I find myself mostly in agreement with the points that Tár made in her Juilliard lecture; to dismiss all the canonical works of classical music just because they were written by patriarchal men is to limit oneself. But Tár gives the students advice that she doesn’t follow herself - she encourages them to “obliterate themselves” (their egos, their identities, etc) and, in humility, pursue the meaning of the music and intent of the composer. However she’s unable to grasp that humility for herself. She’s in fact obsessed with her own identity, she’s constantly googling herself and editing her own Wikipedia, monitoring Twitter for public reactions to her work. In terms of her own identity, she behaves in her work and personal life very much like a man. In her interview, she dismisses the idea that she ever had trouble dealing with sexism as a female conductor. She suggests to her colleague that they open up the foundation she set up for female conductors for men as well. What struck me as well was the moment she berated her daughters schoolmate for her bullying and introduced herself as “Petra’s father”. That was so incredibly interesting, and I feel like nobody is talking about that scene. If she didn’t care about identity, why does she adopt this “male” persona?
The first point you make (the Julliard lecture) is fertile grounds for many diverging; and converging points. Is one's expression of talent and genius separate from who they are in their daily lives? Where are the lines drawn between livelihood and creative expression? Here a few examples that can illustrate this, not only with Bach or Wagner, but also with Francis Bacon, Miles Davis, Charlie Mingus, Gustav Klimt, and Kubrick just to name a handful. There is a solid philosophical leaning for either side of the coin and to your point yes, it is a a negative narrowing down of one's aesthetic development when one can far too easily dismiss an artist based on their criteria of human values, so indeed it's important to still keep an open mind. There are far too many outstanding artists that were very questionable in their lives due to the times, the prevailing cultures that surrounded them, the prominent beliefs towards women and men that were held at the time, the social status that came with their success, or lack thereof, their early childhood interpersonal family dynamics and the survival tactics their parents had to adopt just to live, and there's so much more to this. So to Tàr's view in that lecture and to your point, to blot out an entire list of artists based on a certain albeit valid criteria; can be extremely limiting, even to the point of closing down one's artistic growth. In the end, an artist must at least keep an open mind. On the other hand, I can also align my aesthetic choices with artists that also share my basic sense of human values, and gain just as much in that approach. The underlying idea being that someone's expressions aren't considered in the vacuum of artistic merit but also in the context of their everyday choices and behaviors. Rather than extol the virtues of artists who had despicable behaviors I can choose to promulgate artists that I feel were normal human beings, with all that that entails of course, but who also sowed in their lives what was considered truly beautiful in their art to begin with. To these individuals, their art wasn't separate for how they treated their husbands, wives, children, employees, and did their darn best to be talented human beings in basic human ways. There are a plethora of artists all over the world in every category, that would fill in that bill in all centuries.
Her male role is also seen in her marriage. Her wife is the one who is fully devoted to their daughter. She is the one in charge of household. Sharon is always at the kitchen cooking for the family after work at the philharmonic. On the other hand, Lydia seems to have the freedom of flirting around other girls. Unfortunately that’s how male and female roles have been settled for decades.
You also missed such scenes as when she calls out Sebastian’s kink for pencil collecting, while stealing a pencil from him and having a bunch of red pencils herself
Thanks so much for this lucid, insightful video essay and review. Tar is such a dense and subtle film, I've been searching for some helpful thoughts to get a handle on it, and this review is by far the best yet that I've seen. I finished watching Tar for the first time and immediately want to watch it again (it's the best film of any from the class of 2022). I appreciate the many excellent insights and observations -- I expect they will very much will enrich my next viewing of it soon.
I’ve watched some exchanges between Bernstein and his orchestra members. He was a dominating narcissist too. Being on a pedestal (literally) goes to your head.
I'm surprised that you took that the film have a negative view of cancel culture. I thought it was clear throughout the film that she is so strongly against jugging the artist with the art because she knows she is a controlling abusive predator who gives players she is attracted to special treatment and ruins the careers of people she doesn't like (we see her emails that led her last favorite from a bright future to suicide). If not for her cancellation she would not have stopped these behaviors. clearly she isn't against cancellation as she did it to her last student she just doesn't want to be held accountable herself, watching the film myself I felt that was very obviously the takeaway.
agreed. I think she makes many compelling points during her scene in the lecture hall, but I also think the reason she gets so mad when the student badmouths Bach is because a little part in her knows that one day her wicked actions will be revealed and she is upset that the idea that her accomplishments will be dismissed by future generations as a result
Watch it again and pay closer attention. She didn't destroy the student just to destroy them because she's a sexual predator. She did it to check the student's ego. The student was trying to write off the famous composer Bach because he was a cis-gendered white man that treated women poorly, and the student said he couldn't relate to bachs life. but then tar tried to explain to the student that you don't get to suddenly destroy someone's contribution to society, simply because you suddenly decide you don't like this person. Because what's to stop the public from doing the very same thing to you 'the student' as they judge your work against your own life and choices? How will your art and life stand up to the scrutiny of time? This is why at the beginning of the film when we watch the classroom scene we can see just how much the discussion of truth bothers the student, but at the end of the film a TikTok video the student makes to take tar out of context and present her as just another sexual predator shows just what's truly wrong with cancel culture today by not being able to separate the art from the artist. It's the same as those activist individuals that think they are doing the world a favor by trying to paint over the mona lisa because they're upset about climate change.
@@BrockSamsonite You're thinking of the wrong person, the student whose career she destroyed was Krista, she previously had a sexual relationship with the woman in exchange for career advancement (same as she is doing with Olga) then they had a falling out and we see that she sent emails all over town saying not to work with Krista which ended all of her prospects working in music and directly led to her suicide. She asks the assistant to delete the emails. So this whole high moral principle of not throwing away someone's contribution because you don't like them is a farce that she herself doesn't believe because she literally did it, she cancelled Krista personally, she just doesn't want tit to happen to her.
