Analyzing the Controversy Surrounding the Final Scene of The Brutalist

This article contains SPOILERS for the ending of The Brutalist!

The film The Brutalist, nominated for Best Picture at the 2024 Oscars, has ignited considerable debate regarding its climactic final scene. Lead actor Adrien Brody portrays László Tóth, a Hungarian-Jewish architect torn from his wife during World War II. Following the war, he immigrates to America, where a wealthy patron, Harisson Lee Van Buren (played by Guy Pearce), aids in his professional ascent.

As is typical with many films in the Best Picture race, The Brutalist has become a focal point for heated discussions among film enthusiasts. While the movie has garnered critical acclaim, it is its ending that remains particularly divisive. Director Brady Corbet has acknowledged viewers’ varied interpretations of his work and the messages within, prompting deeper inquiries into art and filmmaking as a whole.

Analyzing the Final Scenes of The Brutalist

A Climax of Confusion: The Film’s Closing Moments

Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones in The Brutalist

The conclusion of The Brutalist raises numerous questions, featuring two enigmatic scenes that leave the audience pondering about their implications. In a pivotal moment, Erzsébet Tóth (Felicity Jones) accuses Van Buren of sexually assaulting her husband in Pennsylvania. His abrupt exit leaves a sense of mystery, further compounded by the film cutting away without clarifying his fate.

Viewers are then taken to a high-profile ceremony honoring László Tóth, signaling a dramatic shift in his fortunes despite the ominous previous scene. The final moments transition into a heartfelt speech delivered by Zsófia, showcasing László’s architectural achievements over two decades and reflecting on his life, yet this seems disconnected from the earlier tension, leaving many unresolved questions.

The Debates Surrounding the Film’s Ambiguity

Viewer Reactions: Confusion and Reflection

Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones at dinner

Ambiguity often drives discourse among filmgoers because of its potential to evoke confusion and frustration over unresolved narrative arcs. With László Tóth as the central figure, audiences typically seek closure to his story. However, the film is emblematic of the broader experiences of numerous artists and immigrants with similarly harrowing tales, suggesting that the intricacies of László’s journey serve more as a representation rather than a definitive account.

While the frustration stemming from the film’s perplexing ending is understandable, the intentional ambiguity allows viewers to engage their imaginations. The journey of Tóth and Van Buren transcends mere resolution; it encourages each audience member to interpret the aftermath through their unique perspectives, resulting in a thought-provoking experience tailored to individual reflection.

Insights from Director Brady Corbet on the Final Scene

Corbet’s Perspective: The Power of Ambiguity

In a conversation with Entertainment Weekly, Brady Corbet addressed the intentional ambiguity of his film’s conclusion. He described Zsófia’s speech as a crucial glimpse into Tóth’s outlook on his community center project, although its authenticity remains open to interpretation. Corbet emphasized, “There are themes I’m happy to unpack, but I never undress them completely because for me, then the film’s sort of magic in the conversation around them ceases to exist.”

Corbet values the dialogue that arises from uncertainty in his film’s ending. By not explicitly explaining the final scenes’ meanings, he preserves the potential for rich discussions and varied interpretations. The essence of great art lies in its ability to provoke questions, prompting audiences to reflect both introspectively and on unfamiliar external realities. If he were to provide definitive answers about The Brutalist, he would forgo the opportunity for viewers to engage in meaningful conversations.

Source & Images