Split Decision: "TÁR"
Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 3:00PM No two people feels the exact same way about any film. Thus, Team Experience is pairing up to debate the merits of each of the awards movies this year. Here’s Chris James and Cláudio Alves on TÁR.
CHRIS: It’s no mistake that people mistook Lydia Tár for being a real person. There’s something authentic and substantiated about TÁR, Todd Field’s third film which centers around a complicated famed conductor. Lydia Tár (Cate Blanchett) doesn’t necessarily have delusions of grandeur, she simply has an inability to see anything below her ivory pedestal. As much as Field and Blanchett have a laser focused idea of this character, the movie never spoon feeds us the narrative. We enter her journey in media res, trying to piece together her home life, her work life and whether the visions in her head are delusions or real threats. It’s a refreshing and engrossing way of telling this woman’s story the way she would want it told, while leaving ample room for interpretation and opinion.
I could go on and on about my favorite movie of the year, as one often does. However, tell me Cláudio, why don't you love TÁR? What elements give you pause?
CLÁUDIO: To point out one's reservations about a colleague's favorite film of the year feels slightly gauche, if not outright mean, but that's the foremost idea of this series, so I should get over it. Moreover, I'm sure Todd Field would appreciate knowing his work caused split reactions. Of all 2022 releases, TÁR often feels like the one most carefully created to provoke its audience and lead it down divergent reactive paths. So much so that, at times, one wonders if the filmmakers know what they're trying to say, or avoid saying, about their protagonist. Do they achieve that maximum ambiguity consistently? I'm not sure. Moments like the tearful reaction near the end feel too forceful in their demand for sympathy, accidentally creating cracks all over the buttresses holding up the picture's nebulous idea of itself.
The attempt at unknowability is valuable, even if it fails. Moreover, I found that these efforts make TÁR the perfect example of a conversation starter in film form. It's something that I instantly value, no matter how many missteps it might commit while getting us to that point.
Indeed, to honor these conversationalist aims, I should probably answer your questions more promptly. To avoid laying out all my misgivings at once, let's start with one specific gripe: Why is this story set specifically within the music world? I find no evidence in the film that its creators fully explored their milieu, concluding that the same narrative beats could have been adapted to other artistic environments without losing anything vital. Cate Blanchett's real-life work makes one's mind wander to a TÁR set within the theater world, focused on the work with actors. I must assume Field and his leading lady would have more valuable insight into that environment, its particularities. To further that point, consider the use of Mahler's 5th, which feels underexplored, an affectation devoid of payoff beyond the most obvious movements.
CHRIS: Do not worry, Cláudio. There's no such thing as a perfect movie, so poke holes away. If I have to admit a fault in my beloved, there are some elements of the final act I take issue with. Yes, I applaud the final shot. To sublimate oneself with art means to become invisible as a person behind the work. It's incredibly tongue-in-cheek that she's gone from the greatest halls to a fandom convention, where IP is the star, not her. However, it's established earlier on that she can't write her own work, she merely conducts others. What I take issue with is the hints of remorse, namely vomiting outside of the massage parlor. It's not that the character can't possess any introspection. Instead, like the tear, that reaction doesn't quite square up with the persona that has been so effectively built up (and torn down) throughout the movie.
Once again, I must check myself since I am hardly a classical music scholar. I think your suggestion that the theater industry be the star is interesting. Personally, I feel like we have seen the tale of an actress with a God complex so many times over, that it would feel less novel. It's Margot Channing constantly in fear of meeting her Eve Harrington. What I love about her being a conductor is the way the job exposes the ways she is brilliant and limited. As a maestro, she gets to be the star of the show without being the person actually writing the piece or playing the instruments that produce the music. She's a conduit. That's why the reveal of her returning to Leonard Bernstein VHS' is so beautiful. She was never his muse, she was a mimic (confirmed by Todd Field). The specific ways where she's talented and overrated are dramatized really well in the musical world. Had theater, film or TV been explored, I worry we could be heading to naval-gazing territory. Dare we get another love letter to cinema?
