Interview: Guy Pearce on the Beauty and Violence of ‘The Brutalist’ and Van Buren’s Call to His Therapist

Guy Pearce is a bit of a chameleon. After getting his start as an actor in the Australian soap opera Neighbours, Pearce starred as drag queen Felicia Jollygoodfellow in the surprise sensation The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Then, in 1997, he made his American film debut exploring the city’s dark underbelly in Curtis Hanson’s L.A. Confidential, and a slew of unique projects followed, including Christopher Nolan’s iconic thriller Memento, The Hurt Locker, The King’s Speech, and his Emmy-winning turn in Todd Haynes’ limited series Mildred Pierce. This year, Pearce has a role that has already earned him a handful of critics prizes and nominations for Best Supporting Actor at the Golden Globes, Critics Choice Awards, and, most recently, the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards (AACTA). 

In Brady Corbet’s spiky, sophisticated new epic, The Brutalist, Hungarian architect László Tóth (Adrien Brody) finds himself in Philadelphia and soon in the clutches of a mysterious, wealthy client, Harrison Van Buren (Guy Pearce). Van Buren is looking to construct a project in memory of his mother and needs László to design and build it. As the project and the film continue on, Van Buren first lives vicariously through László’s genius, then grows eager to crush him under the weight of his jealousy. In my review of the film out of New York Film Festival for AwardsWatch, I described Pearce’s illustration of Van Buren as “a rich man with a twinkle in his eye, a penchant for regaling others with tall tales, and a spark of sadism that makes him feel like the long lost brother of Daniel Plainview and Lancaster Dodd.” Speaking with Pearce illuminated new facets of the character and his nuanced performance and, perhaps most importantly, made me even more excited that I had tickets to see it again this week.

As I logged on to speak with Pearce via Zoom, he immediately commented on the Rebecca poster behind me (a popular talking point in a number of interviews I’ve conducted). Thinking of it now, it’s ironic that we began our conversation referencing Maxim de Winter, a charming, wicked man who (like Van Buren) subtly upends the lives of all around him from within the walls of his beautiful, imposing estate. 

**This interview contains spoilers for The Brutalist**

Sophia Ciminello: Hi, Guy, it’s great to see you again.

Guy Pearce: Hi, Sophia, nice to see you. Is that Errol Flynn in the background? No…who is that I see back there?

SC: Ah, that’s Laurence Olivier (leans to the side to show the full Rebecca poster).

GP: Oh yes, it is Laurence Olivier. He’s certainly more interesting than my background here at the hotel (laughs).

SC: (Laughs) I know the feeling. Thank you for speaking with me today about The Brutalist. It’s one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. 

GP: Yeah, thanks. It’s a pretty great film, isn’t it? I think Brady is an exceptional talent and definitely someone to watch, no question. 

SC: Van Buren is such a thorny character, and I felt myself responding very differently to him as the film continued. Was there a moment in the script where it just really clicked and you felt like you understood him as a character?

GP: I don’t know if there was a moment because I think what’s great about the film and this script is that all of the characters have sort of slow reveals on some level. We also get a pretty clear picture of who Van Buren is in that first scene where we’re left to feel that he’s a bit unpredictable, I suppose. So I don’t know if there was a moment where it really clicked, but I was just immediately taken in by the writing because it was so good and each character was so finely tuned. And I’ve been asked a couple of times what I had to go and do to build this character and I just say, “I didn’t really have to do anything.” He was already built and I just got shown who he was, and I thought, well, I’m on board. 

So, yeah, I think, you know, there’s a particular event that happens towards the end of the film and I needed to understand that. So there was a bit of a discussion with Brady about the whole film, but I would come back to that a few times just to get a sense of the point of it and the existence of it, what it meant for everyone around him, where it came from. So we had a few discussions about power and really the brutality of nature. The brutality of us as creatures and what we’re capable of doing, and that there can be no limits sometimes in what we’ll actually do. That was the key there. And it speaks to, you know, if you’re a person in pain, you might do something horribly painful to someone else in order to feel yourself somewhat resolved or somewhat powerful. We see it all the time in the world with the horrible things people are doing to other people, so it speaks to that, yeah. 

SC: And that scene that I believe you’re referencing, what’s so striking about it, too, is that harsh, natural setting with that Carrara marble around you.

GP: Well, you know, it’s funny actually. Not really funny, but when we were filming in Cararra, we got driven to this particular quarry which is really high up, so we had to drive a long way up these winding roads up the side of this mountain. And, of course, the further we went up, the more you were able to see down and see the amount of devastation in these hillsides that’s occurred in the last 500 years of them excavating this marble. There was fog and mist, so it was so beautiful and horrible as well. There was something just so graphic and violent about what gets done here in order for us to have a beautiful marble kitchen bench at home where we go, “Oh, isn’t this beautiful?” and you see what has to be done in order to acquire and achieve that. There’s a lot of that in the film where there’s this great sense of beauty and also real pain. So, that’s why the film feels epic in a way; we all experience those sorts of extremities at some point or other. 

