...and I did hate the last 15-20 minutes. So much so that I now hate the entire film except for her remarkable performance.
For anyone wanting the sort deep dive interview that would fit nicely on a Criterion release, I recommend this hourlong interview with Todd Field. (The link opens to a browser player but it should be available at all the usual podcast services.) It’s thoughtful and revealing without “answering questions.” I’d argue he does this by focusing on the process of writing, directing, and editing. It touches on some symbols, whether intentional, a recognized byproduct of the creative process, or pure accident. It’s one of the best, most level headed discussions I’ve heard in a long time by an artist (or what the internet sadly calls, “a creative”). He also addresses varied estimations of what the end can mean relative to her career, the state of modern classical performance, historical context, etc. with more nuance and sensitivity than I seem to encounter in my reading. I only saw this film yesterday. When I discovered it was added to Peacock, I excitedly added it to my queue. Whenever I saw it’s thumbnail I lamented that even with my desire to see it and my love for “art films,” I could just tell much might be most for me even on a 65” screen where I could pause if not engaged enough. Yesterday, I randomly decided to see if anything was showing nearby besides, say, Cocaine Bear (which I will admittedly watch if it hits a streaming service I subscribe to!). Unexpectedly, I discovered Tár had a $5 showing an hour later. I couldn’t resist. And while sitting in the theater with a half dozen others, I couldn’t take my eyes of the screen (the phenomenally controlled acting, visual design, etc.) or my ears off the sound design. I was engrossed from the first “end credit” at the opening all the way to the actual end. I tried to put out of mind the theory I accidentally stumbled on that the last act might be a dream sequence. I see no indication in the film itself or, thankfully, in this interview. The only thing I wish might have been pointed out by the interviewer — not in the end, but somewhere in the middle — is Tár’s leaning on the word “robot” as an insult (five times by my count). As a character obsessed with time, whether in terms of her own lifespan, the passage of time in general, intervals, or how conducting is itself a sort of controlling of time, something about using that mechanical term that itself implies being a slave to its programming is curious to me. Not in a way I seek “an answer” but in that it seems thematically relevant. Luckily, since he doesn’t address it, this will be one more book I suspect will be rewarding on rewatch. I haven’t seen nearly enough movies to call it the best of the year but, with its stoic approach towards a character with whom it is impossible to embrace fully, it was a near perfect film for me. I’ll count myself lucky if I find anything more enjoyably engrossing to watch, think about, watch again, and hopefully debate.
Just my 2 cents as a filipino, the scenes at the end don't look at all like the Philippines even if that is the intent. It works ok as it is though and I'm sure most won't notice anything amiss.
I thought it was Thailand at first, then the Philippines,and came to the conclusion we're not supposed to know. Your post makes me more sure of that.
I absolutely loved Tar and if you haven’t seen Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis movie, I highly recommend you do. The cinematographer, Mandy Walker, maybe the first woman to ever win an Oscar in this category. I also loved the cinematography in Tar. Both movies were just beautifully filmed.
I applaud Todd for making a film that blows on in the opposite direction of most Hollywood films. Blows sand in the eyes of Marvel & Star Wars followers.
This movie was so great. The way it unfolded was really incredible. After reading discussions and thinking about it more, I really can't wait to watch it again (which will probably be soon). Going to check out his other films too
I thought the ending was brilliant, a continuation of the ambiguity of the entire movie. Lydia/Linda is triumphant: she is still working, conducting, and living music. Lydia/Linda is defeated: no longer playing Mahler in Berlin, she has to play weeb anthems in Manilla or somewhere similar.
And yet the Academy barely gave this film any recognition at all. I even felt it in the audience's reaction.
My take is different; Lydia Tar was a young idealistic musician with an authentic love of music and a terrifically talented ear for it, gifted with beauty, intelligence, and charismatic stage presence, who got carried away by the seductions of power and privilege. All that laser-focused hard work and study paying off- the mastery of her craft, fluency in several languages, the steady accumulation of awards, acclaim, and high-salaried positions, the first class accommodations... the long career ascent by a pioneering woman conductor, possibly the best in the field. A woman eminent in the most prestigious of arts, having fully arrived at a status that was practically unimaginable, given the unprepossessing circumstances of her upbringing. And then she got used to the perks. A little too used to them, so she started stepping over the line. There's nothing particularly horrible about a character like that. Hubris is the classic temptation for someone in that position. Lydia Tar is almost certainly a groomer and a perpetrator of abuse, but she's also a tragic figure. She doesn't even appear to have been self-aware enough to fully comprehend what she was doing. People compartmentalize. The film is more of a warning about the temptations of the insular comforts of wealth, status privilege, and power than it is an indictment of a single individual. As it happens, I watched Tar last night, and then stayed up to watch a quite different rise-and-fall movie on TCM- There Will Be Blood. Now there is an unlikable human being. The central character, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) isn't just a person of prominence who started getting free-handed with offering young proteges promises of career advancement entwined with erotic dalliances- he's practically possessed by the Devil Himself. Anyone who thinks that "abuse is abuse" should watch both of those films in sequence.