Speaking of the world of music, I loved the rich cast of characters the movie builds out, even if it feels like the Cate Blanchett show. Nina Hoss takes what could've been a stock wife role and gives her so much agency. Her reaction shots are one of the few things that help us track what is reality and what are Lydia's delusions. Similarly, Noémie Merlant succeeds at bringing more depth to Francesca, Lydia's assistant. Watching her face barely break when Lydia informs Francesca that she will not be Lydia's assistant conductor belies Francesca's true motivations. She supports Lydia only as much as it furthers her own goals. In some ways, Francesca has prepared for this disappointment and is more than ready to hatch her plan B, exposing Lydia's secrets.
CLÁUDIO: You may misunderstand my theatre suggestion. My idea would have been for Cate Blanchett to play a director in sinister reflection of her own work with the Sidney Theater Company. Though many pictures about theater obsess over performers and playwrights, they seldom consider those whose words aren't spoken aloud or get a chance to bask in the audience's gaze. I think you could achieve much of the same dynamic you have in this film if you switched Tár's role this way, maintaining that sense of limitation, the frustrations of being a conduit, a star... yet not a star. It would've certainly made the entire film less distant, more uncomfortable to experience in proximity to its makers – navel-gazing made painful for all involved.
Then again, one shouldn't lose time in the land of 'what if,' dreaming up a film rather than considering the one in existence.
Going back to the actual TÁR, I agree with your assessment that the suggested remorse of those final passages is at odds with the character shown thus far. So is the nebulosity of the setting, suddenly unspecified after hours carefully delineating the maestro's zig-zagging path between Berlin, New York, and New Jersey at long last. But that's another matter altogether. As much as I admire Blanchett, I can't say she solves that remorse conundrum in Field's script. However, since I firmly believe the text – as experienced through watching the film – is the project's Achilles' Heel, I won't blame the actress. But, of course, that doesn't mean I love her performance as much others did.
While feeling half of TFE's readership calling out my "blasphemy!", I must confess to never feeling surprised by any of the actress' choices in TÁR. There's dazzlement aplenty, a showcase for everything Blanchett does best, and a lot of fun to be had with the artist formerly known as Linda Tarr. Even so, it comes off as a collection of showy feats taken from a well-oiled repertoire, surfaces juxtaposed in palimpsestic fashion, faking an interiority rather than embodying such invisible worlds. Like Blue Jasmine, it wouldn't rate among my favorite Blanchett turns. That's another picture so tailor-made for the thespian that it half-sabotages the star at its center – a vexing paradox!
In any case, I'll heartily applaud when they play "Apartment for Sale" as Blanchett's Oscar clip (an unforgivable Original Song snub), but remain unconvinced this is the towering achievement of her career. I am much more impressed by Hoss and, to a lesser extent, Merlant for the very reasons you so beautifully articulate. Shout out to Sophie Kauer, whose gaze often juggles our understanding of Olga's awareness, and much love to Allan Corduner, who aces his big scene in a doozy of apoplectic outrage.
CHRIS: Now comes the time to stand up for Petra's Father himself, Cate Blanchett. I found myself frequently surprised by the choices she made. The opening interview gives us the perfect introduction to Lydia, she's a self aggrandizing blowhard. This is only further proven by her Julliard rant. It's very typical of Blanchett that she really says every word with purpose, making us feel the thought behind every overlong adjective. However, I loved the way Blanchett almost makes Lydia the butt of the joke, while never betraying the core foundations of her character. Nothing is more serious to her than her art.
We mentioned the "Apartment for Sale" scene (agreed that it should be Oscar nominated) but a moment right before that scene remains burned in my brain. I loved her reaction towards her neighbor's family telling her that her music is too loud. She nails this look of incredulity. How could someone not be amazed by her? As the movie goes on and things crumble around Lydia, I remain surprised at how Blanchett keeps Lydia's walls up. There's only a few moments of release, all that seem sudden and surprising. Even though it was teased in the trailer, I was taken aback by the way her face moves as she attacks her replacement conductor. Yes, the movie is tailor made for her, but I think it allows her space to push her strengths to a new level.