I would say it goes both ways. In a way she sort of "self-cancels" herself because precisely in so many ways she is at odds with the contemporary western culture. So it's a sort of snake eating itself. She doesn't like the culture, she is erratic, she pays the price. But it is in a large part this very culture that fosters her erratic behaviour and yet progressive politics cannot be excluded as a factor in her extraordinary success etc (a possibility which deeply annoys her and that she prefers to dismiss, see interview at the beginning with new York press)... In a way she has lost her sense of purpose and connection to the sacred in the contemporary western environment. The question the movie asks I feel is : " is it still OK to be a genius/ to be truly a bit "different" a bit " monstrous", to be so driven and ambitious and alive and attuned to the divine even if you are a gay woman and whatnot, in the current environment ?". The answer seems to be that western contemporary culture has a problem with the concept of genius and raw creativity and true outstanding difference... And vice versa, genius seems to wither in the West these days, it gets squandered ... It seems that we have a slight problem with our attitude towards freedom, and egalitarianism and 'good' Vs 'evil' like we wish everything could fit into one neat pure little box. As if there were no layers of evil and good and nuances within individuals and even more so highly creative people... Why are we no longer ok with the fact that an individual can deliver outstanding work and service in one area of their life and yet be a failure in other areas? / Instead we would rather everything be sanitised, equalized .. and uncreative. At the end it doesn't matter to these people that she's a genius, and a lesbian, and a woman (ofc). None of this matters any longer. What matters is that she is not fitting in any longer. She is too large for the little boxes. She is too much like the 'dead white males' of the past. She is too 'alive' and too 'culture' and 'excellence', too 'messy' and 'unhygienic' to fit in in the context.
Tar uses mirrors and has details that mirror: 1) dual entries 2) dual experiences in 3rd world countries. The character uses these countries, first in a high-class, resume enhancing way, much as she uses women. Tar repeats hash/polygon/maze puzzle images multiple times that seems to come from Challenge by Vita Sackville-West and match the shape of the orchestra, aisles, & balconies. Challenge has a dedication: "The book is yours, my witch. Read it, and you will find your tormented soul, changed and free." A quotation from the book: "I don't want to marry you, Julian. I value my freedom above all things." Tar uses the word misogamy when she wants marriage as loyalty from others.
the precision in the development of the characters and the relationships they create, together with the subtlety with which the director chooses to expose the theme, make Tar an excellent film. I would suggest everyone to rewatch it
I was always wanting for any scenes with Tar at the conductor position. Magnificent. 'SUBLIMATE' to change from phase to phase, liquid to solid. Amazing.
Insightful review and summary. This is the first film I've ever seen that really captures what being a highly creative person is like, including the tendency to allow personal relationships to take a back seat to, or be in sublimation to, one's art. I think the film clearly shows that her one true love is music, her craft, her art, and the exaltation derived when it is done beautifully and perfectly.
I disagree. This isn't Sunday in the Park with George. That is truly about sacrificing ones relationships for art. This film is about how she uses relationships as a means to an end. All of her relationships, with the exception of Petra, are transactional. She moves through life manipulating others. This is not about the artist being so engulfed in their work that they let everything go by the wayside. She has curated her entire life to become this super star. She's powerful and knows it. I think this film is about separating the art from the artist. Our thoughts on that question says more about us the audience than anything. That scene at Juliard set the tone.
I have played classical music since my youth, and understand the joy and horror of playing with a great conductor. Which is why I bust out laughing at the final scene
I think there is some thing about the “separating the artist from the art“ conversation that seems to get missed. It’s one thing to be a consumer and reject an artists art. It’s another thing to be someone whose job it is to perform the art. Also, rejecting somebody’s art because they have done something horrible is one thing. But, rejecting someone’s art because of how they were born, their color, gender or sex, is disgusting. Many people might not think it’s offensive to reject the art of a “old cis white man“ but if somebody said they would not listen to music, because it was written by a “young genderqueer black man“ they would be called a bigot. In reality somebody is a bigot either way. Just as it is different to judge a person you meet by their behavior vs judging them by the color of their skin. The point is made that a lot of modern “liberal“ ideas are not liberal at all. They are completely intolerant and prejudice. It’s simply a new prejudice. Nobody (except possibly the child) was right in this movie. Everyone had an angle and saw themselves as some sort of exception. There was a lot of narcissism in the film. Tàr herself tells people to rise above judgment whilst simultaneously breaking the law and committing both slander and libel in her defamation of her ex lover. Tyra has asked not to get any props for being a female in her field. It did not hold her back. People did not judge her by her sex, or her sexuality. But, her behavior is another thing all together. Eventually there comes a point where people can no longer separate Tàr from her art.
If this movie was made by a man that was openly anti-Semitic and embraced Naxi ideology, but his "art" was not reflecting those views, could you still enjoy his artistic creations i.e. his movies? Pay your $$ to see his movies knowing it ultimately in part goes to him? So we separate the artist from their art and only consider the art, which means there IS a separation? How do you separate Van Gogh the man from his art when it so poignantly reflects who he was, how he evolved as a person and how he lived his life, however subtly. Art is not a reflection of the artist? Can you enjoy watching old Bill Cosby shows that portray him as a loving, monogamous husband and father knowing that for a 20-30 year period before, during and after those shows he was drugging and raping so many women? Can you separate Lydia Tar from her behavior and still want to buy her book - fictionally speaking? It's not so black & white. "Cancel culture" is really just a euphemism for certain members of society finally speaking out and holding people accountable for their BAD behavior, especially those in power and with fame.
Exactly like why does she say in the opening scene that in order to understand a piece of music (i don't remember the name) we have to understand the artist's complex marriage with his wife alma Because art is a reflection of a person's insides Why does the piece she is composing in the movie is for her daughter because it is out of love which she has inside her (otherwise mostly she is not making art she us performing other people's art)
@@sitori663 yes agreed BUT i don't think a lot of the people have the ability to actually judge a person because in the end being a good person on the internet or maybe life in general has become a performance But i do agree she got her poetic justice
Outstanding review of a very challenging and effective film. I'm still amazed that it did not get more of a negative reception given the current corrossive climate.
Great stuff, first time I've seen a serious one or rather, a review of a serious film from this channel. Thank you. Please don't stop with the funny stuff either; they're both great!
I think you missed the entire point in with the julliard scene. In the prior interview sequence, she talks of the importance of mahler’s marriage when interpreting one of his pieces. In the julliard scene she then goes on to advocate for separating the art from the personal life of the artist saying that bach’s race and gender have nothing to do with his pieces. I see this as a character lying and manipulating her arguments in order to stay in control of the conversation.
