User Reviews

I believe that people in positions of authority should be held accountable for their actions. I believe that terrible people can make miraculous art. I believe that people studying an art form have an obligation to understand and engage with the full history of that art form, even when it's made by people who identify very differently from them. I believe that 99% of people accused of misdeeds are guilty to some extent of those misdeeds. I believe that there are many people who seek to avoid engaging with complex ideas and perspectives that challenge them and make them uncomfortable. I believe that everyone is guilty at times of making sweeping generalizations about others. I believe that there are positive things we can learn from people who might be terrible in other ways. I believe that both people participating voluntarily in a transactional relationship bear responsibility for the outcomes of that relationship. I believe that people are incredibly complex and can be many things at once. I believe we live in a social media world that more and more doesn't want to acknowledge that and wants to be able to smack an easy meme and label on everything.

What does "Tar" -- the movie, not the character -- believe? Maybe all of the above. Maybe none of the above. The beauty of "Tar" is that it raises a host of complex questions but doesn't force any answers on the viewer. This is a movie made for adults that lets us think for ourselves. A lot of people are interpreting it as an examination of cancel culture. I can see why, though that isn't how I primarily interpreted it. I don't think it's as much about the rights and wrongs of cancel culture as much as it's about our complicated relationships with artists and the art they create. The movie isn't exclusively about Americans, but the writer and director Todd Field is, so I think it's also about how the only thing Americans enjoy more than turning someone into an unrealistic hero is to rip them apart when they fail to live up to our expectations.

This is a movie I cannot stop thinking about. I didn't love it, though I liked it a lot. There's something slightly cold about it, so while I enjoyed the intellectual rigors of it, I didn't feel very emotionally involved. I started to feel its length as it moved into its final scenes. But I can't think of a movie I've seen recently that makes me want to talk to someone about it as much as this one, and that's got to be worth something.

Nothing needs to be said about Cate Blanchett other than that she is magnificent.

Grade: A.

This is a movie in the Stanley Kubrick tradition in that it is challenging, works on different levels and reveals new insights on each viewing. I think this will be a classic some day. But it is not easy viewing.

Here are some random thoughts I've had after two viewings...

The opening text exchange between Krista and Francesca: On first viewing I assumed it was Krista who was still in love with Tar. But after studying it closely I think it is actually FRANCESCA who is still in love with Tar. That then explains Francesca's odd behavior around Tar and the doodles she makes such as Tar/Rat. That also gives her character much more motivation to destroy Tar (which she does.) Krista, who I originally thought committed suicide due to her rejected love for Tar actually killed herself because her career was sabotaged.

I was on the fringes of the classical music world in NYC socially. I found Blanchette's portrayal of such an accomplished conductor completely unconvincing. The way she talked did not sound to me like someone who really lives and breathes classical music. So I thought her acting from that perspective was pretty bad. But maybe it was deliberate? Tar is such a phony. Was she even really friends with Lenny or did she just know him on videotape? I suspect that some of her dialogue might even be lifted from some of Bernstein's television shows. Was she, dare I say it, a beneficiary of what we call "equity" today? Did she get to where she was partly because she was a woman? Also, during the early "Inside the Actor's Studio" style interview she is treated more like a celebrity than an artist.

The movie opens with closing credits and some beautiful music I believe that Tar had recorded during her stint in Peru. The fact that she spent those years in Peru was the one truly likeable/redeeming aspect of her character. So while the film is kind of like a classical tragedy where an exalted human being crashes to earth via their own behavior, the truth is that THIS IS A MOVIE WITH A VERY HAPPY ENDING. The person Tar becomes at the end of the movie is the person she was before all the BS of success turned her into a monster. Her downfall has saved her. She is a very likeable person at the end...one who is not too proud to take on such a "demeaning" job and who treats it with the same enthusiasm she gave to Mahler. I think that those who think the ending is sad or a punishment are missing the point. Which brings us back to the closing credits being at the start. If you think of the movie playing backward from the end to the beginning, it is the story of a good human being being turned into an absolute monster. So the movie is a tragedy when played backward which is why the ending credits are at the start. But played forward the movie is actually not a tragedy. It is a story of redemption.

I have the feeling I will be analyzing this movie for the remainder of my life!

