Wasn’t “Lazlo Toth” another improv character from Saturday Night Live actor Don Novello (who mainly played a “gossip columnist” for the official Papal newspaper)?
IIRC Novello published a book under the Lazlo Toth moniker which consisted of prank letters and responses in Toth’s persona as a rabid right wing Republican, ur-MAGA style.
Letters to McDonalds complaining they don’t give out jelly packets with hamburgers, that sort of thing and the hilarious PR dept responses.
I *knew* it sounded familiar! Man, I wish I had realized that.
Laszlo is a very common Hungarian first name, and Toth is a very common surname. I'm not sure it's quite "John Smith" but it's somewhat close. What's interesting is that Toth isn't a particularly Jewish surname.
The film that generated a similar fury for me was Von Trier's "Breaking the Waves", which I thought was pure sadism trying to veil itself as spirituality.
I don't necessarily react negatively to cinematic sadism. I have no interest in the torture porn of the Saw series, but I am basically a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos's work, and to me he seems pretty clearly motivated by sadism.
Or, perhaps better, he's got a deeply sadistic outlook on humanity, a belief that sado-masochism is intrinsic to human relations. He sometimes also strikes me as someone with a sadistic attitude toward his audience, but not always, and that doesn't seem like a central orientation of his art.
I do think it's worth being honest about such things though. Though perhaps that's more the critic's job than the auteur's.
As context, I saw Breaking the Wave in the theater 30 years ago with my girlfriend at the time (a documentary filmmaker) who was interested in seeing it after all its buzz at Cannes. Our relationship was already on the rocks at that point, and it wasn’t helped by the fact that I was so angry after seeing the movie (and inarticulate about the reasons why) that we had an awful afternoon and evening.
Anyway, I spent the next couple of days trying to find every review I could of the film (not the trivial task it is today), looking to find people who share my hatred for it, And I have never been happier with a review than I was when I read Terrence Rafferty’s (probably the critic at the time who best reflected my sensibilities) evisceration of the film and those who were applauding it.
Unfortunately, his review doesn’t appear to be online anywhere, and my memory of what it said (as well as of the film itself) is hazy at best; but what I recall is Raffery acknowledging the brilliance of the acting (Emily Watson was indeed heartbreakingly incredible) and the film’s formal inventiveness, while also asserting that it was fundamentally utterly phony and empty. And that it was being embraced because critics were unable to differentiate between a film that honestly grapples with the themes the movie introduced (religion, love, spirituality, sex, conformity) and a film from a nihilist that simply desecrated the idea of religion like someone spray painting Guernica or the Mona Lisa and calling it art.
Anyway, while I’m loth to encourage anyone to see anything by Von Trier (who I believe is almost certainly a genuine sexual sadist who has found a socially acceptable way through his filmmaking to get his kicks), part of me hopes you’ll see it and then comment here how much you agree with me and Rafferty that it was heinous. On the other hand, God forbid, if you see it and like it, perhaps you can never mention it. :)
I'm a fan of Breaking the Waves. In large part that's because I take it to be an earnest hypothetical that takes the command that Abraham kill Isaac seriously. So many depictions of faith make it easy, make it neatly fit with our conceptions of what's good and who God should be. But if God exists, it seems arrogant to suppose that our liberal notions of virtue should align with his or that our sacrifices for him would seem rational. It's one of the few movies that I find truly provocative and honest about what true faith in a personal God would mean. I'm not sure if that makes it sympathetic or antagonistic towards religion and spirituality, but it's interesting. (And of course it's really well acted and directed.)
The idea that Breaking the Waves is about the sacrifice of Isaac is an interesting one. Although I'd argue it is made by someone who believes that Abraham not only bound Isaac but raped him and who then dwells longingly on that rape.
Fully agree about the quality of the acting. Emily Watson was incredible.
I wish Substack allowed me to post pictures so I could upload a Drake meme with him rejecting Abraham raping Isaac, but welcoming Abraham killing Isaac.
I saw it today here in Portland in 70mm. I agree with you on nearly every point. Yet, I think it's a good film. (Not a great film, however.) It's flawed, for sure, but a lot of the aspects of it you don't like, I think are what make it ultimately work.
