By refusing traditional structure and emphasizing moments and experience, The Brutalist is wonderful mercurial and open to interpretations.
Listen at the podcast providers of your choice.
The Brutalist has been at the center of a lot of pitched movie discussions. Initially the movie was met with a ton of praise. Then there was a surge of people who said the second half of the movie is way worse than the first half. Then the director admitted that some of images in the film were created using AI. Which was quickly followed by "leaks" about AI tools being used to tweak Felicity Jones' Hungarian/English accent, only for that to be refuted by people who actually do sound mixing for a living saying the kinds of tweaks the audio engineers did are standard. And we haven't even gotten into the movie itself yet. A movie that tackles the American immigrant experience, sexism, prejudice, how the wealthy abuse power, the artist's experience while tangentially touching on topics like Zionism. There's a lot to unpack. So today, I'm going to try and unpack my experience with the movie, while also nodding to and diving into the many many topics this film addresses.
The Setup
The movie centers around László Tóth (Adrien Brody), a Holocaust survivor and highly skilled architect who immigrates to America to make a better life. But Tóth's working-class life is upended when he encounters a wealthy industrialist who takes a liking to Tóth and his artistic vision and hires him for a monumental piece of work.
Now that I've finally seen it, I think The Brutalist is something of a Rorschach test for movie watchers. Because it's so long and covers so much ground thematically it's very easy to fixate on one of those ideas and see how the film addresses that idea.
I'll share my own in a bit, but I personally think that's the sign of a great piece of art. Because in spite of how difficult so much of the movie is, it is almost effortlessly engaging from moment to moment and feels genuinely unpredictable. With a lot of long movies you start to feel the time, and the only thing I really felt with The Brutalist were the ups and downs of Tóth's life and the lives of those around him.
This is also aided by the score and cinematography that varies as greatly as the film's ups and downs. The intimate moments in this film, good and bad, are all in tight close-ups with characters speaking almost into each other's mouths which is then immediately contrasted by wide shots taking in construction or the land where Tóth's project will exist.
I also appreciate how the film has adopted a brutalist-esque approach to its color palette with almost all of the costumes, structures and locations feeling grey and earthy. And as it was pointed out in a discussion from creator Like Stories of Old with Jacob Geller, even the film stock captures this gritty down on the ground aesthetic.
Can't say enough about the cast either. Everyone in this movie captures the true essence of their character whether its Brody's tortured artist who seems so ruled by shame and pain he can't imagine compromising on the thing he care the most about, Felicity Jones' quietly powerful performance as Tóth's wife, and the emotionally volatile performance from Guy Pearce as our industrialist Van Buren.
So how did I view the movie? I viewed the film as an artist's experience, specifically a male artist's perspective.
So how did I view the movie? I viewed the film as an artist's experience, specifically a male artist's perspective.
The thing about Tóth, is that he has a strong artistic vision. He is proud of his previous work in Budapest, and insists on making his first project for Guy Pearce's Harrison Lee Van Buren (which is legit like the names of two/three major American historical figures jumbled together), his way and even challenges a man he's never met until that moment to truly take time to appreciate it. And it works
Van Buren is clearly taken with Tóth's talent and perspective and wants to use said talents to honor his late mother. Which brings us to the second half of the movie where the movie goes from "The American Dream" to "the toils of making art in a capitalist society."
As soon as Tóth begins working on the project he's met with resistance. Resistance about the materials. Resistance about the look of the facility. Resistance from the local government that doesn't trust an immigrant Jew to make their Christian Church. Early on he wins through force of will and personality.
Van Buren is clearly taken with Tóth's talent and perspective and wants to use said talents to honor his late mother. Which brings us to the second half of the movie where the movie goes from "The American Dream" to "the toils of making art in a capitalist society."
As soon as Tóth begins working on the project he's met with resistance. Resistance about the materials. Resistance about the look of the facility. Resistance from the local government that doesn't trust an immigrant Jew to make their Christian Church. Early on he wins through force of will and personality.
But soon the bean counters come and begin to make changes to the project based on costs. Which means Tóth makes personal compromises, believing (correctly) that his wife will back his play, and that they fill a way to fulfill his dream. And then, due to unforeseen circumstances his dream gets delayed, his project cancelled and Tóth is forced to do assembly line style work to make ends meat for his family. Meanwhile his family has to adjust to the instability that comes from Tóth's dedication to his vision, with his wife in particular being consistently unsure about what direction her life will go next.
This is why the second half of the movie is so important, because with this constant friction and uncertainty you have a movie that captures a filmmaker's experience or an immigrant's experience or what it's like to be a woman reliant on a man ruled by these experiences. You'd just have a straight-forward Hollywood style epic versus the much more messy and challenging film we do have.
This is also what makes the film's epilogue so fascinating to me, for reasons I might have to do an entire breakdown of, that challenges the audience to rethink the entire film and Tóth, through the lens of an equally unreliable narrator.
This is also what makes the film's epilogue so fascinating to me, for reasons I might have to do an entire breakdown of, that challenges the audience to rethink the entire film and Tóth, through the lens of an equally unreliable narrator.
The Brutalist actively refutes traditional narrative structure, not to frustrate, but to challenge its audience. To force them to think about what version of events is real. What is metaphor and what is just a snapshot of a man's life? It forces the audience to interpret it through their eyes. It's not for everyone, but I found/find it fascinating.
The Verdict: Confounding in a Great Way
By refusing traditional structure and emphasizing moments and experience, The Brutalist is wonderful mercurial and open to interpretations. 8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment