with an arch over the stage. The smallest theatre of the three is inserted away to the east side of the building, adjacent to the offices and other administrative functions. The main public area is lodged through a series of intertwined foyers on the riverside in an L-shape around the two larger theatres. It is managed as one of the city’s communal spaces and could be described as the nation’s sitting room or as Lasdun described, a fourth theatre. Overall, it accommodates three theatres, alongside restaurants, bars, foyers, workshops and all the necessary mechanics. Coming back to the twin sets of towers which also marks the entrance to the building is an apropos to the English Baroque device where the twin towers were used to imply the axis towards a prime focus. Lasdun’s idea was to combine the interior spaces with the terraces outside to accord with his urban landscaping with the formal language. He treated space in such a way that it created new levels of ground and became real places. This mentation makes it very hard to identify where the structure begins and ends. The board-form concrete is seen to be protruding in the interior of the theatres and the textures are exaggerated to perplex the sound from the theatres. All the elements of the theatre are seen to be merging with the city itself. Lasdun, works on the theatrical details as well, such as minimizing the distance between the audience and performers and securing that no members of the audience are looking straight at each other across the stage. These details are what makes the structure one of a kind and ensures an unforgiving experience. Just as the exterior forms extend to the interior, the influence is inversely proportional. Concrete on the walls of the terrace was kept low in order to conserve the view from inside of the building, simultaneously tall metal railings are there to provide safety. This dynamic nature of the building led the skateboarders to use the terrace and the undercrofts as their playground. This move led the citizens to think of it as a failed architecture, but when it gained Grade II heritage listing in 1994, eighteen years after it was built, the view changed. However, during the opening, Mark Girouard described the building as an aesthetic of broken forms. Many influential personnel found the construction oppressive due to the excessive usage of concrete. Whereas some rather difficult people found the building breathtaking and described it as a perfection of angular work. Moreover, now it has a place in not only the most popular but also the most hated buildings in London through opinionative surveys. Despite the ever-going controversy, close links were formed to the work of Le Corbusier and many other memorable artists. Currently, the years have not been so generous to the theatre. There has been a lack of general upkeep, reported in Curtis’ book. The renovations that took place aimed to expand the interior space by expanding to the edges of the terraces. This move, however, terminated the deep shadows which originally were knowingly done. The building, however, did not meet with universal praise as many saw it as a backscattering of the past in style and social symbolism. Since it was completed during the national and economic variability, some related it to an anachronistic temple to elite artistic pursuits. Some even noted a little confusion about the entry sequence and the unwelcoming blank facades facing away from the river. There was also a crowd which applauded the grand yet familiar space and boundless views of the city. The proportionality to the human scale is what stood out to many. Amidst the compact spaces in the majority of London, there was this palatial space which attracted the most of the theatre going crowd. Whereas the non theatre going crowd began to use the space by stopping for a drink and enjoying the view. Suitable to all yet receiving such mixed reactions from people makes the structure even more popular since it became the topic of debate back then, especially when it was compared to a nuclear power station and an aesthetic of broken forms. The National theatre has had divided opinions since the very start, despite the controversies, it still aims to remain at the top of brutalist architecture.