Tár.

Review #1965: Tár.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Linda Tarr/Lydia Tár), Nina Hoss (Sharon Goodnow), Noémie Merlant (Francesca Lentini), Sophie Kauer (Olga Metkina), Julian Glover (Andris Davis), Allan Corduner (Sebastian Brix), Mark Strong (Eliot Kaplan), Sylvia Flote (Krista Taylor), Adam Gopnik (himself), Mila Bogojevic (Petra), Zethphan Smith-Gneist (Max) Written and Directed by Todd Field.

Review: 

"Well, I'd been thinking about this character for a very long time and sort of been asking myself, you know, some questions of how we look at power, you know? Like, who has it? Who feeds it? Who benefits? You know, and from the beginning of time, that hasn't really been a question."

Admittedly, defining a director by the number of films directed is pretty dubious. But it does lead to interesting discussions, as is the case with Todd Field. Born in Pomona, California but raised in Portland, Oregon, he honed his interests in music and acting, with his debut in the latter being in 1986. His interest in directing came in 1992, which began a slew of short films with the American Film Institute. In 2001, he made his feature film debut as the director and co-writer of In the Bedroom, an independent film success. He returned in 2006 with Little Children, which was a critical hit. However, his third feature film did not come for sixteen years, which occurred due to a variety of projects dying in development (of course, he also had the pleasure of parenthood as well, so he obviously had a point in setting a sight of doing particular material he wanted). Field wrote the script specifically in the hopes of getting Blanchett (and only her) to star in the film. Field might be one of very few people to benefit from a car crash, oddly enough. He had been told by Blanchett's agent that she would be too busy to work on any more projects for three years before he got into a car crash. Apparently, the agent felt sorry enough about hearing of the wreck that she stated that Field could be allowed to send Blanchett the script for her to read, which she liked. All diegetic music (source music) was recorded live on-set, whether that involves the piano, the cello, or the Dresden Philharmonic (used for the fictional orchestra seen in the film).

It is funny and sad at the same time to talk about a movie that came and went with mild fanfare that saw more people talk about the title character and so-called "cancel culture" rather than people seeing it. For the most part, I didn't even find the title character that particularly unlikable, instead finding a twisted pity for seeing how far a bully can go in a downfall when all they wanted to do was to be judged on their own merits that made them both a genius and, well, Tár. Hell, I actually read an article that (jokingly or not) thought that believed Tár was a real person (the name dropping of certain composers that were accused of sexual misconduct, is accurate, however). Field has stated that the film is in many ways a fractured fairy tale (since there has never actually been a female principal conductor of a major German orchestra). I would also say it is also an inversion of both the biopic and ghost story. This is the kind of movie where the lead character finds a mentor in Leonard Bernstein that is basically "I watched tapes of the famed composer and found something worth looking to".  I loathe the idea of calling a movie any certain kind of statement on something, but I will say that it most certainly is not a look into "cancel culture". Actual conductor Marin Alsop (the first woman appointed to lead a major American orchestra) slammed the movie as some sort of film that offended her as a "woman...as a conductor...as a lesbian". Besides, having a few similar characteristics to Alsop isn't particularly a bad thing when one is a movie involving an accused pervert and the other is real life (besides, isn't true equality about having ambiguous characters of all genders rather than sugarcoating?). But this is a movie about the all-corrupting nature of power, one that sees the highs and lows that come with trying to assert their status, which I think is universal beyond the genders (in other words, movies are not always going to be about likable winners making contributions to society, so pick better next time), which corrodes our ideals and fantasies until we don't even recognize ourselves. Besides, a movie can pack plenty of curiosity and interest in a subject with an (perceived) unlikable character if the execution is done right, and I believe that is the case here. Granted, it is a long and winding road to get there, but it ultimately proves worth it to those with the fortitude to see something with as much edge in descent as there is visual style present here.

In a movie with the titling style of a biopic, there is something amusing about that particular character finding it odd to see pupils interested more in the personal history and identity of a musician than their actual work. Blanchett listened to recordings of "razor-sharp, absolutely authentic public intellectual" Susan Sontag. She has stated that the character is basically one who tries to hide from both the unpleasant side of oneself and the inevitable specter of death, which she accomplishes well in ambiguity when you see the contrast between the public and private persona that are driven by sound.  As such, it probably isn't surprising that she dominates the film with a tremendous performance, one composed of such vaunted confidence as a dominator of timing and poise...which makes the eventual descent all the more entertaining. That doesn't mean the other actors are forgettable, since they each do pretty well as mere tools of transactional contrast with Blanchett, whether that involves ones engaging in complicity such as Merlant or the perfect enabler with Hoss or the perfect conniving company man in Strong.

Probably the best scene to look upon her as a character is a scene where she is trying to teach a masterclass about composers and finds herself with someone not interested in Johann Sebastian Bach. It works so well in bitter amusement because of how it presents each presence in where each can be thought to be right and wrong in what ends up being a ten-minute masterclass in a long take vivisection (as executed by Field and cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister). It certainly is a movie that captures great scope for its 158-minute runtime, with Hoffmeister defining the film's visual style as "appearance, being, detachment, and intimacy", and I would say that makes this a highly interesting film to let sift in your mind, one where the second half is undoubtedly best to sift through in dissecting a downfall first-hand. Of course, the nature of its ending and the ways it gets there is entirely up to the viewer to see if it pays off in splendid ways or not (it does for me, with those last moments of seeing where the new skin of a genius at persona-inventing has led them). It is a movie all about details to look forward and backward through, one that asks probing questions about just what a genius means when it comes to the power they wield in public and private and where it can all lead to. Whether one believes it is one of the best films of the year or not, Tár is definitely an accomplishment for both its main star and director in striking power that makes it a curious film to recommend for those who look for contemporary enjoyment or to see what could happen the more times they find themselves coming back to it. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.