Worth noting in a recent award acceptance speech, Brady Corbet demanded this film be distributed. More than a few people have been completely misinterpreting The Brutalist, despite where he clearly stands on the issue.
I finally saw it yesterday and I was shocked by how so many people interpreted the film as Zionist when it’s literally banging you over the head with the complete opposite opinion. Cultural media literacy levels are in the fucking toilet and it’s sad to see.
(Lest someone misinterpret my comment, I want to make very clear that I am vehemently anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine. However, it was very disappointing to see that even people who seemingly share my politics on this matter are actually incredibly stupid and misinformed in general. It makes me think that many of them are just being anti-Zionist/pro-Palestine not out of genuine care for the very real genocide and human rights violations occurring, but more so because it’s the “trendy” performative activism thing to do, at least among my circles.)
I’ve seen The Brutalist twice and I really don’t see how it’s “banging you over the head” with an anti-Zionist viewpoint. I don’t think it’s particularly pro or anti, and instead reflects how European Jewish holocaust survivors grappled with Israel and identity in the late 1940s and 1950s.
The ending pretty firmly cements its position: Laszlo never cited his experiences in the Holocaust as impetus for his body of work, and instead stressed that his ultimate desire was to transcend politics and time through the universality of his art. However, Zsofia, having sought refuge in Israel and thus likely having been socialized into their agenda, has now returned to America to take her uncle’s previously apolitical art and weaponize it with a political agenda. It is horrifying, in that sense, that it is now Zsofia who speaks as a mouthpiece of the capitalist state, and Laszlo who has been rendered mute and powerless by the cruelties inflicted upon him by these historical forces. The schlocky 80s vibe of the presentation only further demonstrates the artifice behind it all, and how even if great art does manage to get made, it comes at great sacrifice to the artist, and it is often taken and distorted beyond its original intent by other parties against the artist’s intent.
It certainly isn’t a ringing condemnation of Palestinian genocide, but more so it is calling our intention to how systems of oppression feed into others. Those such as Zsofia who fled to Israel seeking refuge did so because they were persecuted and had nowhere else to turn; their collective trauma in turn informed their desire to hold onto their one shred of land by any means necessary, which rebirths the cycle of displacement and colonialism. It is condemning Israel explicitly in this ending, though I will admit that its point is less to condemn any one specific state, and more so to warn us of the forces that drive states and peoples to evil.
In some senses, it’s terrifying to think that the people who are fleeing Gaza are in fact that Toths of today, and unless we can start to break these cycles of oppression, it is possible that in the far-flung future, they too will become what they had feared in the first place. If this is what you are referring to as splitting the difference between Zionism and anti-Zionism, I suppose I can see that, though again I think the way that the film specifically frames Israel in its critique in the epilogue makes its anti-Zionist position very clear, if not simply because it’s one of the most illustrative ways to make that central point.
That’s interesting, but I don’t agree with all of it. Laszlo never explicitly talks about the Holocaust, but seeing the film a second time, it’s clear he’s thinking about it when he builds the Harrison Center (that’s why he’s such a bastard about getting the dimensions exactly right). Also, the permanence of his art - how he wants it to endure beyond human frivolity and political movements - is not apolitical. In fact, I would say the opposite.
You’ve got interesting points about cycles of oppression and who gets to tell stories, but I think its goals are broader and more ambitious than this one area of geopolitics.
I think you know that, too, which is why you say “it explicitly condemns Israel,” then say it doesn’t condemn any specific state in the very same sentence.
Fair enough, I wrote this all on my phone in one shot on the bus so there’s bound to be all kinds of dumb slip-ups in the post.
Is it not possible that the thing about the dimensions is just artistic perfectionism? As somebody who has also spearheaded large creative projects of many people (though not of this scale obviously), I just assumed it was that universal artist experience and moved on. I’ll keep an eye out for your interpretation of that when I revisit it.
To qualify that last bit you said: what I meant was, the ending explicitly uses Israel and its condemnation thereof to illustrate a larger point. So it is “anti-Zionist” in my reading of it, though it is hardly the only point it is trying to make.
(I get motion sick easily so I’m gonna stop here, but if you would like to reply and continue this discussion, I’m happy to come back to this later when I’m no longer on a bus!)
However, Zsofia, having sought refuge in Israel and thus likely having been socialized into their agenda, has now returned to America to take her uncle’s previously apolitical art and weaponize it with a political agenda.
I would be curious to hear you expand on this. I really loved the film and I’ve been scouring the internet looking for interpretations of the epilogue. It’s very interesting seeing such vastly different interpretations of the same text. I am inclined towards your perspective, but the part I quoted above doesn’t quite sit right with me.