Let's turn our attention to the craft of the film. After all, the film begins with the credits, a fun choice for a movie about a woman who sees herself above her collaborators. It's pretty easy to highlight Hildur Guðnadóttir's score. A movie about the music world needs to have a top notch score, and Guðnadóttir really sells the feeling of unrest in Lydia's home, particularly. It's beautiful and haunting. I'm also just struck by Florian Hoffmeister's thoughtful cinematography. Lydia's grandeur really shines through his lensing of her. He also spotlights the fantastically grand, yet empty, concert halls throughout the film, made perfect by production designer Marco Bittner Rosser.
Were there any craft elements that stood out to you, Cláudio, either good or bad?
CLÁUDIO: Rosser's production design is a standout, for sure, as is Monika Willi's sharp cutting. They're the picture's MVPs and should receive all the accolades currently thrown at its script. The spaces are brilliant, as you mention, and I was particularly taken by their delineations of sterile modernity versus the mess of decay. The contrast between the gleaming surfaces of the high art world and the urbane rot Lydia finds herself in when pursuing Olga is majestic. It further amplifies one of my favorite bits of characterization through form – Tár, the person and the film, is all about the inability to surrender control. In all its lugubrious chaos, death is the biggest nightmare of all for what it represents and presents as, be it an off-screen consequence of abuse or a neighbor's body giving up the ghost before our eyes.
When the rest of the cinematic edifice forgets about music and Mahler, Willi's playful rhythmic shifts keep the notion of a varying symphony on the forefront of our mind. She juxtaposes the first half's distended takes with the storming shatters of Tár's downfall, as if the fabric of perceived reality is slipping away from her grasp and fundamentally expressed in timing. Notice how the take's medium length grows erratic, almost feral after the rigorous majesty of yore. This works well with the precise camerawork, where a matter as superficially simple as Blanchett's nearness to the shot's center axis becomes the basis for entire passages.
Hell, the (in)famous speech against the Juilliard student is, above all else, a game of personal control by proxy of the camera's gaze. The lack of cut is a sustained breath driving down a path of asphyxia, while the young man's jumping leg marks a vertical disruption to Tár's horizontal tracking. Does the later cancellation-inducing video denounce Field's shallow understanding of the culture he's analyzing? Maybe. But by God, it's worth it to get that fabulous demonstration of formal finesse.
CHRIS: Well it looks like we are wrapping it up with some TÁR compliments. As Lydia Tár never said, quit while you're ahead. It has been a pleasure discussing TÁR with you, Cláudio. I really enjoyed what you had to say, particularly on the war between sterile modernity and messy decay. Also, thank you for mentioning the "cancellable" Juilliard monologue. Watching that scene, the audience really feels like another member of the class, nervously taking in Lydia's dressing down of one of our own. It's funny to see that powerful scene called back in a TikTok, one of the straws that breaks the camel's back in terms of the public's perception of Lydia. The power, menace and shock comes from the relentnesses and pauses. Put into snackable bites, this EGOT ego-case is just another piece of fodder one can laugh at or discard.
If anything, this conversation has been a reminder as to why we need more films like TÁR. Having a prickly, yet engaging film with built-in contradictions can lead to great conversations. I'm happy we are leaving off while talking about the craft of the film, as the film is unfairly branded as The Cate Blanchett Show. She and Todd Field are the film's maestros, but every craft element fills out the orchestra to produce such a purely cinematic character study.
Any final thoughts on the film?