"I am Petra's father...I am going to get you." Lydia Tar (Cate Blanchett)

Make no mistake, Tar is not about music: It is a fiction about naked power in the rarefied world of classical music conducting. As writer director Todd Field deftly orchestrates a drama that's almost a thriller about the first female conductor, Lydia Tar, in a major German orchestra, the audience is thrilled and mesmerized as if Leonard Bernstein (her mentor) were conducting Mahler in Lincoln Center.

Cate Blanchett brilliantly becomes Tar, a world-renowned conductor, who has had stints from Cleveland to New York and finally Berlin. Blanchett is great enough to make the audience feel as if they had been intimate roommates with the maestro.

No longer having to answer questions about gender, she commands with like a dictator from choosing orchestral leaders to changing a program to feature a potential lover soloing Elgar on a decidedly-different program dedicated to Mahler.

When she dresses down a student at her Julliard lecture, she also handily deconstructs Bach's Prelude in C Major. She reveals in one incident her shredding personal side and her transcendent understanding of classical music.

As the quote above displays, even in her personal life she exercises an outsized fearsomeness. She can dispatch her daughter's (Mila Bogojevic) bully with a force equivalent to conducting Mahler's Fifth (or "the five" as Lydia comfortably refers to it).

When she asks permission from the orchestra to mount the Elgar, she is actually telling them that's what the program will be, at the same time informing them she's had to rotate out a beloved long-time player. Everyone is aware of the politics, especially her lust for a new cellist specializing in Elgar's Cello Concerto, replacing her assistant, Francesca (Noemie Merlant), who has seniority and maybe better skills. Yet Field, clearly schooled in Greek tragedy, loads the screenplay with hubris, the poison of numerous power players over the centuries.

It's the conductor's old game in new times when social media will reveal peccadillos as well as crimes, real or figurative, and autocrats like James Levine and Lydia Tar cannot withstand the scrutiny.

Because we have lived through all kinds of strong-man rule, from democracy-endangering fascism to indiscriminate pandemic, unfettered power seems eventually doomed to the moral demands of a populace chafing at the abuse of leadership for its personal gain, be it wealth or lust. It just takes a while for Nemesis to arrive.

Tar may be the best film so far of 2022 and Blanchett the best actress. Start your Oscar adventure now in theaters with Tar.

From Little Children to TÁR, Todd Field's first film in 16 years didn't disappoint. A slow-paced drama with a powerful performance from Cate Blanchett is a good watch. The first hour and a half of the film establishes Lydia Tár, a renowned composer-conductor, her accomplishments and position in society. However, almost completely of her own doing, her life fell apart.

Cate Blanchett's performance made this film a contender. She carried a very decent portrayal of an artist whom you thought was contented with life and success but was looking for something more. And that "more" caused a downfall no artist in real life has survived from. This film gave us a glimpse of what it's like for an artist when their career starts to fall apart, and their works and achievements become overshadowed by actions they have done. The "Can you separate the art from the artist?" argument is what makes this film a thought-provoking experience.

Greetings again from the darkness. I seriously doubt that I'll ever skip a Cate Blanchett movie. She's won two Oscars and has been nominated six times. She's consistently the best part of her movies, and often the best in a full year of movies. Here she stars in the first film in 16 years from the remarkable writer-director Todd Field. His two previous films, LITTLE CHILDREN (2006) and IN THE BEDROOM (2001) combined for eight Oscar nominations, and more importantly, established Mr. Field as a rare and unique filmmaker of great depth. Having Field reappear and cast Blanchett generated a heap of excitement from this film nerd.

Ms. Blanchett stars as Lydia Tar, a piano virtuoso, the conductor of the famed Berlin Orchestra, and a true musical genius. She's a rare EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony) from the classical field. Her music (and her life) is a quest to uncover/discover what the composer meant with each piece. Lydia is sometimes rough on her wife Sharon (Nina Hoss), but frequently dotes on their young daughter ... while otherwise living a relative selfish and self-centered life. We also see this true persona in how she treats her young assistant Francesca (Noemie Merlant), who quietly aspires to become a conductor, while efficiently keeping Lydia on track each day.