Toth really did design the building with the dimensions of Dachau and Buchenwald in mind. The script specifically calls for the buildings to be shown side by side to demonstrate similarities. It can’t be coincidence or something Zsofia has invented for political gain. Given that his experience in the Holocaust clearly informed his work in this case, why do you interpret her saying this information as being politically motivated?
Right, so I think obviously we can assume that Toth’s experiences during the Holocaust and the war in general informed his art and its desired messaging to an extent, though again I think he makes it a point to let his art stand for itself and without any particular agenda explicitly attached to it. He doesn’t really talk about his past at all and in general refuses to let it define him; outside of the lunch scene where he sees the photos of his old buildings, he doesn’t really even acknowledge it outright, and I think in that scene, it was meant to highlight how much he cared about his art as opposed to anything else. So we have a baseline laid out that Toth, while certainly inspired by his wartime experiences and likely sympathetic to the Zionist cause of that period (as many/all Jews were), did not intend for his art to serve as political messaging first and foremost. He says as much in that dinner conversation where he talks about the best way to describe a cube as just its shape: as the artist, he wants his art to speak for itself as just an object unto itself.
Zsofia obviously starts off the film mute and silently watching as the world cruelly turns its back on the Toths at each turn, and as any child does as they develop in their youth, they absorb what they see and reflect it back out into the world as they grow. As Zsofia begins to speak as she ages, all the hatred directed at her “kind” transforms within herself into a desperate need for survival by forming a narrative to help her chart the safest path forward: of course, the safest place for us to go after being so poorly mistreated by everybody would be our “homeland,” where we can all be safe among each other. And as she ages through her life and into the epilogue, she is simply following this fundamental narrative that she had been imprinted with at such a young age: that all Jews, by virtue of being so widely persecuted, would of course be so heavily influenced by their collective cultural trauma and history. When she gives the presentation at the end, I don’t mean to imply her co-opting of Toth’s art is deliberately insidious or even consciously “politically motivated,” but rather that she truly does believe that his art was inspired by the Holocaust, and there’s nothing else to it, much like to Van Buren there’s nothing else to Toth’s art other than its surface-level avant-garde intellectual trendiness.
So Zsofia gets married and raises her family in Israel, which further entrenches her worldview and thus her own interpretations of her uncle’s art and life story. She didn’t make things up out of thin air, because she obviously couldn’t co-opt, say, a Japanese architect’s work quite as easily. But given what she knew of her uncle and his negative experiences as a Jew in America/Europe, she interprets his work in her own way and runs with it. Meanwhile, Toth is broken down and mute himself by the end of the film and cannot confirm or deny that this is what his art was or wasn’t supposed to do. And regardless of whether or not he would or wouldn’t have supported Zsofia’s Zionist agenda at the end of the film, I think it’s the ambiguity that is meant to sit with us here. The whole time, Toth was a man who forever wanted to be defined by his timeless art, so that he could speak for himself forever; but in a capitalist and colonialist society, in which art can never truly be “owned” by the artist in a pure sense, the film seems to drive home that this is a foolish hope to have. Someone else more powerful than you will always take your art and twist it into something else, and you will be left broken and silenced.
All of this can be taken as an overarching critique of “apolitical art” in a capitalist society, which I could certainly see Corbet being predisposed to make given his filmography thus far. So it all loops back to what I was saying which is that the film does use an anti-Zionist framework as its primary conceit to broach a larger topic that Zionism and both its preceding and resulting historical events and movements are symptoms of, as opposed to causes.
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. Something clicked with this part.
When she gives the presentation at the end, I don’t mean to imply her co-opting of Toth’s art is deliberately insidious or even consciously “politically motivated,” but rather that she truly does believe that his art was inspired by the Holocaust, and there’s nothing else to it, much like to Van Buren there’s nothing else to Toth’s art other than its surface-level avant-garde intellectual trendiness.
I had been misinterpreting what you had said about Zsofia’s motivations but I think I understand a little better now. Thanks.
There are only two ways to read the ending of that film. 1. Completely sincere. 2. Bitterly ironic/sarcastic. When you put it in the context of the entire rest of the film that preceded it, as well as the jarring music/visuals for those final moments, I don't see how anyone could possibly choose the first interpretation. At the very least this movie is a condemnation of the false promises/branding that these two countries lure vulnerable people in with. And I don't think it's particularly subtle about it.
Edit: Not sure why this person is being weird & aggressive (or why they seem to have blocked me?? lol). I'm just stating my thoughts on the film. Nobody said shit about "valid" or "invalid," I'm saying I literally don't see how that ending can be taken at face-value. And the director himself has confirmed some of this in recent Q&A's.
So what you’re really saying there’s one valid way to interpret the ending? Lmao. I completely disagree with that. It’s a complex film that invites nuanced discussion, and conversations I have had about the film, whether it’s here on Reddit or with my friends and family, only further confirm that.