Some of your criticisms are petty, like a certain lawyer we know who never can enjoy a movie involving courtroom scenes because they're not realistic enough, nitpicking each detail. Your criticisms about the Bauhaus movement, whether he could use the publicity to get other projects, and so on, strike me this way.
More importantly, though, I think the grand narratives of the film that you don't like are -- outside of the cinematography and score -- its greatest strength. Narratively, the film it shares the most with this year is The Fire Inside. The films are completely different in how they tell their stories, however. The Fire Inside is much more conventional. But at their heart, they are the same.
Both start with a familiar narrative. In The Fire Inside, it's the classic sports story, someone working hard to overcome adversity and triumph. In The Brutalist, it's the classic immigrant tale, someone coming to the US with nothing, overcoming adversity, and succeeding. Both take these classic narratives and demythologize them.
In The Fire Inside, the black female boxer has her gold medal, but does not live happily ever after. Racism and sexism bar her from the glories and financial success that normally come with a gold medal. No Wheaties boxes for her. In The Brutalist, the movie has only reached the intermission at what would normally be the heroic climax of a film about an immigrant. He has triumphed. He has come from nothing and been recognized for his greatness and been awarded a project worthy of his talents. And then the myth falls apart.
The immigrant isn't accepted and integrated into society. He is still Other. Like in Get Out, the WASPs are jealous of him, they find something beautiful in him and his talent, they want to live vicariously through him or use him (or his niece) when no one is watching. (Maybe in some sense Laszlo is doing the same to Gordon. He treats him as if he's a friend, but then when he's no longer useful and loyal to him, throws him away.) But they don't really care about the immigrant.
While I may not entirely agree with that point, I think there's merit to it and it still persists as a problem. Not only have recent left and right wing antisemitic conspiracies and hate shown that they are still very much a part of our America, but more broadly, WASP America has made salsa the number one condiment, buys hummus and pita at the supermarket, loves to dance to Latin beats, practice Yoga, design their home according feng shui principles, etc, but wants to deport the people who brought these cultural gifts here.
And there's another level of meaning to The Brutalist added by the prologue and epilogue, both featuring the character of the niece. I think of it like an inside-out Straussianism. Whereas in Strauss, the intro and conclusion are there to mislead and the middle holds the truth, here it is the opposite. In the prologue, the niece is being interrogated, but remains silent. When we first meet her and through much of the film, she remains silent. (It's only when she tells her uncle and aunt that she is going to Israel that we hear her talk, iirc. Given that the interrogation involves asking where her real home is, that's probably significant.) In the final scene of the film, however, it's the niece who stands before the world and tells their story.
These two scenes, the prologue and the epilogue, are the keys to understanding the whole movie. I take them to mean that it's only with a true home of their own where Jews can belong and feel free to be Jews without having to give up their customs and identity (like Atilla does in becoming a Catholic named Miller), they no longer need to be silent. They don't have to hide the meaning of the center's concentration camp inspiration, its nature as a memorial to Laszlo and his wife's struggle and love. The movie starts with a quote: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves free." They knew they weren't free. They kept silent. They kept on guard. It's only in the epilogue of the movie they feel truly free, no longer needing to be silent, able to be uncompromisingly themselves.
While about Holocaust surviving Jews, I don't think the movie just applies to the Jewish experience in America. I don't even think it just applies to immigrants. I think it applies to any outsider working within a community where they are the Other. I do think the trope of the Holocaust surviving Jewish immigrant, however, made a lot of sense since it's one of our most enduring myths of successful integration. (That said, I think of the movie as an interesting provocation rather than the truth, just as I did with Get Out or The Fire Inside.)
Again, I agree with most of your criticisms of The Brutalist. It could be an hour shorter. Nearly every sex scene could be cut from it. They treat their characters more like cyphers than real people. But I think conceptually it is quite good, that there is some real depth to it. I also think the cinematography and score are excellent. It also made me feel some kind of way for architecture, which is a good thing.