During the Juilliard scene I did not pay attention to this, but I am curious if anyone else did. In the “separating the art from the artist” debate, was there any nuance made about whether the artist was dead or alive?
She was actually talking about her future without knowing. That’s how she ended. In the end, nobody cared about separating her talents from her (bad) actions.
To me it´s the associating of the aesthetic and the divine which in their minds enables these characters, fictional and real alike, to indulge in these gross transgressions remorselesly. And that´s one of the themes of the movie that stuck with me. Romantization and idealisation of "art" are the flipside to self indulgence seen as ego-tripping, narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence. that scene of her lecture while protesters where outside...
Oh great a video that genuinely gives relevant and appealing feedback about the film, I was searching around for more perspectives on the movie but not many move past the obvious,you do so thankyou ^_^
Excellent review. I have listened to Classical music all my life. I attend live concerts and opera, subscribe to Berlin Phil [ DigitalConcertHall ], and so on. I was initially interested in seeing this film, because of reviews, but the trailer, and many other clips, turned me off. Completely. If Ms Blanchett 'took conducting lessons' it didn't show. I have never seen a conductor thrash around and windmill like she does. I could live with that bit of fakery, but the real question is whether I want to watch a toxic narcissist destroy herself. I do not. It is not as if I am unaware of the many scandals - especially in the last several years - in the classical music industry. It is no news that abuse of all kinds takes place, and not just at exalted levels. But, does the film offer any sort of learning for me, anything that will enhance my awareness, or give me any insight into the creative process? The questions of 'separating the Art from the Artist' have raged from even before Wagner, and I'm not so sure that this film really adds anything to the discussion.
Bernstein could thresh about somewhat! I don't see the point of making her lesbian because it feeds from the mid 20th century habit of making lesbians in movies mad bad or both. Today I watched the biopic on Simone Young "Knowing the Score". Rather more enjoyable.
@@frogmouth Oops! Yes, you're completely right about Bernstein! There's a very interesting interview from Blanchett, [Guardian, 12 Feb 2023] where she acknowledged that many male conductors - and singers - were abhorrent but it would have been too 'easy' and too referent to make Tar a bloke. Good debatable point, perhaps. I do think that your comment could be expanded from 'lesbian' to 'gay men and women'. After all, we generally had to suffer and die by the end of the film... except, thankfully, for 'Maurice'!
I would disagree with your assessment that the film is unambiguous in defending the idea of separating the artist from the art. The film as a whole I would argue very much wants to serve as a discussion opener, not as an open-and-shut case.
Tar has made it on to my top 10 list of 2023 despite its flaws. I thought the first two acts were brilliant, and then as Tar's life falls apart, the film also spins off the rails! I actually laughed when she pushes Eliot off the podium (is this the intended audience response?) - it just seemed farcical. Furthermore, the final part when she ends up in the Phillipines left a nasty taste in my mouth. It was almost like the writer was saying - this is how low you can fall. As someone who has lived in Asia more than half my life I felt that if Tar embraced her new life in Asia she would probably find true happiness. And what's not to love about the beautiful girls in the "fishbowl" - much better to pay for sex than abuse her position of power and destroy lives just to get laid.
I think you're reading a tad too much into the ending from some objective viewpoint. The reason why her move and "downgrade" was chosen as the film's ending was not for us to witness how far she has fallen, but for us to see how she reacts to being "humbled" by a path in her career she finds repulsive compared to the adoration she used to garner.
How does it work within the context of the film as a whole, though? If the biggest pleasure you take from a film is its ability to confirm your existing beliefs in dramatically uncoupled scenes, then why watch a film at all if it has nothing new to teach you, if it can’t make you question yourself, and if it can’t make you walk in the shoes of the hitherto irredeemable? This is Todd Field: the most dislikeable character in his first film was the mother of a murdered child, and the most likeable in his second was a convicted child sex offender. Take a look at the critical reaction to the film. Apart from Allsop, who, arguably, has good reason to feel personally misrepresented, the most vociferous citric of the film has been the conservative cultural commentator Norman Lebrecht.
I have a different understanding from my own imagination. Tar is dedicated to music competence. She is also a U-Haul Lesbian. What this means is she desires family above all. She preferers to be in charge of the family groups. A former associate probably wanted a more personal intendency. Tar seems to be less interested in sexual relations. She supports music and those who excel the most. At the end she has to carve out a new family in a more foreign culture. Being that she is ruthless in her ideals this will take a lot of effort. If she succeeds she will defend the new family above all else.
Excellent analysis! This review isn't perfect, though. There are a few pretensions, an emotional austerity, and a slightly over-weening quality to the whole thing. Negative sequences and disparaging spells in this review don't especially add up to much or elicit much response or intrigue. Still, there is more than enough in this review to discuss and dwell on. This review is a compelling film study, with moments, here and there, of genuine brilliance. ;)
I saw Tar 2 eeks ago with my 40 year old daughter. Her view is that most of Tar is figment of her imagination. Also she could be the person named as Krista and that character did not actually commit suicide. It was actually Linda Tart who had been the one looked over as a conductor by another female conductor. She feels that the only true reality was from the time her brother referred to as Lida and the conducting of the cosplay event. In other words Linda
Mistakes. Recovering from covid and bit shaky typing. So my daughter's vie is that the first two and a bit act are Linda Thinking she was a top conductor. Any thoughts.
Your daughter is 100% off base. The ghost of Tar's former lover, who took her own life, haunts Lydia. She is seen twice in the apartment and is the cause of the mysterious noises. Lydia constantly looks around in the home as if she's being watched. This reviewer didn't catch the hauntings in the film. Tàr works on multiple levels.
This film is more about sex and love addiction, romantic obsession, intrigue and narcissism as it is about classical music and the underworld of performance art, acceptance and fame and power as a drug . At the heart of Tar’s issue is insecurity, self loathing and imposter syndrome.
Pretentious is putting it lightlly. Almost 3 hours of pretention on a story and mostly a edition work that would have served the movie better with less 30 or 40 minutes duration.
You missed how foolish and hypocritical Lydia Tar was in the scene with the student. You read that scene at face value like a simplistic mind would. It makes sense considering your misunderstanding of the "abstract" aspects. Your reading of this film is immature and bland.