CLÁUDIO: My final thought is that TÁR is a comedy and would have worked better if it had leaned into that tone. I'm sure anyone who remembers the write-up where I once argued that The Seventh Seal is a comedy must be rolling their eyes, but, I'm being completely serious. Few things made me laugh harder in 2022 than the sound effect as Lydia plummets to the ground face first or the sight of an unhinged Blanchett with an accordion in hand. I may quibble with the picture's quality, its putative depth, but can't deny it's a piece of phenomenal entertainment, prickly and funny, eminently worthy of discussion even if you think it doesn't work.
Thank you so much for indulging my resistance in praising your favorite. Discussing this film with such an incisive defender of its merits was a blast. If and when TÁR nabs a slew of Oscar nominations, perchance a win or two, I'll be happy for it, knowing it'll delight you and other great writers whose opinions I respect regardless of our disagreement.
CHRIS: Thank you so much, Cláudio. About Tár as a comedy... it does feature some of the biggest laughs I had in theaters this year. Really appreciated our conversation on the film!
What side of the debate do you fall on for TÁR? Keep the conversation going in the comments.
- All Quiet on the Western Front - poetic or vacuous?
- Babylon - thrilling or interminable?
- Everything Everywhere All At Once - essential or exhausting?
- The Fabelmans - joyous or phony?
- Triangle of Sadness - facile or multi-faceted?
- The Whale - moving or just plain bad?
Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss, Noemie Merlant, Split Decision, Todd Field, Tár
Reader Comments (16)
This film is really testing my “Oscars should always go to the best performance” stance. I’ve been rooting for Yeoh since last spring. But after seeing “Tár”, I can’t imagine having a ballot and not checking off Blanchett’s name. To me, it really is that towering of a work.
To be clear, I’d be over the moon if Yeoh won. But I think an Oscar for Lydia Tár would stand alongside “Blue Jasmine” as an undeniable win.
Side note: LOVING the Split Decision feature. Claudio and Chris did a great job with this one. I’d be thrilled to see one for “Nope”. Despite its dwindling Oscar prospects, it has (against all odds!) remained my favorite movie of the year, but I know it has many detractors as well.
The famous woke student scene is technically perfect but really rubbed me the wrong way. It just doesn't pass the smell test as a screenplay. No music student in a class like that would throw away his entire career over race/gender politics. I don't believe these types of scenes ever really happen in real life (i.e. off the internet). It's the type of thing "anti-woke" people conceive happens all the time. In my opinion, the movie was built on a house of cards.
Yeoh was every bit as luminous in her role, in her way, as Blanchett.
The most overrated film of the year (well, a tie with TOP GUN: BARF).
My problem is that it's just... not that interesting? We've seen countless stories about monstrously arrogant people abusing their power and getting some kind of comeuppance. Just because it's a woman this time doesn't make it more novel or compelling. As written, Lydia just isn't really all that, and the film is filled with long, leaden, repetitive scenes that keep adding the same notes to this inexplicably loooong movie.
This movie wishes it were Preston Sturges's UNFAITHFULLY YOURS, but it's not half as sharp, funny, or thought-provoking.
When watching it did nobody picture Tilda Swinton in this role,it seems more tailor made for her than Blanchett,
It's definitley one i'd watch again if it came on TV and was thoroughly engrossed less due to Cate but to the supporting performers who were all not perfect,pardon the pun.
I'm with Claudio I expected this type of performance from Cate and whilst she's consistently brilliant nothing would make me put it in my Top 5 Blanchett performances,I could see the tick tick Hepburn once described going on esp during that opening scene.
I thought you were both quite measured in your assessments,it's definitly a film you can disect with others mostly for the ending which I loved.
It was cathartic like the prom scene in Carrie but also quite funny. .
TÁR is an exceptionally well-directed experiment.
Todd Field is practically a genius, because he tests the intelligence of the audience even more than their patience.
The Juliard workshop scene is unique because we got the social media reactions from both ends of the spectrum we thought we'd get:
The left: this is an important scene because the film wants to establish Lydia as a monster
The right: this is an important scene because the film wants to make fun of identity politics
=> Field literally fingers the brains of said members of the audience the way he wanted to finger them, with just one scene! That's genius.
