what makes a movie good?
can a movie be good if you dont agree with its message? if you dont like its characters? if it has maybe 5 minutes of interesting dialogue across its 3.5 hour runtime? it doesnt innovate on the medium at all?
ultimately, i have to respect the brutalist for one reason only: its message is delivered VERY consistently in all aspects of the film — the “it’s not about the journey, it’s about the destination” is conveyed via the actual architecture, the barrage of unpleasant things the characters and thus audience endure, and the incredibly slow pacing. yeah that movie was a battle, and yes the ending did deliver on its promise. you can attain better outcomes simply by enduring. sure. and legacy is worth unrelenting pain and sacrificing the good years of your life. sure. wrong and insane to actually believe, but sure.
but in terms of that message, i dont care for it to be delivered in this way. if we want to show the work of a brilliant starving artist, show me someone who’s more competent. he commits hard at times, but gives up easily at others. he poorly articulates the reasons behind his decisions, and when they’re challenged opts for anger. he refuses to kiss ass or work with others, even though that has got to be the norm in architecture where exclusively uber rich opinionated entities are commissioning projects. and it’s unclear he even wants the big project he’s handed by a rich guy — and indeed for the first part of the movie he appears to not give a fuck about whether or not he’s doing architecture — but then once he has the project he holds on in spite of it ruining his life. he completely lucks into all of his opportunities we see in the film, except for the architecture job he sought out and appeared to be at happiest in. it is unclear he is even all that good at what he does, to me. without the epilogue, i would not at all be certain his work was celebrated. his building ends up being mid af and i dont even mind brutalist architecture.
in contrast to there will be blood, good time, and every sports movie ever, the legacy-worthy character in the brutalist really takes a backseat to his own (re)rise to greatness. is that an angle worth pursuing? no, in my opinion — it’s a less interesting character to examine
it’s just a tough watch. guy has a series of fucked up events happen to him, and he just endures them and gets lucky enough to make it back to his former legacy. but he doesnt actively pursue the greatness he achieves, and he doesnt endure the films events in an inspiring take it on the chin kind of way, instead opting for a silent acceptance that shitty shit is happening. like dude talk to your wife good god. stand up for yourself a teeny weeny bit, its kinda fun sometimes! why isnt this movie about a power couple who strategically achieves their former greatness?
i do understand that this is probably all a very american take, and that most of what i dislike about the film is riddled with what i understand as eastern european philosophy (which i suppose i totally am dunking on alongside the movie itself). but sue me i appreciate healthy relationships and standing up for yourself.
music also nonexistent like cmon you couldnt have given us even that worldly pleasure
what makes a movie good?
can a movie be good if you dont agree with its message? if you dont like its characters? if it has maybe 5 minutes of interesting dialogue across its 3.5 hour runtime? it doesnt innovate on the medium at all?
ultimately, i have to respect the brutalist for one reason only: its message is delivered VERY consistently in all aspects of the film — the “it’s not about the journey, it’s about the destination” is conveyed via the actual architecture, the barrage of unpleasant things the characters and thus audience endure, and the incredibly slow pacing. yeah that movie was a battle, and yes the ending did deliver on its promise. you can attain better outcomes simply by enduring. sure. and legacy is worth unrelenting pain and sacrificing the good years of your life. sure. wrong and insane to actually believe, but sure.
but in terms of that message, i dont care for it to be delivered in this way. if we want to show the work of a brilliant starving artist, show me someone who’s more competent. he commits hard at times, but gives up easily at others. he poorly articulates the reasons behind his decisions, and when they’re challenged opts for anger. he refuses to kiss ass or work with others, even though that has got to be the norm in architecture where exclusively uber rich opinionated entities are commissioning projects. and it’s unclear he even wants the big project he’s handed by a rich guy — and indeed for the first part of the movie he appears to not give a fuck about whether or not he’s doing architecture — but then once he has the project he holds on in spite of it ruining his life. he completely lucks into all of his opportunities we see in the film, except for the architecture job he sought out and appeared to be at happiest in. it is unclear he is even all that good at what he does, to me. without the epilogue, i would not at all be certain his work was celebrated. his building ends up being mid af and i dont even mind brutalist architecture.
in contrast to there will be blood, good time, and every sports movie ever, the legacy-worthy character in the brutalist really takes a backseat to his own (re)rise to greatness. is that an angle worth pursuing? no, in my opinion — it’s a less interesting character to examine
it’s just a tough watch. guy has a series of fucked up events happen to him, and he just endures them and gets lucky enough to make it back to his former legacy. but he doesnt actively pursue the greatness he achieves, and he doesnt endure the films events in an inspiring take it on the chin kind of way, instead opting for a silent acceptance that shitty shit is happening. like dude talk to your wife good god. stand up for yourself a teeny weeny bit, its kinda fun sometimes! why isnt this movie about a power couple who strategically achieves their former greatness?
i do understand that this is probably all a very american take, and that most of what i dislike about the film is riddled with what i understand as eastern european philosophy (which i suppose i totally am dunking on alongside the movie itself). but sue me i appreciate healthy relationships and standing up for yourself.
music also nonexistent like cmon you couldnt have given us even that worldly pleasure
7