People who use "cancel culture" in a serious way crack me up. Your silly boogieman. I remember back in the 1990's when dudes like you were complaining about "PC culture". It's silly, and bland.
I think this was a well made movie that sadly leaned into old insulting tropes of the angry & harsh lesbian and gay people being predatory. I understand that the intent was that it is power misused that led her to be predatory, but in this toxic cultural and political environment where the LGBTQ community is under a renewed and vicious attack this portrayal of Lydia Tar, however innocent, is terrible timing and only serves to feed into the hateful extremist right wing accusations of LGBTQ being predators. The writer/director/producer could have made Tar hetero and preying on young males in her professional sphere. The scenes with Tar and the male student was powerful and demonstrated that her character could have easily pulled that version of Tar off successfully. But sadly, no. Ultimately EEAAO was IMO a far superior movie anyway. And they didn't insult any marginalized people in the process.
Tar as a lesbian makes the anti-woke more likely to sympathise with the LGBTQ, since they recognise that even the LGBTQ can be cancelled (like Tar, even if it was arguably deserved). That Tar is lesbian isn't even an important aspect of the film, you barely even think about it as the movie goes along. If anything I feel like you should be happy that lesbians are getting representation, especially with a complex character in a leading role. EEAAO was far more entertaining to me but not nearly as complex or interesting narrative/thematically wise. It was pretty much a feature length rick and morty episode for people who read the new york times. the whole movie reeked millennial tropes; "lol so random" humor, a corny message about a family accepting that their child is gay, minority representation and of course the good ol' nihilism message thats been done a gazillion times before. none of these things are bad in themselves, but the movie just didn't feel as revolutionary as people make it out to be, and definitely did not deserve best picture, although I admit I still enjoyed it.
You are really way too far gone into your ideology to the point that you don't realize that the LGBTQ community have been getting away with a lot of shaddy stuff in the stuff only because they are a "minority". Kind of ironic how you are the type of person that proves how the Critical Drinker and other UA-camrs are right in their claims about how are people who care only about pushing and not contradicting the current moral narrative instead of supporting supporting good movies or shows that might contradict "the message"
Blah, blah, blah. I've been a big classical music buff...especially Mahler...for more than 50 years. But I have no interest in watching this overly-long movie. Cate Blanchett is apparently brilliant in portraying an out-of-control female conductor actually becoming violent. I'm sure she's brilliant in the role. But there are far more important thing going on it the world than this overblown psycho-drama. Portraying a woman of power in an unsympathetic role...especially when there have been many so male conductors of the past and more recently who were abusive...there is nothing in this that interests me. I have better this to do with my time. I imagine many others may feel the same. It certainly does nothing to advance the apparently diminishing interest in of classical music.
If this movie really is anti-woke, why make Tar morally ambiguous when they could have easily made her look like an innocent woman who is wrongly accused? This doesn't do the job in teaching people that cancel culture is wrong, in fact it does the opposite and somehow encourages it.
because it is not anti-woke, but nor is it woke. What people don't seem to understand is that a movie can be made to spark discussion and make arguments on both sides. Unfortunately everything has become so politicized that they are now confined to having liberal or conservative views, and can't hardly ever make arguments for points on both sides or simply poise questions.
Negative capability. Todd Field isn’t in the business of making dogma-ridden political allegories. I can’t imagine anything more “woke” than a didactic essay in the form of a work of art lecturing us about how “woke” is bad. Turning Tár into a wholly innocent victim of circumstance would be propaganda, not art.
@@markofsaltburn art is always the propaganda of the mind that creates it. I don't believe that you can create art about a political issue from any generation of the past or present and not voice an opinion of the political issues of their time. Everyone has their own dogma but this movie felt like it was trying to pander to both sides whilst making a mockery of classical music enthusiasts in the process. If this movie made Tar a victim of political correctness or a monster defeated by it than at least the movie would have had a point. Art cannot be unbiased!
Because this is intelligent writing. The fact of the matter though is, we never see her do any of the stuff she supposedly did. The only thing we and the rest of the world sees, is a hyper edited video of her insulting that man-baby from her class, who’s seemingly biologically engineered to be pointed at and mocked, like the rest of the morons who are like him in the world. As far as the rest goes, all we see is the woke mob lynching her, for things they don’t actually care about, things they have no proof of, and things they don’t understand, simply because they’re useless and want to feel like they’re not, by tearing down someone who actually made something of herself. Just like in the real world. Parasitic leeches who want to feel like they add some value into this world, despite the fact they could collectively disappear tomorrow and not a single thing will be worse.
Sorry, Cate isnt even a remotely believable actress. Can we get over the nonsense about this mediocrity? She's truly the actress for admins and crones. Enough
I find myself mostly in agreement with the points that Tár made in her Juilliard lecture; to dismiss all the canonical works of classical music just because they were written by patriarchal men is to limit oneself. But Tár gives the students advice that she doesn’t follow herself - she encourages them to “obliterate themselves” (their egos, their identities, etc) and, in humility, pursue the meaning of the music and intent of the composer. However she’s unable to grasp that humility for herself. She’s in fact obsessed with her own identity, she’s constantly googling herself and editing her own Wikipedia, monitoring Twitter for public reactions to her work. In terms of her own identity, she behaves in her work and personal life very much like a man. In her interview, she dismisses the idea that she ever had trouble dealing with sexism as a female conductor. She suggests to her colleague that they open up the foundation she set up for female conductors for men as well. What struck me as well was the moment she berated her daughters schoolmate for her bullying and introduced herself as “Petra’s father”. That was so incredibly interesting, and I feel like nobody is talking about that scene. If she didn’t care about identity, why does she adopt this “male” persona?
That’s an interesting point.
She doesn't adopt anything it's who she is.
The first point you make (the Julliard lecture) is fertile grounds for many diverging; and converging points.