Yes, I understood all of that. I thought it was extremely obvious what the movie was trying to do. That's part of what I deeply disliked about it -- how obvious it was. I felt like I was being beaten over the head with a hammer for three and a half hours.
But this is what makes horse races! You thought it had real depth. I did not.
"WASP America has made salsa the number one condiment, buys hummus and pita at the supermarket, loves to dance to Latin beats, practice Yoga, design their home according feng shui principles, etc, but wants to deport the people who brought these cultural gifts here."
When I first heard about "The Brutalist" I couldn't wait to see it. The more I learn about it the more convinced I become that I don't want to see it at all.
I had a similar reaction to the film. Not so much anger, as strong disagreement with the message. But after writing about it further, I'm not so sure what Corbet's message was. Rather than being a critique of some version of American ideals, it may have been more Straussian than that, but I am not sure.
I like how you framed the implausiblity with which the Van Buren's are written.
> It is strongly suggested that Harry Jr. (Joe Alwyn) molested László’s mute niece
I picked up on that suggestion, which makes it notable that in a script of the film from 2020 it doesn't mention Zsofia tucking her clothes when returning from the water with Harry Lee (who was swimming in the draft), and after Laszlo warns her about Harry, the next line is just "ZSÓFIA nods, appreciative of her uncle’s sentiment."
If he doesn't molest her (other in the sense of annoying her by trying to talk to her), that would explain why she doesn't do anything about it even after she's begun speaking again.
That's when she finally speaks, but there's no indication that has anything to do with her experience with Harry Lee. Also, I don't think Zsofia says anything about America being bad, rather it's Erzebet later who says the country is rotten.
Honestly, if nothing happened between her and Harry then both his comment about not wanting to stick his dick in her and her fussing with her shirt on her return are pointless red herrings. So either it's meaningful, and irritating to me because of what it means, or it's just slopping filmmaking, and irritating to me for that reason.
I found it irritating as well. Good screenwriting is supposed to link events together with "therefore", but this was more like a lot of "and then"s, exacerbated by the refusal to show certain connecting material.
Completely nailed it. I am also unreasonably angered by this film and the reception it’s getting. For all the reasons you give and above all the fact that it was far more typical for the US to welcome the talented people fleeing Europe. Oppenheimer got this right.
We have a culture and film culture that is so devoid of substance and then something like this comes along. Someone finally taking a massive swing. Giving us the experience of a novel or an epic poem on the screen, literal water for thirsty minds and souls. And somehow we can’t wait to shit all over it. You liked Oppenheimer? But not this? Christopher Nolan couldn’t write a human being if his life depended on it. But please Hollywood give Nolan another billion dollars so he can do something about slick mannequins going back in forth in time again.
You need to get out of the business of reviewing art. You show an appalling lack of sensitivity, asking questions that a middle schooler might posit. Sadly, your concrete processing (pun intended) missed much nuance and allusion in the film. Why would you need the story to tell you why Laslo grapples with sexual pleasure when his wife is still in Europe and after he’s been through hell on earth? Or, when she finally arrives and he needs to come to terms with her pain, disappointment, and assumably his own memories. Your concern about his erection says more about yourself than him. Her character in the film said much about the modern Jewish ethos around the value of women and their advancement. This predates the women’s movement (2nd wave) as does his open, yet in the end fractured, relationship with Gordan foreshadow a rift in Jewish-black relationships after post Selma. It’s not up to the filmmaker/storyteller to give history lessons or explain every character. The best art stimulates thought and conversation. To illuminate.
Note- the opening montage showed Toth’s journey in his world as a disorienting whirlpool. Most immigrants through Ellis Island at the time were elated to see her and then faced harsh realities. i’m not sure why using this powerful architectural symbol as a juxtaposed opening devise to should enrage you. In fact, I’m glad I’m not you. The irony of your distain for clunkiness is laughable.
Wasn’t “Lazlo Toth” another improv character from Saturday Night Live actor Don Novello (who mainly played a “gossip columnist” for the official Papal newspaper)?
IIRC Novello published a book under the Lazlo Toth moniker which consisted of prank letters and responses in Toth’s persona as a rabid right wing Republican, ur-MAGA style.