SC: And I’m curious about what you think of Van Buren’s taste in art and architecture because he clearly surrounds himself with beautiful things. Do you think he has his own taste? Because he really isn’t attracted to László’s work until he knows he can put it in that magazine.

GP: Yeah, on some level, he’s more attracted to László and his work because of László’s commitment to it. That’s a good question because I’m not actually sure what Van Buren’s taste would be. I think he’s someone who can appreciate great art no matter where it comes from, but the dichotomy is that with that appreciation immediately comes a sense of possession and a desire to possess it rather than to genuinely stand back and take it in and just kind of sit with that. It immediately wakes up in him the feelings of envy and greed and this need to control. So, the violence in that or the insecurity or difficulty in that is never far from the surface. As much as he can present this charming kind of grandiose, warm, and engaging creature, the more, right under the surface, there’s a gun ready to go off. And we see that in the first two scenes where hopefully our audience is thinking, “Uh, I don’t know what I’m going to get with this guy.” (Laughs) He could go at any moment. 

SC: (Laughs) Exactly. That moment when your character sees that László has a sort of creative genius that he doesn’t have seems to be when he starts acting out towards him more openly.

GP: That’s right and it’s also László’s sense of self-possession. Even though he’s come from trauma, he’s in a foreign land; he’s trying to start a new life. He’s in a very insecure place; he has a sense of confidence in himself that Van Buren doesn’t. And I think on some level it’s that that makes Van Buren go, “Oh, wow you’re a fascinating study. I wish I could be more like you. I want to be you. I want to destroy you.” And so he’s really testing Van Buren, and it was wonderful that Adrien played the character in the way he did. He could’ve played him as a meek sort of..I mean he wouldn’t have because that’s not how he was written in the script, but you imagine he could’ve played him as a more subservient character, which is what I think Van Buren would expect him to be. 

SC: Definitely. And we feel that when he takes him out to lunch. 

GP: Yes, and when I say to him in that cafe scene, “Why didn’t you speak up for yourself more?” I don’t think Van Buren really believes that. I think he thinks sure, you could’ve told me that you were this amazing architect and you’ve done all this great work, but I think in a way it’s just his way to try to be condescending. You know, “people like you don’t speak up for themselves.” When, in actual fact, Adrien in that scene, when I come in and explode at the beginning, I think he’s standing his ground in a really impressive way. I just can’t see it because I’m so enraged at that point, you know?

SC: Yeah and it’s so fitting that we meet your character in that moment of rage because it does make him seem like an unpredictable livewire and like he could go off the handle at any point.

GP: Yeah and you know, my mother used to tell me stories of her father who was a drinker. In the evenings, he would drink too much and get all aggressive and boisterous and loud and abusive. I don’t think he physically hurt anybody, but he was horrible to mum and to his wife. And then the next day he’d wake up and everyone was a bit gun-shy and he’d say, “Come on, what’s wrong?” He was the life of the party and a jokester and thought he was really funny, but everyone was annoyed with him at that point. So, it’s this ability to kind of flit from one thing to the other and everyone else is going, “Uh, fuck off.” (Laughs).

SC: (Laughs) Oh, yeah, and could you feel that attitude towards your character from others within the script?

GP: Yeah, it’s just like in that cafe scene with Adrien where he’s going, “I can appreciate what you’re telling me about my work but I don’t trust you.” It’s an interesting dynamic. And then when Erzsébet, Felicity Jones’ character turns up, she can see right through me immediately, too. Yeah, there was a good dynamic between the three of us as well. 

SC: I also have to ask you about the ending because it’s such a bold decision to leave the film with so much ambiguity around your character. What do you think that says about Van Buren and the response that powerful people can have to confrontation?

GP: Well, yeah, it’s an interesting point and Van Buren, at that point in the film just vanishes. He’s reduced to and just becomes nothing and in a way maybe he was always nothing. Maybe he was just some sort of apparition in a way. People ask me, “Where did he go? What did he do?” To be honest, I don’t really think I have a determination of what he might have done. There are probably three or four things he could’ve done. What’s more interesting to me is the idea that our audience is left thinking, “How is this person who was so visible and so present and so domineering and in control now gone and vanished?” And also how that then plays out as far as the audience having to ask those questions for themselves. It’s the opposite of a happy ending I suppose. Things aren’t wrapped up. It’s great. 

SC: I agree. I love that we’re left with those loose ends.

GP: Yeah, it was such a great choice by Brady to say this guy has vanished and nobody knows what to do with that. I would joke and just say, “He’s gone off to do a lot of therapy.” (Laughs)

SC: (Laughs) Oh, that’s perfect. Can you imagine?

GP: (Laughs) Right, he’s just called his therapist and said, “I’ll be there shortly.” 

SC: I think that’s the perfect way to wrap up. Thank you again, Guy, and congratulations!

GP: Pleasure. Thanks, Sophia. Good to talk to you.

A24 will release The Brutalist in select theaters on December 20 before a wider rollout in the coming weeks.