Interesting take but I feel like the world (of at least the privileged world) have see enough of these examples of celebrities getting into trouble where they know it’s wrong and they should know not to use their power over these people to groom them sexually. It will eventually lead to their downfall and it seemed like Tar could care less that it happened and felt she did nothing wrong.
Your analysis is so great I needed to highlight it for emphasis. Lydia is no different than a great many of the world's male celebrities and politicians who start out with great intentions, but eventually succumb to all the temptations and unchecked power that comes with stupendous fame.
You don't seem to realize how recent the swing toward spotlighting abuses really is- and how unprecedented it is. In a single generation, we've swung from de facto impunity for the powerful to a bias toward believing the accounts of accusers. Sometimes without due process, and with a predisposition toward judging people as guilty based on the mere fact of accusation. Oftentimes the exact details are given short shrift. There are also gray areas in the variability of how "abuse" is defined nowadays, and these changes have been quite sudden. The mere fact of a "power differential" appears to serve the same function as a chastity belt, c.2023. As if there's no such thing as the power of two adults to communicate consent or negotiation of boundaries. As if there's no such thing as legitimate mutual desire between adults, unless it's between two people of roughly equal occupational status, AND also "age-appropriate." That simply isn't reality. What's the difference between "grooming" and attempted seduction? None, if both parties are of age. At some point, the person being seduced needs to decide whether the feeling is mutual, or whether it's necessary to draw the line and deflate the seducer. If it goes on after that, there's a problem. But without the ability of a romantically interested person to properly communicate their desire- emphasis on "properly"- then there's nothing but outwardly imposed remoteness, tension, and frustration. There's no indication in the film that Lydia Tar was Harvey Weinstein, okay? That comparison is inappropriate.
The comparison is appropriate if only for the fact that she, someone with giant amount of power in her industry, would prey on young, up and coming artists in the same industry, and then smear their image/deny them positions/completely blackball them if something doesn't go to their liking (Francesca, Krista) Although we don't fully know the extent of her behavior, it seems the scale is not as large as Weinstein's abuse was. But it still was abuse
I don't disagree. My original point is that there's a marked difference of degree and severity between the abusive behavior of Lydia Tar in Tar, and Daniel Plainview, in There Will Be Blood. Tar is a person who's abusing their power for their own private ends in a way that's unethical and reckless. She may even have prompted the suicide of a young woman. But she didn't intend it. Whereas Daniel Plainview relishes using his power and privilege to destroy anyone who crosses his path, committing several murders in the process. To bring up another example from 21st century American cinema, the question for me is where George Clooney's character in Ides Of March, Governor Mike Morris, resides on that continuum of abusive behavior. He may be even worse than Daniel Plainview.
The problem is that the stratospheric level of privilege is blinding, and numbing. It doesn't serve the purpose of clarifying reality; it works to cloud it. The lesson I keep turning up in American literary arts, whether in nonfiction, novels, or balladry: don't get carried away. We have to learn the wisdom of Enough. Knowing what Enough is. That there is such a thing. Something everyone has to learn for themselves. But definitely something to learn. Without that wisdom, good fortune, wealth & status privilege can turn really toxic.
That is a very, very sharp review. A lot of close attention to detail. Also a neat elaboration on the wider social significance. Thanks for linking it. Particularly neat insight here: "I do not mean to suggest that art works can be divorced from social context, only that our reactions to them are not, in themselves, public statements, acts of harm, or good deeds." I haven't heard that point so well-expressed before. A couple of minor side quibbles: "One of the few characters to challenge Lydia directly—a “BIPOC pangender”-identifying Juilliard student who struggles to connect with Bach because of his “misogynistic life”—is not given the time to make a full or coherent argument for a more inclusive canon." That's because the student isn't making that argument. They're arguing for dismissing J. S. Bach- Bach!- from the canon as "problematic" and implicitly unnecessary, solely on the basis of Bach's sexual orientation, i.e., his "misogyny" (entirety of the evidence entered into the record: "he fathered 20 children.") Not a quarrel with the merits of Bach's musical contributions, or an argument for how his inclusion displaced a BIPOC of equal of more merit. Just...********. "A crowd at the Venice Film Festival reportedly cheered as Lydia dressed down the Juilliard student, identifying with her exhaustion in the face of cultural sensitivities..." I cheered, too. Lydia Tar is justified in shutting the fool down. And the problem isn't simply a matter of "cultural sensitivities." It's about an aggressive turf claim- someone imagining that they can do without an artist foundational to their own artform, on the basis of their racial origin and sexual preference. I'm also unimpressed with this gratuitous resort to hoary cliche: "the seams of her [Tar's] self-invention, as she fans out a series of records featuring dead white men onto her floor and chooses one to emulate" Let's be clear: no matter what "color" and sex they were, 99.9% of the artists worth emulating have left the room already. To disdain them is to limit oneself to the works of ones own contemporaries- and practically all of the ones doing work of any merit are drawing on the influence of the departed. So that statement is about as empty of meaningful content as it gets. The authentic greats of history aren't going anywhere, whatever the crimes alleged to be connected with their birth-assigned status. Other than that, an excellent essay. I've only mined a small sample of the passages actually worth quoting (the first one.)