Letters to McDonalds complaining they don’t give out jelly packets with hamburgers, that sort of thing and the hilarious PR dept responses.
The Lazlo Letters https://a.co/d/iaD9yWV
I wonder how the producers didn’t pick that up; maybe Lazlo Toth is like John Smith in Hungary.
I *knew* it sounded familiar! Man, I wish I had realized that.
Laszlo is a very common Hungarian first name, and Toth is a very common surname. I'm not sure it's quite "John Smith" but it's somewhat close. What's interesting is that Toth isn't a particularly Jewish surname.
That has to be more than a coincidence. Brutal.
The film that generated a similar fury for me was Von Trier's "Breaking the Waves", which I thought was pure sadism trying to veil itself as spirituality.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't seen it.
I don't necessarily react negatively to cinematic sadism. I have no interest in the torture porn of the Saw series, but I am basically a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos's work, and to me he seems pretty clearly motivated by sadism.
Or, perhaps better, he's got a deeply sadistic outlook on humanity, a belief that sado-masochism is intrinsic to human relations. He sometimes also strikes me as someone with a sadistic attitude toward his audience, but not always, and that doesn't seem like a central orientation of his art.
I do think it's worth being honest about such things though. Though perhaps that's more the critic's job than the auteur's.
As context, I saw Breaking the Wave in the theater 30 years ago with my girlfriend at the time (a documentary filmmaker) who was interested in seeing it after all its buzz at Cannes. Our relationship was already on the rocks at that point, and it wasn’t helped by the fact that I was so angry after seeing the movie (and inarticulate about the reasons why) that we had an awful afternoon and evening.
Anyway, I spent the next couple of days trying to find every review I could of the film (not the trivial task it is today), looking to find people who share my hatred for it, And I have never been happier with a review than I was when I read Terrence Rafferty’s (probably the critic at the time who best reflected my sensibilities) evisceration of the film and those who were applauding it.
Unfortunately, his review doesn’t appear to be online anywhere, and my memory of what it said (as well as of the film itself) is hazy at best; but what I recall is Raffery acknowledging the brilliance of the acting (Emily Watson was indeed heartbreakingly incredible) and the film’s formal inventiveness, while also asserting that it was fundamentally utterly phony and empty. And that it was being embraced because critics were unable to differentiate between a film that honestly grapples with the themes the movie introduced (religion, love, spirituality, sex, conformity) and a film from a nihilist that simply desecrated the idea of religion like someone spray painting Guernica or the Mona Lisa and calling it art.
Anyway, while I’m loth to encourage anyone to see anything by Von Trier (who I believe is almost certainly a genuine sexual sadist who has found a socially acceptable way through his filmmaking to get his kicks), part of me hopes you’ll see it and then comment here how much you agree with me and Rafferty that it was heinous. On the other hand, God forbid, if you see it and like it, perhaps you can never mention it. :)
I'm a fan of Breaking the Waves. In large part that's because I take it to be an earnest hypothetical that takes the command that Abraham kill Isaac seriously. So many depictions of faith make it easy, make it neatly fit with our conceptions of what's good and who God should be. But if God exists, it seems arrogant to suppose that our liberal notions of virtue should align with his or that our sacrifices for him would seem rational. It's one of the few movies that I find truly provocative and honest about what true faith in a personal God would mean. I'm not sure if that makes it sympathetic or antagonistic towards religion and spirituality, but it's interesting. (And of course it's really well acted and directed.)
The idea that Breaking the Waves is about the sacrifice of Isaac is an interesting one. Although I'd argue it is made by someone who believes that Abraham not only bound Isaac but raped him and who then dwells longingly on that rape.
Fully agree about the quality of the acting. Emily Watson was incredible.
Given my long engagement with the Akedah, now I think I have to see the film.
I wish Substack allowed me to post pictures so I could upload a Drake meme with him rejecting Abraham raping Isaac, but welcoming Abraham killing Isaac.
I saw it today here in Portland in 70mm. I agree with you on nearly every point. Yet, I think it's a good film. (Not a great film, however.) It's flawed, for sure, but a lot of the aspects of it you don't like, I think are what make it ultimately work.