As far as awards go, Lydia Tar is a far more demanding role than the person Yeoh is playing in Everything Everywhere All At Once (See? I don't even remember the name of that character and I'm not going to bother to look it up for this post, that's how just okay that character is).
Blanchett should absolutely win Best Actress at the Oscars. The second best performance of the year is probably Mia Goth in Pearl.
If the Academy wants to reward Yeoh for her career, that's great, the lifetime achievement awards are still very much a thing.
Early in Tar, Lydia is contemplating the suicide of a young woman. Krista has left volumes of evidence that demonstrate how Lydia’s behavior was unacceptable and contributed to a mentally ill woman’s downward spiral. Using a bright red pen, Lydia reformulates Krista’s name as an anagram reading “at risk.” We can do the same with Lydia’s name. Her moniker can be revealed to read “Daily Art” or “I Lady Rat.” Both contain truth.
For me, as skilled as Cate Blanchett is here, the real star of the film is the production design. Back in 1978, Woody Allen made the film Interiors. It was not an immediate success but has grown with time to be a highly regarded piece. The Ingmar Bergman inspired domestic drama used a tasteful beach home of an affluent family to explore the impact of the end of a marriage. The production design utilized space in the home to mark the emotional dissonance presence.
This also occurs in Tar. Each space of blond hardwood floors, Lydia’s home of cement walls, elegant furniture in sparsely populated oversized rooms, all speak to the EGOT-winning conductor’s relationship with her success. These immense, large spaces are filled with Lydia’s presence. We envy her and can also predict her imminent fall from grace.
It appears writer/director Todd Field strives to make a modern tragedy. He succeeds to a point, but I didn’t feel any compassion for Lydia. I think part of that stems from Field’s pedantic efforts to cast Lydia as a villain. When her daughter Petra is victimized by a bully at her private school, Lydia identifies the offending girl across the spacious plaza at the front entrance. She strides quickly to confront and threaten the child before the impressive facade of the school.
Abusive adults promising harm to elementary school bullies is not a solution. Yet, lazy screenwriters rely on the cliche to flesh out character and create substance to a myth that may well endanger parents seeking quick solutions and children lacking advocates.
These type of shortcuts diminish the intriguing premise of Tar and make the nearly three hour film feel long.
To whunk: Clearly you have not been a professor lately if you think "No music student in a class like that would throw away his entire career over race/gender politics." I don't teach music students, but yes, in 2023, they would.
To Mr Ripley79: After the film, I immediately thought that no one other than Cate Blanchett could play this role...except Tilda Swinton. Exactly.
In my opinion, nothing about the story or the main character feels authentic, compelling or interesting. The element that I appreciate the most in this film is the set decoration/production design. This particular aspect of the movie works really well in that it helps us understand the characters and their place in Tár's world. However, the film is filled with clichés presented in an elegant manner. Moreover, Cate Blanchett displays a fair amount of acting technique and makes important efforts in her performance, but the result was a bit unconvincing. I never felt that Lydia Tár was a person, but a vehicle to prove something that we already know... that Cate Blanchett can act. Through a running time of 2 hours and a half devoted to the psychological and emotional journey of this woman, I expected more. So, in conclusion, Michelle Yeoh for the win.
To Finbar McBride: I agree with some of your points, especially the one regarding the production design of the film, which is its most outstanding element. I also feel that the script has some problems that undermine Field's own directorial efforts and the purpose of Blanchett's performance.
I had a sudden intrusive thought the other day: "Michelle Pfeiffer should've played Lydia Tar." And I can't stop thinking about it, it's the one thing that could've made this a better movie lol.
Tar-speak _
"The problem with enrolling yourself as an ultrasonic epistemic dissident, is that if Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality, and so on, then so can yours.”