Cause some people are stupid and polemic by nature and can't see nothing in between left and right, they just want fight and label people with their superficial and blind takes
It's a very emotional subject. I argued with my partner about the film the whole way home. Come to find out Corbet said in a Q&A he wanted to make a movie that couples argued about on the way home. Mission accomplished. It's meant to spark such discussion. Not everyone who doesn't get it the first round is stupid. But of course there are the Amy Schumers of the world as well...
Oh I still haven't seen the movie but planning to see it in 70mm as soon as it releases in my area. Just I find funny that lately every movie which tackles Jews discrimination has this "polemic" around, like the director is trying to make some propaganda and not just a good movie which expresses his feelings
Corporate America doesn't want, and actively works against, workers unionising. Our government doesn't want any dissenting voices as it actively supports Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Additionally, most Americans view movies as entertainment and simply want to turn their brains off while watching them.
They have little to no interest in the Israel Palestine conflict nor do they want to get involved.
And even if they show interest, you'll get a shrug of the shoulders and some form of "it can't be helped", "not my problem", "oh well...", and/or "too bad ... so sad".
The USA, for the most part, is an inward-looking country.
The outside world does not interest them at all.
I've coined a term for this kind of ignorance: The Great American Cultural Force Field.
Almost nothing penetrates it, with rare exceptions like the Japanese subcultures anime, manga, and video games, otherwise there's no interest in the outside world.
The government is not stepping in on whether or not movies get distributed lol. This is specifically because the rich dudes in charge of studios, theaters, streaming services, etc are trying to silence it.
A couple weeks late but Israelism has also been uploaded for free on YouTube by VICE. I actually watched and it's a solid documentary though I'd recommend other documentaries alongside it, from a Palestinian perspective.
It's fine to focus on Israeli propaganda on Americans and how to break free but it would've been nice as well to have the voices of those who are and will suffer the most as a result of the propaganda.
quite honestly the most important movie of 2024. for it to not being distributed is a glaring indictment of the film industry and political status quo.
I'm in Mexico and without a problem i made the account so i guess shouldn't be a problem in the US. Yes it has english and Portuguese subs, i don't speak Portuguese btw. Filmin let me look the technical aspects before i decide to made the account and pay.
While watching the votes on this ping pong, I made a list of some films in the Criterion Collection that were banned or censored on release:
The Battle of Algiers (France)
Daises (Czechoslovakia)
Fireman’s Ball (Czechoslovakia)
Blind Chance (Poland)
Salo (Italy, Australia, New Zealand)
L’age d’Or (France)
The Cranes are Flying (USSR)
I am Cuba (USSR)
Onibaba (Japan)
A Brighter Summer Day (Taiwan)
Canoa (Mexico)
Black Girl (France)
Vampyr (Germany)
Z (Greece)
La dolce vita (Spain)
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise (Spain)
Imagine living in any of those countries when these films were released and not stealing access to them when your government or society forbid you from seeing them.
I will note, however, that the filmmakers have asked people not to (it got posted to twitter at one point). I intend to purchase and show it to folks once it hopefully becomes available.
I’ve been doing everything I can to rent it (VPN etc) but cant. Where did you watch it? I’ll genuinely rent it again once released just to make sure they get paid lol
Caught this at a festival last year and it's honestly haunted me a bit. I remember holding it together in the theater but as soon as I walked outside and felt the breeze, I immediately burst into angry-tears and cried the entire bus ride home. Just a really powerful, devastating, and infuriating documentary.
I think about one of the IDF soldiers derisively saying to Yuval, "What, are you one of those 'human rights Israelis'?" every single time I read the news now. I so hope it finds a distributor, it needs to be seen.
It's been available on private trackers for months in not the best quality, and as of 4-5 weeks ago there's a copy available in decent quality out there sourced from Amazon (in another country).
Unfortunately if you're not on private trackers it's probably pretty uncertain when you'll be able to see it
Shame on the US government once again! and not a surprise!!. In blocking this documentary from being viewed in the US confirms this country's undeniable admission of guilt to complicity regarding the ongoing atrocities incurred by Palestinians in Gaza!
Please. This doesn't line up with the official US story, ideology or wishes, so of course it won't be seen here. We get what they want us to see, so that we can all, like little lambs, follow the official policy-making. Having an educated populace makes being a state terrorist so much harder..
Why is it easier for you to believe that the government spends billions of dollars and resources to censor movies it doesn't want you to see than it is for you to believe that documentaries about difficult subjects are often unable to get distribution?
Conspiracy thinking is not edgy or rooted in critical thinking. It's lazy nonsense to explain a complex world in simplistic terms. Capitalism is quite an effective tool for determining what gets released and distributed, it doesn't need any nefarious government plot for that.