Some of your criticisms are petty, like a certain lawyer we know who never can enjoy a movie involving courtroom scenes because they're not realistic enough, nitpicking each detail. Your criticisms about the Bauhaus movement, whether he could use the publicity to get other projects, and so on, strike me this way.
More importantly, though, I think the grand narratives of the film that you don't like are -- outside of the cinematography and score -- its greatest strength. Narratively, the film it shares the most with this year is The Fire Inside. The films are completely different in how they tell their stories, however. The Fire Inside is much more conventional. But at their heart, they are the same.
Both start with a familiar narrative. In The Fire Inside, it's the classic sports story, someone working hard to overcome adversity and triumph. In The Brutalist, it's the classic immigrant tale, someone coming to the US with nothing, overcoming adversity, and succeeding. Both take these classic narratives and demythologize them.
In The Fire Inside, the black female boxer has her gold medal, but does not live happily ever after. Racism and sexism bar her from the glories and financial success that normally come with a gold medal. No Wheaties boxes for her. In The Brutalist, the movie has only reached the intermission at what would normally be the heroic climax of a film about an immigrant. He has triumphed. He has come from nothing and been recognized for his greatness and been awarded a project worthy of his talents. And then the myth falls apart.
The immigrant isn't accepted and integrated into society. He is still Other. Like in Get Out, the WASPs are jealous of him, they find something beautiful in him and his talent, they want to live vicariously through him or use him (or his niece) when no one is watching. (Maybe in some sense Laszlo is doing the same to Gordon. He treats him as if he's a friend, but then when he's no longer useful and loyal to him, throws him away.) But they don't really care about the immigrant.
While I may not entirely agree with that point, I think there's merit to it and it still persists as a problem. Not only have recent left and right wing antisemitic conspiracies and hate shown that they are still very much a part of our America, but more broadly, WASP America has made salsa the number one condiment, buys hummus and pita at the supermarket, loves to dance to Latin beats, practice Yoga, design their home according feng shui principles, etc, but wants to deport the people who brought these cultural gifts here.
And there's another level of meaning to The Brutalist added by the prologue and epilogue, both featuring the character of the niece. I think of it like an inside-out Straussianism. Whereas in Strauss, the intro and conclusion are there to mislead and the middle holds the truth, here it is the opposite. In the prologue, the niece is being interrogated, but remains silent. When we first meet her and through much of the film, she remains silent. (It's only when she tells her uncle and aunt that she is going to Israel that we hear her talk, iirc. Given that the interrogation involves asking where her real home is, that's probably significant.) In the final scene of the film, however, it's the niece who stands before the world and tells their story.
These two scenes, the prologue and the epilogue, are the keys to understanding the whole movie. I take them to mean that it's only with a true home of their own where Jews can belong and feel free to be Jews without having to give up their customs and identity (like Atilla does in becoming a Catholic named Miller), they no longer need to be silent. They don't have to hide the meaning of the center's concentration camp inspiration, its nature as a memorial to Laszlo and his wife's struggle and love. The movie starts with a quote: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves free." They knew they weren't free. They kept silent. They kept on guard. It's only in the epilogue of the movie they feel truly free, no longer needing to be silent, able to be uncompromisingly themselves.
While about Holocaust surviving Jews, I don't think the movie just applies to the Jewish experience in America. I don't even think it just applies to immigrants. I think it applies to any outsider working within a community where they are the Other. I do think the trope of the Holocaust surviving Jewish immigrant, however, made a lot of sense since it's one of our most enduring myths of successful integration. (That said, I think of the movie as an interesting provocation rather than the truth, just as I did with Get Out or The Fire Inside.)
Again, I agree with most of your criticisms of The Brutalist. It could be an hour shorter. Nearly every sex scene could be cut from it. They treat their characters more like cyphers than real people. But I think conceptually it is quite good, that there is some real depth to it. I also think the cinematography and score are excellent. It also made me feel some kind of way for architecture, which is a good thing.
Yes, I understood all of that. I thought it was extremely obvious what the movie was trying to do. That's part of what I deeply disliked about it -- how obvious it was. I felt like I was being beaten over the head with a hammer for three and a half hours.