I have watched TAR five times and I am still not thru with it . First time around _ it is the wordplay in a sibilant war of aural expression . Spontaneous combustion of an existential nature ignites a master class at Julliard . Tar's teaching method is her golden mouth . The frame of reference without limitation. In her discourse . Poets are ripe for the picking . In the course of a frantic encounter with teacher contra student , Tar midsentence and to make a point , quotes Emily Dickinson . With all the euphony of a grandmaster __ " the soul selects its own society " enters the substance of a sentence in the most natural of ways . To take the argument up a thread , She then voices Sigmund Freud's apercu about " the narcissism of minor differences " mined from his book , ' Civilization and it's Discontents '. This is the heave-ho of high culture speaking and Tar drinks metaphor and metonymy from the purest parts of its deepest well . A brilliant woman in a very smart film . I am hooked .
If there is a problem . It is the minor grouse of information overload . The first thirty minutes of this journey is an unrelenting demand for rapt attention from the viewer . Every word counts . We are fast tracked with everything we need to know about the public face of Lydia Tar and the solid foundation from which her thoughts take flight. You will not remember everything you desire to remember . Stop frame , revisit the 'initial' assault in sensorial increments of 3 to 5 minutes. Repeat as needed .
A word on the interview with Adam Gopnik . He__who writes insignificant sound and fury for the New Yorker . Not to mention his habit of shilling celeb bios at high toned publishing events with all the clammy brio of Bert Parks singing "There she goes..."at a Miss America Pageant. To always be the middleman is draining. We can feel his unquiet desperation as he wearies forward with the same-ole pseudo-hip shop-talk that 'infirms' as much as it informs . When he speaks . Tar responds all too abruptly , by clipping off the last syllables of his questions . Just enuf for us to sense how much she despises having to sing for her supper when a book is on the menu. While Tar drones on about the metaphysics of time. Which is her way to hijack the conversation. With prattle as ill sounding as it is absurd . Adam's face is locked in the hebephrenic death-grip of a half smile. Mask off and what we sense is something else altogether . "God get me out of here " is the interior anthem of a talking head with a PhD in "oleaginous" . . And afterwards . In the short space between engagements . After the art- speak . What about the groupie in the lobby ? With Tar in the horizontal crosshairs , this lady on the make is clearly aiming for a roll in the hay. The law of attraction really takes hold when Tar admires the girl's red purse , and grabs at it with an intensity almost obscene . Eros intrudes with the urgent impudence of a handbag subbing for a personal appliance . To no avail ! The interview with Tar gives us a place to camp . Now where is that bullet proof vest ?
The story of Tar's life begins long before she is born . But first. How does someone like a Tar exist ? To understand her . We look to her in the context of the symphonic ritual __ " The composer as a ‘musical creator ' is a being comparable to the gods’. As for the conductor , he , she or they is a shaman , a magus " . From what I know by experience__ If one is actively affianced to the nod of a noise writ large with , color , line and form . The rhythm of that endeavor creates a 'high' so intense that everything else in life is absolutely less than . When the muse descends . Ecstasis occurs . Completely at odds with the habits of everyday existence . There is no better place to be . The corollary ?! The price of genius is general failure in all other aspects of what it generally means to be a good person . If you make art .Your first allegiance is to your art. In that light . Outside the inner circle . From without , looking in. Genius might seem a curse . As for Music . All Art aspires to the condition of Music . Say what ?! Music is Feeling . Which is primal . Which is innate. The takeaway __Feeling is Meaning . Never ask what does "it" mean. "It" means nothing . The proper question , the only question to ask is __how does "it" make you feel ? Bernstein says as much from the clip near the end of the film .
Now for the Trojan Horse in the guise of a Novel. Whose storyline is lifted into the present tense of what we are seeing on the big screen . And yes ! Tar uses her position as a pipeline for casual sex with students . No strings . No promises . With a career boost as a done deal ?! Perhaps ! But more than likely. Just the whisper of a hopeful 'perhaps' dangling out of reach, as a quid pro quo.