I’d argue that Tár uses her position to shut down the argument rather than hear it because she subconsciously sees it as an attack on herself. It’s clear the student is nervous and finds it difficult to match verbal wits with someone who is regularly on the talk show circuit. Tár see this uncertainty in the student and bashes him over the head with it, embarrassing him in front of the class and even inappropriately touching him. She’s using her weapons in that scene very specifically. He’s on his heals and she knows it. Tár doesn’t want to entertain the thought that a person’s behavior might impact how an artist’s work is viewed. That may be how she feels and others like her feel, but not everyone feels the same. Had she actually listened and at least considered the thought there was an invaluable lesson in what the student said. Such is the tragic hero who creates their own bad ending. Tár’s inability to see the student’s point of view is foreshadowing her own downfall from beloved conductor to a human metronome based on her abuse of power. She saw herself as untouchable as Bach, she saw the power of arts as unquestionable and untouchable.
Mmmm, have to differ with you on this. Tár actually makes a very coherent point about the student excluding a major contributor to the classical canon on the basis of a social bias. His argument is not a musical one. It’s the main point that she tried to get across. Tár‘s approach reflected her persona, which in this case was partly instruction and partly performance. She was at every stage of their interaction in the dominant position and had him on the defensive from the moment she asked him why he chose the piece to conduct to start with. I don’t see how she might have felt personally threatened or insulted by the him at any point. Although I didn’t like her style, particularly in revealing the slight contempt she seemed to have for the student’s opinion, her point, in terms of musical education, was absolutely valid. And, btw, quite practical; did the kid actually think he could have a career conducting classical music without recourse to JS Bach at some point (rather a like a Juilliard Drama student telling a visiting Meryl Streep that he didn’t feel the need to play Shakespeare)? The scenario, in this sense, is an unlikely one, particularly considering the rigorous requirements for attending schools like Juilliard and Curtis.
The reason that the audience at the Venice Film Festival cheered that scene is because the "argument" presented by the kid is about on par with a 'straight white male' jazz piano student refusing to have anything to do with the contributions of Cecil Taylor because he's gay and African-American. How is someone who teaches the art of music supposed to respond to nonsense like that? It isn't an argument based in on art, it's an ad hominem fallacy. And yes, many of us are "exhausted" with hearing such blatant logical fallacies as if there were some validity present in them, with which we're expected- implicitly demanded, really- to sympathize. If a classical music student thinks that Bach's use of counterpoint was too overripe, fine, let them make the case. If a jazz pianist wants to take issue with Cecil Taylor's pedal use and dynamics or his improvisational flow, they can argue their points. But deferring to matters of identity in those cases as if they have some bearing on the argument- are you kidding? And yes, Lydia Tar is brusque and impatient, and her tone of skepticism has an edge to it. Welcome to the big leagues. Actually, she did entertain the thought. Momentarily, which all an argument that meritless deserves. Again- what's the lesson to be drawn from someone refusing to play Bach, because they disapprove of how many children he sired? Do hetero students of classical music also get to refuse to have anything to do with the gay composers in the European classical canon?
I think he finds it difficult to match verbal wits because she possesses a greater intelligence. Appearances on television wouldn't be nearly as important of a factor.
I don't think it's a matter of either status inequality or an imbalance of intelligence. The reason the student can't match wits with her is because they don't have a valid argument to make. Even if the person might actually happen to be of equal or superior intelligence to Lydia Tar in all other respects. That's one of the most serious flaws of foregrounding Categorical Identity Typecasting as a (or, worse, as the) crucial concern in regard to even the most tangential matters of culture, social values, or politics. It's an obsession that always dumbs down the adherent into a less intelligent person than they otherwise would be. It's even worse than ideological rigidity in that respect.