But this is what makes horse races! You thought it had real depth. I did not.
"WASP America has made salsa the number one condiment, buys hummus and pita at the supermarket, loves to dance to Latin beats, practice Yoga, design their home according feng shui principles, etc, but wants to deport the people who brought these cultural gifts here."
Bingo!
When I first heard about "The Brutalist" I couldn't wait to see it. The more I learn about it the more convinced I become that I don't want to see it at all.
I had a similar reaction to the film. Not so much anger, as strong disagreement with the message. But after writing about it further, I'm not so sure what Corbet's message was. Rather than being a critique of some version of American ideals, it may have been more Straussian than that, but I am not sure.
I like how you framed the implausiblity with which the Van Buren's are written.
I wrote on the film here: https://hokusai.substack.com/p/on-the-brutalist
> It is strongly suggested that Harry Jr. (Joe Alwyn) molested László’s mute niece
I picked up on that suggestion, which makes it notable that in a script of the film from 2020 it doesn't mention Zsofia tucking her clothes when returning from the water with Harry Lee (who was swimming in the draft), and after Laszlo warns her about Harry, the next line is just "ZSÓFIA nods, appreciative of her uncle’s sentiment."
https://a24awards.com/assets/The-Brutalist-screenplay.pdf
If he doesn't molest her (other in the sense of annoying her by trying to talk to her), that would explain why she doesn't do anything about it even after she's begun speaking again.
Other than move to Israel because America has (purportedly) no place for Jews!
That's when she finally speaks, but there's no indication that has anything to do with her experience with Harry Lee. Also, I don't think Zsofia says anything about America being bad, rather it's Erzebet later who says the country is rotten.
No, fair -- I was being glib.
Honestly, if nothing happened between her and Harry then both his comment about not wanting to stick his dick in her and her fussing with her shirt on her return are pointless red herrings. So either it's meaningful, and irritating to me because of what it means, or it's just slopping filmmaking, and irritating to me for that reason.
I found it irritating as well. Good screenwriting is supposed to link events together with "therefore", but this was more like a lot of "and then"s, exacerbated by the refusal to show certain connecting material.
Completely nailed it. I am also unreasonably angered by this film and the reception it’s getting. For all the reasons you give and above all the fact that it was far more typical for the US to welcome the talented people fleeing Europe. Oppenheimer got this right.
We have a culture and film culture that is so devoid of substance and then something like this comes along. Someone finally taking a massive swing. Giving us the experience of a novel or an epic poem on the screen, literal water for thirsty minds and souls. And somehow we can’t wait to shit all over it. You liked Oppenheimer? But not this? Christopher Nolan couldn’t write a human being if his life depended on it. But please Hollywood give Nolan another billion dollars so he can do something about slick mannequins going back in forth in time again.
You need to get out of the business of reviewing art. You show an appalling lack of sensitivity, asking questions that a middle schooler might posit. Sadly, your concrete processing (pun intended) missed much nuance and allusion in the film. Why would you need the story to tell you why Laslo grapples with sexual pleasure when his wife is still in Europe and after he’s been through hell on earth? Or, when she finally arrives and he needs to come to terms with her pain, disappointment, and assumably his own memories. Your concern about his erection says more about yourself than him. Her character in the film said much about the modern Jewish ethos around the value of women and their advancement. This predates the women’s movement (2nd wave) as does his open, yet in the end fractured, relationship with Gordan foreshadow a rift in Jewish-black relationships after post Selma. It’s not up to the filmmaker/storyteller to give history lessons or explain every character. The best art stimulates thought and conversation. To illuminate.
Note- the opening montage showed Toth’s journey in his world as a disorienting whirlpool. Most immigrants through Ellis Island at the time were elated to see her and then faced harsh realities. i’m not sure why using this powerful architectural symbol as a juxtaposed opening devise to should enrage you. In fact, I’m glad I’m not you. The irony of your distain for clunkiness is laughable.
I think we all know why this film is getting such praise. You. Noticed but just won't say it.
I'll be perfectly honest: I have no idea what you are referring to.