The one scene in the film whose import we might miss . Because we do not suspect a backstory like the one we are about to receive . In the slyest of ways. The arrival of the book becomes a sword thrust from the unwanted machinations of a spurned lover . TAR is gifted with a first edition of "Challenge" by Vita Sackville West . Tar goes ballistic . She rips the book apart and stuffs surviving shreds down a trash chute . We are left in the dark about this. Obviously there is a connection . What might it be ? Irony abounds . This writerly intrigue from an antique age deftly road-maps the incendiary situation of an imperious Tar just about dogged to death by an ex post facto fatal attraction marking progress in the discard bin of the Lydia Love Machine. Checkmate ! And time for another leap . In the eternal now. The past is never dead . It isn't even past . Tars interior universe of disengaged aggression time-shifts the drama . Suddenly we are ninety years back in the UK with Vita and her lover Virginia Woolf . Going back a little further , to Gustav Mahler wed to Alma ; all these players meld the historic past to the fatal implosions of the perilous present . Vita and Virginia are coupled until 1935 . Within that space . Unfaithful to a fault__ Vita's clandestine affair with Violet Trefusis inspires the Sapphic suicide seeded in the novel . A histrionic maneuver put to good use in the film. Agency laced with privilege. Ever so savage ! Sidenote: Vita wears pants when it suits her . That gesture signals the progress of a thousand love affairs , both sides of the channel, with every damsel that comes her way . Alma __ beyond the unnamed many , has affairs with Gustav Klimt and Oscar Kokoschka--who paints her as Bride of the Wind . After Mahler expires she beds and weds Bauhaus Architect Walter Gropius and lastly , the celebrated novelist , Franz Werfel . Time for paradox . Alma is an outspoken anti-semite . Except for the fact that she passionately loves Jewish men. Werfel , a good Jew , but better as an almost Catholic is a majorly successful authorial presence in Europe and America and Alma's last great assignation . In this light , for a self described U-Haul Lesbian , Tar's obsessive womanizing seems altogether reasonable if not normal . Mahler is much the same in his sexual aggressions . He is a skirt chaser . In their life with music . Obsession etches angst in frantic multiplicities of two orchestras at a time and guest conducting between the cracks . Mahler is only able to write in the Spring when the family goes to the country . Like Tar he juggles a vast array of obstacles beyond the immediate intimacies that punctuate achievement in the refining fire that thrives them forward . With career and home. They are always dancing on the edge of a cliff . A quick surmise on Tar's connection to Berlin . It all has to do with Bernstein and two other immensities of human achievement very much a part of the mise en scene __ Wilhelm Furtwangler and Gustav Mahler. Who surmises that fifty years into the future , his music will be fully embraced . In that era, Mahler is seldom performed . The Nazis outlaw his music . Before that . The Jew hate in Vienna is so bad that , as a career move , Mahler converts to Catholicism . For now, Mahler is 'epicly ubiquitous ' . The other influence in Tar's list of "Berlin Immortals" __Wilhelm Furtwangler , is today , not much discussed _ a tragic fate for the greatest conductor ever to grace a podium . Between 1916 and 1932 , at some risk , he conducts Mahler . Symphonies 1 thru 4 . Alas, audiences never warm to the effort . A long sleep for the likes of Mahler. Bernstein is the upset in the equation . Despite the universal indifference of lead footed music lovers. Lenny revives the music of Mahler . And twice _ early career and late__he records the complete symphonic cycle. Hence the , "ich bin ein Berliner" - Tar we have today . Still " treading the tea leaves of Mahler's intentions ". Yes ! She has intimacy issues . Who doesn't ?! The tragedy in her life . Other people ! With one dead and counting . Relationships for her are merely transactions __ daughter excepted . Is that a failing ? The spouse knows . A good wife certainly wiser than Tar . Incredible in every way . The film leaves us in the jungle . It could not be more qrotesque . But this is an interregnum not an end .The good news. Tar is not finished. Mahler's Fifth is waiting . There are no wrong answers here . She will be back .