Is one's expression of talent and genius separate from who they are in their daily lives? Where are the lines drawn between livelihood and creative expression? Here a few examples that can illustrate this, not only with Bach or Wagner, but also with Francis Bacon, Miles Davis, Charlie Mingus, Gustav Klimt, and Kubrick just to name a handful. There is a solid philosophical leaning for either side of the coin and to your point yes, it is a a negative narrowing down of one's aesthetic development when one can far too easily dismiss an artist based on their criteria of human values, so indeed it's important to still keep an open mind. There are far too many outstanding artists that were very questionable in their lives due to the times, the prevailing cultures that surrounded them, the prominent beliefs towards women and men that were held at the time, the social status that came with their success, or lack thereof, their early childhood interpersonal family dynamics and the survival tactics their parents had to adopt just to live, and there's so much more to this. So to Tàr's view in that lecture and to your point, to blot out an entire list of artists based on a certain albeit valid criteria; can be extremely limiting, even to the point of closing down one's artistic growth. In the end, an artist must at least keep an open mind.
On the other hand, I can also align my aesthetic choices with artists that also share my basic sense of human values, and gain just as much in that approach. The underlying idea being that someone's expressions aren't considered in the vacuum of artistic merit but also in the context of their everyday choices and behaviors. Rather than extol the virtues of artists who had despicable behaviors I can choose to promulgate artists that I feel were normal human beings, with all that that entails of course, but who also sowed in their lives what was considered truly beautiful in their art to begin with. To these individuals, their art wasn't separate for how they treated their husbands, wives, children, employees, and did their darn best to be talented human beings in basic human ways. There are a plethora of artists all over the world in every category, that would fill in that bill in all centuries.
Her male role is also seen in her marriage. Her wife is the one who is fully devoted to their daughter. She is the one in charge of household. Sharon is always at the kitchen cooking for the family after work at the philharmonic. On the other hand, Lydia seems to have the freedom of flirting around other girls. Unfortunately that’s how male and female roles have been settled for decades.
You also missed such scenes as when she calls out Sebastian’s kink for pencil collecting, while stealing a pencil from him and having a bunch of red pencils herself
" A film to be admired more than enjoy" sums it up perfectly
Not really I highly enjoyed it
Huh? I enjoyed it. No cheek, Blanchett magnificent. Beyond that, as a neer do well, impressed.❤
Wrong, it’s really enjoyable.
Thanks so much for this lucid, insightful video essay and review. Tar is such a dense and subtle film, I've been searching for some helpful thoughts to get a handle on it, and this review is by far the best yet that I've seen. I finished watching Tar for the first time and immediately want to watch it again (it's the best film of any from the class of 2022). I appreciate the many excellent insights and observations -- I expect they will very much will enrich my next viewing of it soon.
My pleasure!
I’ve watched some exchanges between Bernstein and his orchestra members. He was a dominating narcissist too. Being on a pedestal (literally) goes to your head.
Wow, what a review. Truly, I admire and envy your insight. Thank you for posting this.
of all the movies from 2022, this is my favourite
I'm surprised that you took that the film have a negative view of cancel culture. I thought it was clear throughout the film that she is so strongly against jugging the artist with the art because she knows she is a controlling abusive predator who gives players she is attracted to special treatment and ruins the careers of people she doesn't like (we see her emails that led her last favorite from a bright future to suicide). If not for her cancellation she would not have stopped these behaviors. clearly she isn't against cancellation as she did it to her last student she just doesn't want to be held accountable herself, watching the film myself I felt that was very obviously the takeaway.
agreed. I think she makes many compelling points during her scene in the lecture hall, but I also think the reason she gets so mad when the student badmouths Bach is because a little part in her knows that one day her wicked actions will be revealed and she is upset that the idea that her accomplishments will be dismissed by future generations as a result
Watch it again and pay closer attention. She didn't destroy the student just to destroy them because she's a sexual predator. She did it to check the student's ego. The student was trying to write off the famous composer Bach because he was a cis-gendered white man that treated women poorly, and the student said he couldn't relate to bachs life. but then tar tried to explain to the student that you don't get to suddenly destroy someone's contribution to society, simply because you suddenly decide you don't like this person. Because what's to stop the public from doing the very same thing to you 'the student' as they judge your work against your own life and choices? How will your art and life stand up to the scrutiny of time?
This is why at the beginning of the film when we watch the classroom scene we can see just how much the discussion of truth bothers the student, but at the end of the film a TikTok video the student makes to take tar out of context and present her as just another sexual predator shows just what's truly wrong with cancel culture today by not being able to separate the art from the artist. It's the same as those activist individuals that think they are doing the world a favor by trying to paint over the mona lisa because they're upset about climate change.
@@BrockSamsonite You're thinking of the wrong person, the student whose career she destroyed was Krista, she previously had a sexual relationship with the woman in exchange for career advancement (same as she is doing with Olga) then they had a falling out and we see that she sent emails all over town saying not to work with Krista which ended all of her prospects working in music and directly led to her suicide.
She asks the assistant to delete the emails. So this whole high moral principle of not throwing away someone's contribution because you don't like them is a farce that she herself doesn't believe because she literally did it, she cancelled Krista personally, she just doesn't want tit to happen to her.
@@bascal133 i think they know that they were just stating their own thoughts about the bach scene
I would say it goes both ways. In a way she sort of "self-cancels" herself because precisely in so many ways she is at odds with the contemporary western culture. So it's a sort of snake eating itself. She doesn't like the culture, she is erratic, she pays the price. But it is in a large part this very culture that fosters her erratic behaviour and yet progressive politics cannot be excluded as a factor in her extraordinary success etc (a possibility which deeply annoys her and that she prefers to dismiss, see interview at the beginning with new York press)... In a way she has lost her sense of purpose and connection to the sacred in the contemporary western environment. The question the movie asks I feel is : " is it still OK to be a genius/ to be truly a bit "different" a bit " monstrous", to be so driven and ambitious and alive and attuned to the divine even if you are a gay woman and whatnot, in the current environment ?". The answer seems to be that western contemporary culture has a problem with the concept of genius and raw creativity and true outstanding difference... And vice versa, genius seems to wither in the West these days, it gets squandered ... It seems that we have a slight problem with our attitude towards freedom, and egalitarianism and 'good' Vs 'evil' like we wish everything could fit into one neat pure little box. As if there were no layers of evil and good and nuances within individuals and even more so highly creative people... Why are we no longer ok with the fact that an individual can deliver outstanding work and service in one area of their life and yet be a failure in other areas? / Instead we would rather everything be sanitised, equalized .. and uncreative.
At the end it doesn't matter to these people that she's a genius, and a lesbian, and a woman (ofc). None of this matters any longer. What matters is that she is not fitting in any longer. She is too large for the little boxes. She is too much like the 'dead white males' of the past. She is too 'alive' and too 'culture' and 'excellence', too 'messy' and 'unhygienic' to fit in in the context.
