Some films entertain. Some films inform. And then there are films like The Brutalist—films that impose themselves upon the viewer, demanding engagement, endurance, and reflection.
Brady Corbet’s three-and-a-half-hour odyssey is not simply a film about an architect. It is a film about a survivor, a man who has seen the world try to erase him, yet refuses to disappear.
At its center stands László Tóth (Adrien Brody). Architect. Immigrant. Jew. Holocaust survivor. He arrives in America in 1947, not as a man seeking opportunity, but as one rebuilding from the ashes of catastrophe. His wife, Erzsébet (Felicity Jones), remains trapped in Europe, her body ravaged by osteoporosis, her mind by a war that refused to spare her.
The Holocaust is never far from Tóth’s mind, nor from this film’s narrative. It is not a memory—it is an invisible weight, pressing upon him in every interaction, shaping every design he drafts, every decision he makes. This is a film about architecture as remembrance, about a man constructing something permanent in a world that has taken everything from him before.
It is no surprise, then, that the film has received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director (Brady Corbet), Best Actor (Adrien Brody), Best Supporting Actor (Guy Pearce), Best Cinematography (Lol Crawley), Best Editing (David Jancso), Best Production Design, and Best Original Score (Daniel Blumberg). These nominations are not incidental. They are a testament to the film’s scope, vision, and execution.
The Structure of a Life: A Film in Three Parts
Just as Tóth’s buildings are constructed in sections, so too is The Brutalist, which unfolds across three distinct parts. Each chapter reflects a different phase of his journey—arrival, ascendance, and reckoning.
The first segment follows his early struggles, his separation from Erzsébet, and his attempt to carve a place for himself in America.
The second segment explores his compromises, his rising stature, and the growing tension between artistic purity and economic survival.
The final segment presents a man who has achieved everything he set out to build, yet remains haunted by the things he lost in the process.
The division into three acts mirrors the construction of his own works—designed, realized, and then left to endure the test of time.
The Foundation: A Story Built from Loss
The film spans three decades, beginning with Tóth’s arrival in America and following his rise in the world of architecture. He is brilliant, meticulous, uncompromising. Yet, like all things in America, talent is not enough.
He finds a benefactor in Harrison Lee Van Buren (Guy Pearce)—a man who does not see Tóth’s trauma, only his potential. Van Buren is a patron, an industrialist, a kingmaker. He offers money, influence, the chance to reshape the skyline itself.
But nothing in America is given freely. Tóth is forced into a bargain: how much of himself, his culture, his ideals must he sacrifice in order to build?
Meanwhile, Erzsébet’s letters arrive from Europe, filled with longing, worry, and the fragility of a woman whose body is slowly betraying her. The war stole their youth; time threatens to steal what remains.
And then, there is Tóth’s own body—a different kind of war zone. A broken nose, shattered cheekbones, the lasting injuries of a brutal escape have left him addicted to morphine. His mind is as sharp as ever, but his body has become dependent, making him a slave to the very system he refuses to bow to.
The Holocaust looms over every decision Tóth makes. His work is not just about design—it is about legacy. He builds because he cannot afford to be forgotten.
Brutalism as Metaphor: The Architect and the Man
Brutalism, as an architectural style, is stark, functional, and unapologetic—much like Tóth himself. The buildings he constructs reflect his own nature: imposing, stripped of ornament, built to withstand time itself. His structures are not designed to be inviting but to be enduring—monuments rather than mere dwellings.
Just as concrete resists erosion, Tóth resists the forces that try to mold him. He is a survivor, a monument to his own past, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to decay. The very aesthetic that defines Brutalism—its rigidity, its defiance of comfort, its demand for permanence—mirrors Tóth’s personal philosophy.
If his work appears cold to others, so be it. It was not built to be admired. It was built to last.
The Edifice of Compromise
As much as Tóth fights to retain control, his most ambitious project—an enormous edifice for Harrison Lee Van Buren—is not truly his own. It is a symbol of everything he fought against, yet he builds it anyway.
The structure is massive, unrelenting, overwhelming in scale—but it is not his vision. It is a monument to money, to power, to a man who owns land but does not understand what it means to create.
Tóth is forced to confront a painful truth: Is he a visionary, or merely a craftsman executing someone else’s ambition?
Verdict: Is It a Masterpiece?
Brutalism is not meant to be beautiful. It is meant to last.
So, too, is The Brutalist.
Is it a masterpiece?
Maybe.
It is uncompromising, unflinching, and unwilling to entertain in a traditional sense. It is a film that demands endurance, reflection, and patience—one that does not beg for admiration but insists upon its own permanence.
It is a film of rigid structures, but raw emotions.
A film that builds something indestructible, yet hauntingly human.
A film that does not merely exist—it endures.
Like the structures it celebrates, The Brutalist will stand, unshaken, long after the storm has passed.
RMS INSIGHTS ✍🏾 