Gents, it was so much fun reading your volley! You both dug in and make sound points!
I'm with Team Chris on this one, though. I think the Field/Blanchett collaboration here is truly in the league of all-time director/actor combos on creating a profound and original character, up there with Wilder/Swanson, Anderson/Day-Lewis, Haneke/Huppert, etc. They are so deeply in sync and so out there, and it's the sanctity of their partnership that really makes the film soar. It's a superb commentary on the current cultural doubling-down of horrible behavior, executed in a mordantly comic style. Field's control here is masterful, and Blanchett surprised me at every turn. Watching Lydia be partially aware of her flaws, in control of every single thing except her inevitable spiral, behavior she just can't NOT compel herself to do, was the great joy of cinema this year. Bravo to everyone involved on this one!
“Tar” is a conversation piece, this year’s equivalent of the fashionable coffee table book that everyone happily spouts an opinion on. Most of the conversation is more witty, clever, and thoughtful than the actual piece they are talking about.
For movie critics, engendering conversation is the highest virtue of a movie. It allows them to display their talents, and claim a prominence for their professional bread and butter. That the piece they are discussing is empty, just gives more space to fill.
One aspect not discussed is one of the the first that struck me watching the movie: “OMG, what has Cate Blanchett done to her face!?”
When I watched Catherine Zeta Jones in Netflix’s “Wednesday”, I thought oh, CZJ has the same face Cate Blanchett has now. I watched poor CZJ try to convey an emotion in close up, her eyes were alive, but her face was immobile, like Blanchett’s is now.
Blanchett only has 3 or 4 facial expressions now. The rest has to be expressed through bodily posture or vocalization, part of Blanchett’s strong arsenal of technical skills. The accordion scene, for example, filmed at a distance, where you can’t see the face, foregrounds body and voice skills.
Overcompensation of body and vocal skills can veer towards hamminess. Also the forced quality directed towards viewers of “Look here! Don’t look there!” can create resistance in the viewer.
The viewer (and the camera) turns towards Nina Hoss, who still has a Real Face. We watch minute and subtle expressions skim fleetingly across Hoss’s face and connect with her, and think oh yes, this actress is really good. The camera staying on Noemie Merlant’s face while listening to Lydia, captures again the facial subtleties of inner rage and resentment.
TAR sparks alotsa intellectual conversations & healthy debates which is actually good.
I believe this is what Field/Blanchett set out to do, They are not giving us an easy movie to follow or an unlikeable protagonist with a typical redemption arc at the end of the movie. They are challenging us w a conceptual movie and changing our view of how a movie should play.
I guess this is why all the major critics groups are naming TAR as best pic of the year and Blanchett; the best performance. To them, this is a great exciting think-piece. And I can't disagreed on tt.
On a technical level, TAR/Blanchett probably fulfils every aspects call upon them. But as a movie, it really leave one COLD. where is the HEART in the story? Who or what do we, as audience, root for?
Blanchett gives perhaps technically the best performance of the year, and maybe even her career. It IS really a crowning achievement in her storied career and that, we cant take it away from her, no matter how we feel about her interpretation and acting choices.
But tt horrendous acceptance speech!!
I was torn between wanting her to win the Oscar for this crowning achievement and Yeoh for HER crowning achievement. And now her tone deaf acceptance speech at the critics choice tips me towards Yeoh, who I know will certainly be much more grateful if she wins.
So maybe Blanchett like Tar, over confident in herself and tone-deaf to the real world, gets her comeuppance in the end? lol
FYI: Bette Davis' character in "All About Eve" is Margo Channing, not Margot. Margot is Anne Frank's older sister.
These 'Split Decision' pieces are fascinating. Always interested to hear the other side - although I'm all in for TÁR. I don't I've been as excited by a film since PARASITE.