Tar uses mirrors and has details that mirror: 1) dual entries 2) dual experiences in 3rd world countries. The character uses these countries, first in a high-class, resume enhancing way, much as she uses women. Tar repeats hash/polygon/maze puzzle images multiple times that seems to come from Challenge by Vita Sackville-West and match the shape of the orchestra, aisles, & balconies. Challenge has a dedication: "The book is yours, my witch. Read it, and you will find your tormented soul, changed and free." A quotation from the book: "I don't want to marry you, Julian. I value my freedom above all things." Tar uses the word misogamy when she wants marriage as loyalty from others.
the precision in the development of the characters and the relationships they create, together with the subtlety with which the director chooses to expose the theme, make Tar an excellent film. I would suggest everyone to rewatch it
I was always wanting for any scenes with Tar at the conductor position. Magnificent. 'SUBLIMATE' to change from phase to phase, liquid to solid. Amazing.
Reminded me of Eyes wide shut, also Suspiria by Guadagnino, Black Swan, the Red Shoes…yeah I bloody loved it! 😂
You convinced me to watch it, thanks Mr Chamberlain
Insightful review and summary. This is the first film I've ever seen that really captures what being a highly creative person is like, including the tendency to allow personal relationships to take a back seat to, or be in sublimation to, one's art. I think the film clearly shows that her one true love is music, her craft, her art, and the exaltation derived when it is done beautifully and perfectly.
I disagree. This isn't Sunday in the Park with George. That is truly about sacrificing ones relationships for art.
This film is about how she uses relationships as a means to an end. All of her relationships, with the exception of Petra, are transactional. She moves through life manipulating others. This is not about the artist being so engulfed in their work that they let everything go by the wayside. She has curated her entire life to become this super star. She's powerful and knows it. I think this film is about separating the art from the artist. Our thoughts on that question says more about us the audience than anything. That scene at Juliard set the tone.
I have played classical music since my youth, and understand the joy and horror of playing with a great conductor. Which is why I bust out laughing at the final scene
Right? I also found it funny! It turned into a very, very dark comedy.
Just watched TAR last night and I find this review spot on. Thanks
Superb review, thanks for that!
Wow, this was an amazing review. Thank you.
I think there is some thing about the “separating the artist from the art“ conversation that seems to get missed.
It’s one thing to be a consumer and reject an artists art. It’s another thing to be someone whose job it is to perform the art.
Also, rejecting somebody’s art because they have done something horrible is one thing. But, rejecting someone’s art because of how they were born, their color, gender or sex, is disgusting. Many people might not think it’s offensive to reject the art of a “old cis white man“ but if somebody said they would not listen to music, because it was written by a “young genderqueer black man“ they would be called a bigot.
In reality somebody is a bigot either way. Just as it is different to judge a person you meet by their behavior vs judging them by the color of their skin.
The point is made that a lot of modern “liberal“ ideas are not liberal at all. They are completely intolerant and prejudice. It’s simply a new prejudice.
Nobody (except possibly the child) was right in this movie. Everyone had an angle and saw themselves as some sort of exception. There was a lot of narcissism in the film. Tàr herself tells people to rise above judgment whilst simultaneously breaking the law and committing both slander and libel in her defamation of her ex lover. Tyra has asked not to get any props for being a female in her field. It did not hold her back. People did not judge her by her sex, or her sexuality. But, her behavior is another thing all together. Eventually there comes a point where people can no longer separate Tàr from her art.
If this movie was made by a man that was openly anti-Semitic and embraced Naxi ideology, but his "art" was not reflecting those views, could you still enjoy his artistic creations i.e. his movies? Pay your $$ to see his movies knowing it ultimately in part goes to him?
So we separate the artist from their art and only consider the art, which means there IS a separation? How do you separate Van Gogh the man from his art when it so poignantly reflects who he was, how he evolved as a person and how he lived his life, however subtly. Art is not a reflection of the artist?
Can you enjoy watching old Bill Cosby shows that portray him as a loving, monogamous husband and father knowing that for a 20-30 year period before, during and after those shows he was drugging and raping so many women?
Can you separate Lydia Tar from her behavior and still want to buy her book - fictionally speaking?
It's not so black & white. "Cancel culture" is really just a euphemism for certain members of society finally speaking out and holding people accountable for their BAD behavior, especially those in power and with fame.
@@sitori663 Preach!
Good comment!
Exactly like why does she say in the opening scene that in order to understand a piece of music (i don't remember the name) we have to understand the artist's complex marriage with his wife alma
Because art is a reflection of a person's insides
Why does the piece she is composing in the movie is for her daughter because it is out of love which she has inside her (otherwise mostly she is not making art she us performing other people's art)
@@sitori663 yes agreed BUT i don't think a lot of the people have the ability to actually judge a person because in the end being a good person on the internet or maybe life in general has become a performance
But i do agree she got her poetic justice
Outstanding review of a very challenging and effective film. I'm still amazed that it did not get more of a negative reception given the current corrossive climate.
I’m hearing a lot of comparisons to there will be blood and Daniel day Lewis. She is the goat female actress.
Great stuff, first time I've seen a serious one or rather, a review of a serious film from this channel. Thank you. Please don't stop with the funny stuff either; they're both great!
I loved this movie so much
I think you missed the entire point in with the julliard scene.
In the prior interview sequence, she talks of the importance of mahler’s marriage when interpreting one of his pieces. In the julliard scene she then goes on to advocate for separating the art from the personal life of the artist saying that bach’s race and gender have nothing to do with his pieces. I see this as a character lying and manipulating her arguments in order to stay in control of the conversation.
Her arguments varied according to the audience.
During the Juilliard scene I did not pay attention to this, but I am curious if anyone else did. In the “separating the art from the artist” debate, was there any nuance made about whether the artist was dead or alive?
No.
She was actually talking about her future without knowing. That’s how she ended. In the end, nobody cared about separating her talents from her (bad) actions.
oh you mean she's a malignant narcissist ... great character study. loved it
To me it´s the associating of the aesthetic and the divine which in their minds enables these characters, fictional and real alike, to indulge in these gross transgressions remorselesly. And that´s one of the themes of the movie that stuck with me. Romantization and idealisation of "art" are the flipside to self indulgence seen as ego-tripping, narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence. that scene of her lecture while protesters where outside...