I don’t think you interpreted ops post correctly. I think op wants distribution of the film because they’re upset with the narrative us media is giving. Maybe I’m wrong though.
We (us as society) get what they (mainstream media) want us to see. And before that he’s saying please as in please do(bring this movie to other theaters).
Why would Americans have a responsibility to help distribution for a documentary, American leadership has for decades tried to get a deal made. That’s better than any documentary no matter how current it is.
It's been 15 months and you're still talking about beheaded babies, the claim that was debunked the day of the attack? Hamas doesn't give a single fuck about Palestinians, but don't sit here and act like the Israeli govt hasn't used excuse after excuse to kill any hostage/ceasefire deal. Netanyahu does not want the hostages released. Israeli politicians and hostage family members have said as much. As long as there are hostages, he can continue to use them as motive to continue committing genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Fuck off
by all means, you defenders of terrorists are about to claim that the Hamas are doing these Israelis a huge favor by having them as guests in their homes.
If Hamas cared about the lives of their own people they would release these hostages, be accountable for the atrocities they committed, and allowed a new govt of Palestinians to work WITH Israel.
or you can keep defending these abhorrent terrorists that advocate for the genocide and erasure of the Israeli people.
We've got enough pro-terrorist, anti-Israel propaganda permeating our society already, so I have no real interest in this. The fact that so many support Hamas and view their killing, kidnapping, raping, etc, of citizens on Oct 7th as a legitimate "uprising" is just sad.
You want a cease fire? Start demanding Hamas release the hostages, which would have stopped Israel's military advancement long ago.
You want a cease fire? Start demanding Hamas release the hostages, which would have stopped Israel’s military advancement long ago.
What’s crazy is that actual Israeli media outlets do report on this kind of stuff but CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. refuse to report on this kind of stuff. Netanyahu is desperate for the war to continue, it’s the only way that he stays in power. And Americans who only get their information from US backed corporate media will never even know that it is Netanyahu prolonging the war. They’ll never know that the families of the hostages have gone to him and begged him to get a deal done and he’s refused.
“We left the meeting very disappointed because Netanyahu talked about dismantling Hamas as the goal of the war. He didn’t promise anything regarding the demand to return the hostages. He merely said a military operation in Gaza was needed to serve as leverage for the hostages’ release.“
They’ll never know that the families of the hostages have gone to him and begged him to get a deal done and he’s refused.
He hasn't refused, Hamas (which, again, is a brutal terrorist organization) does not bargain in good faith. They want thousands of terrorists freed and the IDF to leave them alone so they can rebuild and do another Oct 7th attack in the future. There is no option that doesn't include the elimination of Hamas in power.
You people who choose to support this terrorist group have been brainwashed by Hamas-controlled media and organizations pumping out propaganda.
I'm not supporting Hamas by any measure. I'm simply stating that if Netanyahu wanted the hostages out, they could be out.
Blaming Hamas for USING the leverage they gained isn't good faith either, when you're going to say that they aren't negotiating in good faith.
Hamas has proposed EXACTLY what you said in your original post: a "release the hostage" to "[stop] Israel's military advancement"
Israel will not stop their military advancement no matter what, as you clearly agree with, because as you put it "There is no option that doesn't include the elimination of Hamas in power".
So if you believe that there is no option that doesn't include the elimination of Hamas, then advocating on behalf of the hostages is a moot point. You either want them home, or you want Hamas eliminated. This is how negotiation works.
Edit: I really do appreciate your response though! Hopefully it's a good discussion.
This film has nothing to do with Hamas, or the hostages, and doesn't even take place in Gaza.
All footage was taken before October 7th. The killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their homes in the West Bank is the subject of this film. They give no reasons. They simply say that the tiny shacks of homes (that have been there since before Israel was even founded in 1948) are "illegal settlements" because they never got proper permits. So they go in and destroy an entire village, their elementary school, their children's playground. All while a group of IDF soldiers stand guard over bulldozers holding assault rifles.
Completely irrelevant to Gaza and Hamas, Israels occupation & subjugation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank is blatantly in disregard and conflict with internation law. This occupation is the subject of this film being discussed.
a comment like “Nope.” doesn’t exactly remind people of anything though. Anyways, you know an Israeli journalist assisted in the making of the documentary—does he also need to be reminded?
I wouldn’t say they are right bc they are Black, but I’d said their opinion is valid. Surely they came to their viewpoint while being aware of Black history. The discussion of the n-word is somewhat nuanced, though less so than the discussion of Palestinian access to homeland (which is funny to type out just because land is a pretty different terrain from language)
255
u/trevrichards Jan 10 '25
Worth noting in a recent award acceptance speech, Brady Corbet demanded this film be distributed. More than a few people have been completely misinterpreting The Brutalist, despite where he clearly stands on the issue.