brady corbet’s 2024 period epic the brutalist is one of the most immersive and intense cinema experiences i’ve had in a while. there’s been a lot of conversation about the themes of the film and whether or not it represents a zionist point of view, something that i’ve been mulling over since i watched it a few days ago. as a piece of engaging and thought-provoking cinema, this would get maximum ratings. starring adrien brody as lászló toth, a hungarian-born holocaust survivor who finds a new life, bringing his wealth of experience and creative genius with him, as one of the most prominent and respected architects in europe. separated from his wife brady corbet’s 2024 period epic the brutalist is one of the most immersive and intense cinema experiences i’ve had in a while. there’s been a lot of conversation about the themes of the film and whether or not it represents a zionist point of view, something that i’ve been mulling over since i watched it a few days ago. as a piece of engaging and thought-provoking cinema, this would get maximum ratings. cinematography wise, it’s stunningly shot, with a dark but potent colour pallet, as the image above shows. the acting throughout is phenomenal, and the intensity of it, along with the raw visceral images, make for a stunning piece of cinema. the fact that the budget for this film was $10 million is also insane. and for a three hour and a half film, i was so immersed it felt seemingly short. i’ll get into a bit more detail below, so be warned, there will be spoilers ahead, and will give a trigger warning due to the nature of some of the things that happened.

starring adrien brody as lászló toth, a hungarian-born holocaust survivor who seeks refuge in the states, brings his wealth of experience and creative genius with him, as one of the most prominent and respected architects in europe. separated from his wife erzsébet (played by felicity jones), and his ophaned niece zsófia (played by raffey cassidy), he tries to focus on building his life and career so he can accommodate both of them when they’re eventually reunited. his cousin attila (played be alessandro nivola), who works as a salesman in a furniture shop, greets lászló once he accommodates him, offers him a place to stay and a job, but also pushed him to do new projects. then comes along harry lee van burren (played by joe alwyn), a wealthy, entitled and pompous member of the industrialist van burren family, who asks lászló to rebuild a study space into a new library. he takes the job, and whilst on the job one day, harrison lee van buren (played by guy pierce), come home complaining and shouting at him and his workers, saying that his poor mother is sick and needs her space. a few days after this whole ordeal, harrison lee meets lászló at a construction site where he was working, and says that he’s impressed with his work, after finding newspapers praising lászló’s talents. offering him to pay for the work he did on the study, he also invites him to a party and reveals that he wants lászló to build an ambitious architectural project dedicated to his late mother. lászló agrees, and begins working, whilst also developing a heroin addition. once reunited with erzsébet and zsófia in 1953, he discovers that his wife is confined to a wheelchair due to osteoporosis due to the famine back home, and lászló is mute due to the traumas of it. the film develops into this story of oppression. as harrison lee stated, “we tolerate you”, the mood between the wealthy american family and the toth family soured quickly. the film ultimately explores trauma and how lászló deals with it and channels it via self-destructing habits that ends up destroying him and those around him.

the sheer emotion that adrien brody brings to the character of lászló makes it an oscar-worthy performance. it’s a stunning character study, and one that, to be honest, may be one of the best i’ve ever seen so far. the americans represent capitalism and, ironically, the zionists and the destruction they cause on occupied land. i say ironically because some of the criticisms towards this film is the seeming zionist angle it brings. occupied palestine is mentioned multiple times (as ‘israel’) in the film. the first mention was matter-of-fact, but the following few times showed first zsófia and then erzsébet being enthusiastic about the idea of moving to israel and called it home. this is a zionist point of view, yes. i don’t think the film wanted to make this political, and didn’t, from my point of view, describe the country itself as being a wonderful place for jews, rather highlighted the zionist propaganda many jewish people were indoctrinated into. the film is set in the late 40s and early 50s, right after the end of the war. i feel some sympathy for jewish people right after the war, with so much trauma to deal with and process, be drawn to this idealistic idea of a safe jewish state. obviously, the whole creation of the state of israel was morally evil, but with the levels of propaganda that existed and the influence of power that people had over others, and with the levels of trauma jewish people carried from the war, i get it. it’s important to not conflate and compare judaism with zionism. this is a jewish story, not a zionist one. however, i also get the criticisms and feel somewhat conflicted in my view. i may sound like i’m contradicting myself here, but the timing of the film is interesting. why now? while a genocide is happening? i was discussing this with a friend and mentioned at the time that neither the director or the actors really had much of a pro-palestine stance when asked about it, and never really spoke to the situation that was happening. my friend disputed that if that’s the case, it’s pointless art. if those that worked on the film can’t bring themselves to say anything about the ongoing genocide, then why would this film be worth watching? what merit does it have artistically? also, it’s worth noting that the epilogue, which is set in the 80s, shows lászló confined to a wheelchair, unable to speak at the first architecture biennale in venice where he was being honoured for his work. now and adult, and definitely a zionist, states in her speech describing her uncle’s work that he had said “no matter what the others try and sell you, it is the destination, not the journey”, which is obviously very problematic and does speak to the awful violence that was perpetuated on palestinian soil and this willing erasure of history. this, however, is part of her character. she has said that she wanted to “go home” in reference to occupied palestine, so we already knew she had zionist leanings. and the film was very clear about that. ultimately, as a pure cinematic experience, i think it’s incredible.

and then there was the abuse. emotional, mental and physical. between the americans and lászló, between the men in general towards erzsébet and zsófia. all this represented the sheer levels of male violence towards women, and as a whole the violence that capitalism, being a system of obtaining and caring only about private property. emotionally, lászló became their property. the horrific rape scene between harrison lee and lászló was a bit too much, but portrayed the brutal levels of violence that men in power have over others, and how capitalism can literally fuck you. what i also found interesting was the dynamic between lászló and gordon (played by isaach de bankolé), a friend he met when he moved to the states. even though they felt each other’s struggle, gordon being african-american and lászló being a foreign immigrant, there was something about the energy between the two that felt off, and it was in particular that scene where they were collectively having dinner. throughout the film you see the various different power dynamics that exist and it was fascinating to watch all the drama unfold.

the brutalist is a monumental cinematic achievement, and with all the controversies it carries, one to speak about and discuss for a long time. in cinemas now.