Beautiful and deep movie
I watched it about 8 times and I'm still on the fence about it. It does produce the idea of mental disintegration rather poignantly.
it gives me some of the same sensations of watching parasite, that one I certainly watched more than 8 times
Love your work. Sub. Thank You
Oh great a video that genuinely gives relevant and appealing feedback about the film, I was searching around for more perspectives on the movie but not many move past the obvious,you do so thankyou ^_^
sounds interesting, thx
It's about embracing your inner hardass.
Excellent review. I have listened to Classical music all my life. I attend live concerts and opera, subscribe to Berlin Phil [ DigitalConcertHall ], and so on. I was initially interested in seeing this film, because of reviews, but the trailer, and many other clips, turned me off. Completely. If Ms Blanchett 'took conducting lessons' it didn't show. I have never seen a conductor thrash around and windmill like she does. I could live with that bit of fakery, but the real question is whether I want to watch a toxic narcissist destroy herself. I do not. It is not as if I am unaware of the many scandals - especially in the last several years - in the classical music industry. It is no news that abuse of all kinds takes place, and not just at exalted levels. But, does the film offer any sort of learning for me, anything that will enhance my awareness, or give me any insight into the creative process? The questions of 'separating the Art from the Artist' have raged from even before Wagner, and I'm not so sure that this film really adds anything to the discussion.
Bernstein could thresh about somewhat! I don't see the point of making her lesbian because it feeds from the mid 20th century habit of making lesbians in movies mad bad or both. Today I watched the biopic on Simone Young "Knowing the Score". Rather more enjoyable.
@@frogmouth Oops! Yes, you're completely right about Bernstein! There's a very interesting interview from Blanchett, [Guardian, 12 Feb 2023] where she acknowledged that many male conductors - and singers - were abhorrent but it would have been too 'easy' and too referent to make Tar a bloke. Good debatable point, perhaps.
I do think that your comment could be expanded from 'lesbian' to 'gay men and women'. After all, we generally had to suffer and die by the end of the film... except, thankfully, for 'Maurice'!
If I had to summarize Linda "Lydia" Tár, I would say that she couldn't "leave New York IN New York." If you understand my meaning.
I think this review will give the movie much more depth for me when I watch it, thanks!
I thought it was great. Yes, perhaps a bit artsy, but that was the rarefied universe the film was peeking into. Blanchett was very impressive.
Tar is the Barry Lyndon of our time. Great review
I would disagree with your assessment that the film is unambiguous in defending the idea of separating the artist from the art. The film as a whole I would argue very much wants to serve as a discussion opener, not as an open-and-shut case.
Tar has made it on to my top 10 list of 2023 despite its flaws. I thought the first two acts were brilliant, and then as Tar's life falls apart, the film also spins off the rails! I actually laughed when she pushes Eliot off the podium (is this the intended audience response?) - it just seemed farcical. Furthermore, the final part when she ends up in the Phillipines left a nasty taste in my mouth. It was almost like the writer was saying - this is how low you can fall. As someone who has lived in Asia more than half my life I felt that if Tar embraced her new life in Asia she would probably find true happiness. And what's not to love about the beautiful girls in the "fishbowl" - much better to pay for sex than abuse her position of power and destroy lives just to get laid.
Literally 1 day into the year and this guys got a top10
I think you're reading a tad too much into the ending from some objective viewpoint. The reason why her move and "downgrade" was chosen as the film's ending was not for us to witness how far she has fallen, but for us to see how she reacts to being "humbled" by a path in her career she finds repulsive compared to the adoration she used to garner.
@@jamrollz lmfaooo
It came out October 7, 2022. Top 10 list of 2022.
she just may have been into abusing her position of power and got sick to her stomach at the "pick a number" type deal
It was good to see the clip where identity politics is finally given the response it has long merited.
How does it work within the context of the film as a whole, though? If the biggest pleasure you take from a film is its ability to confirm your existing beliefs in dramatically uncoupled scenes, then why watch a film at all if it has nothing new to teach you, if it can’t make you question yourself, and if it can’t make you walk in the shoes of the hitherto irredeemable?
This is Todd Field: the most dislikeable character in his first film was the mother of a murdered child, and the most likeable in his second was a convicted child sex offender.
Take a look at the critical reaction to the film. Apart from Allsop, who, arguably, has good reason to feel personally misrepresented, the most vociferous citric of the film has been the conservative cultural commentator Norman Lebrecht.
Let me guess: you are a heterosexual white male that identifies as a Christian.
@@markofsaltburn lol, youre already doing identity politics through his filmography.
Very thoughtful review ... agree with nearly all of it ... and yet was left utterly cold by this film, and have no desire to see it again.
I have a different understanding from my own imagination. Tar is dedicated to music competence. She is also a U-Haul Lesbian. What this means is she desires family above all. She preferers to be in charge of the family groups. A former associate probably wanted a more personal intendency. Tar seems to be less interested in sexual relations. She supports music and those who excel the most. At the end she has to carve out a new family in a more foreign culture. Being that she is ruthless in her ideals this will take a lot of effort. If she succeeds she will defend the new family above all else.
Can you say "monotone"? Hint: It rhymes with drone.
Excellent analysis! This review isn't perfect, though. There are a few pretensions, an emotional austerity, and a slightly over-weening quality to the whole thing. Negative sequences and disparaging spells in this review don't especially add up to much or elicit much response or intrigue. Still, there is more than enough in this review to discuss and dwell on. This review is a compelling film study, with moments, here and there, of genuine brilliance. ;)
I saw Tar 2 eeks ago with my 40 year old daughter. Her view is that most of Tar is figment of her imagination. Also she could be the person named as Krista and that character did not actually commit suicide. It was actually Linda Tart who had been the one looked over as a conductor by another female conductor. She feels that the only true reality was from the time her brother referred to as Lida and the conducting of the cosplay event. In other words Linda
😊
Mistakes. Recovering from covid and bit shaky typing. So my daughter's vie is that the first two and a bit act are Linda Thinking she was a top conductor. Any thoughts.
Your daughter is 100% off base. The ghost of Tar's former lover, who took her own life, haunts Lydia. She is seen twice in the apartment and is the cause of the mysterious noises. Lydia constantly looks around in the home as if she's being watched. This reviewer didn't catch the hauntings in the film. Tàr works on multiple levels.
Movie is boring as fuck, but the acting and dialogue is indeed good.
This film is more about sex and love addiction, romantic obsession, intrigue and narcissism as it is about classical music and the underworld of performance art, acceptance and fame and power as a drug . At the heart of Tar’s issue is insecurity, self loathing and imposter syndrome.
Pretentious is putting it lightlly. Almost 3 hours of pretention on a story and mostly a edition work that would have served the movie better with less 30 or 40 minutes duration.
This review is a great cure for insomnia! LOL I swear, I did not detect a single waver of tone the entire time. Now THAT"S an accomplishment. .
I didn't see the movie but the way she flails her hands while conducting seems kind of strange. Might be a great movie though
You missed how foolish and hypocritical Lydia Tar was in the scene with the student. You read that scene at face value like a simplistic mind would. It makes sense considering your misunderstanding of the "abstract" aspects. Your reading of this film is immature and bland.
People who use "cancel culture" in a serious way crack me up. Your silly boogieman. I remember back in the 1990's when dudes like you were complaining about "PC culture". It's silly, and bland.
I think this was a well made movie that sadly leaned into old insulting tropes of the angry & harsh lesbian and gay people being predatory. I understand that the intent was that it is power misused that led her to be predatory, but in this toxic cultural and political environment where the LGBTQ community is under a renewed and vicious attack this portrayal of Lydia Tar, however innocent, is terrible timing and only serves to feed into the hateful extremist right wing accusations of LGBTQ being predators.
The writer/director/producer could have made Tar hetero and preying on young males in her professional sphere. The scenes with Tar and the male student was powerful and demonstrated that her character could have easily pulled that version of Tar off successfully.
But sadly, no. Ultimately EEAAO was IMO a far superior movie anyway. And they didn't insult any marginalized people in the process.
Tar as a lesbian makes the anti-woke more likely to sympathise with the LGBTQ, since they recognise that even the LGBTQ can be cancelled (like Tar, even if it was arguably deserved). That Tar is lesbian isn't even an important aspect of the film, you barely even think about it as the movie goes along.
If anything I feel like you should be happy that lesbians are getting representation, especially with a complex character in a leading role.
EEAAO was far more entertaining to me but not nearly as complex or interesting narrative/thematically wise. It was pretty much a feature length rick and morty episode for people who read the new york times. the whole movie reeked millennial tropes; "lol so random" humor, a corny message about a family accepting that their child is gay, minority representation and of course the good ol' nihilism message thats been done a gazillion times before. none of these things are bad in themselves, but the movie just didn't feel as revolutionary as people make it out to be, and definitely did not deserve best picture, although I admit I still enjoyed it.
You are really way too far gone into your ideology to the point that you don't realize that the LGBTQ community have been getting away with a lot of shaddy stuff in the stuff only because they are a "minority".
Kind of ironic how you are the type of person that proves how the Critical Drinker and other UA-camrs are right in their claims about how are people who care only about pushing and not contradicting the current moral narrative instead of supporting supporting good movies or shows that might contradict "the message"
Blancett terrific, but overall a terrible film - I wish I hadn't wasted all that time in the cinema.
I absolutely could not stand this movie. Cate Blanchett was completely annoying. Way too over the top.
Stop saying pronounced
Blah, blah, blah. I've been a big classical music buff...especially Mahler...for more than 50 years. But I have no interest in watching this overly-long movie. Cate Blanchett is apparently brilliant in portraying an out-of-control female conductor actually becoming violent. I'm sure she's brilliant in the role. But there are far more important thing going on it the world than this overblown psycho-drama. Portraying a woman of power in an unsympathetic role...especially when there have been many so male conductors of the past and more recently who were abusive...there is nothing in this that interests me. I have better this to do with my time. I imagine many others may feel the same. It certainly does nothing to advance the apparently diminishing interest in of classical music.
very bad movie i dont understand how this garbage play on cinema.
If this movie really is anti-woke, why make Tar morally ambiguous when they could have easily made her look like an innocent woman who is wrongly accused? This doesn't do the job in teaching people that cancel culture is wrong, in fact it does the opposite and somehow encourages it.
because it is not anti-woke, but nor is it woke. What people don't seem to understand is that a movie can be made to spark discussion and make arguments on both sides. Unfortunately everything has become so politicized that they are now confined to having liberal or conservative views, and can't hardly ever make arguments for points on both sides or simply poise questions.
Negative capability. Todd Field isn’t in the business of making dogma-ridden political allegories.
I can’t imagine anything more “woke” than a didactic essay in the form of a work of art lecturing us about how “woke” is bad.
Turning Tár into a wholly innocent victim of circumstance would be propaganda, not art.
@@markofsaltburn art is always the propaganda of the mind that creates it. I don't believe that you can create art about a political issue from any generation of the past or present and not voice an opinion of the political issues of their time. Everyone has their own dogma but this movie felt like it was trying to pander to both sides whilst making a mockery of classical music enthusiasts in the process. If this movie made Tar a victim of political correctness or a monster defeated by it than at least the movie would have had a point. Art cannot be unbiased!
@@dracowolfe305 I don't believe Bach's art was the propaganda of his mind
Because this is intelligent writing. The fact of the matter though is, we never see her do any of the stuff she supposedly did. The only thing we and the rest of the world sees, is a hyper edited video of her insulting that man-baby from her class, who’s seemingly biologically engineered to be pointed at and mocked, like the rest of the morons who are like him in the world.
As far as the rest goes, all we see is the woke mob lynching her, for things they don’t actually care about, things they have no proof of, and things they don’t understand, simply because they’re useless and want to feel like they’re not, by tearing down someone who actually made something of herself. Just like in the real world. Parasitic leeches who want to feel like they add some value into this world, despite the fact they could collectively disappear tomorrow and not a single thing will be worse.
Sorry, Cate isnt even a remotely believable actress. Can we get over the nonsense about this mediocrity? She's truly the actress for admins and crones. Enough
Go look at how many Academy Awards nominations she has, and then say this again.
why "crones" - ugly old women?