The film begins with "New Yorker" writer Adam Gopnik interviewing Lydia as a stage presentation in front of a live audience. It's his introduction of the Maestra where we learn her background and the proficiency that has garnered her such respect (as well as jealousy and animosity). Throughout the film, many real musicians (past and present) are referenced, and that detailed research is alone enough to earn respect for what Mr. Field has accomplished here. The stress and laser-focus on Lydia as she prepares for the final symphony in her Mahler portfolio (his 5th). We witness the meticulous detail that goes into managing the music and musicians, and this leads to handling the dismissal of veteran who is slipping, and the addition of a brilliant young cellist named Olga (Sophie Kauer). We are never quite sure if Lydia's attraction to Olga is limited to her skills with the bow.

Of course, any perfectionist at the top of their industry is subject to backlash and criticism. Is Lydia abusive? Is she exploitive? It seems the answers may be affirmative, and likely what drives her art. It's quite discomforting to watch as she covers her tracks after the suicide of a former pupil, but I'll admit to a certain feeling of satisfaction as she verbally spars with another student over gender semantics ... actions that of course come back to bite her.

Ms. Blanchett is fascinating and mesmerizing to watch. She is at the top of her game playing a perfectionist who is at the top of her game. However, it's clear this film isn't likely to strike the right notes with mainstream audiences. It's an arthouse film about art, and thus is filled with dialogue and much less actual music than you might expect for a film about a world class Orchestra conductor.

Opens in theaters on October 21, 2022.

When did they start thinking that it was ok to make a movie centered around negative, egoistical, sociopathic characters? Since a new wave of directors in the 70s decided they wanted to break the rules? Remember: there are no rules, but you break them at your own peril.

Sorry it may sound old hat but I do believe a movie is much stronger when you can totally empathize with the main character. A main character can be ambiguous (unless you are into the immature superhero SFX extravaganza), weak or even a perfect loser, but a sociopath? What do we care about them?

I am flabbergasted by the fact that Todd Field took so long to write this. He wanted Cate Blanchett to play the part, great, she did it, she just bought into the project and trusted the director to know what story he was telling.

Having Cate Blanchett doesn't mean you can do anything. SHE can play anything obviously, but what a waste of talent and energy to just bundle this in a story from the POV of this character who appears less and less positive as the story progresses.

To me this could have been a masterpiece - carried in no small way by the same cast performance shoed in by the same direction - if only the movie had quickly switched to an external point of view: assistant Francesca or wife Sharon. Someone we could empathize 100% with, not someone we would feel gradually 100% estranged from.

This basic mistake works like reverse chemistry: everything is in place after the (quite heavy) exposition in the New Yorker public interview, then each time Lydia Tar takes a plane to and from Berlin we lose some interest, some proximity with her.

The buzz-worthy Julliard sequence is the most important part of the movie. It works perfectly well, the overwhelming professionalism crushing the uncompromising wannabe pretentiousness. It is very strong. You cannot but love this buoyant personality and take sides for this sharper-than-frame character. Her lecture is just the opposite of pedagogy, either you know the answers or you just shut up and listen. But you want more, you are craving to be lectured flat.

Unfortunately this masterful sequence is then buried under layer after layer where the viewer is just an accessory to more and more destructive sociopathic behaviour.

Cate Blanchett + supporting cast: 5/5.

Todd Field's script and other creative choices: 1/5.

I wonder, do people like this film because it's entertaining, or because it tickles their intellectual superiority complex? Perhaps there's something I missed.

Classical music buffs may find some enjoyment in this film, but for the rest of us plebs it'll feel like watching paint dry. There are many references to classical music and music theory that will go over most people's heads. There was one scene where Tar's lecturing a class about the philosophy of whether or not we should enjoy the music of a composer that was a know misogynist, interesting points were made and the argument was enjoyable. That's where my interest piqued, unfortunately the film then descended into monotony.

Most discussions at the start of the film were just pompous rambling about nothing we care about. I thought although I have no interest in the characters conversations, perhaps I can enjoy some of the music? Nope. Whenever she starts practicing the piano at home, someone knocks at the door. Or there's a phone call. Every time the orchestra began to play I closed my eyes and felt the beauty of the music, just as I get into it and feel goosebumps, the music is interrupted. Every time. They start playing, Tar stops it because something is wrong. Eventually I wanted to close my eyes just to fall asleep. The characters speak so passionately about the music, all you want to do is share that passion by experiencing it. But the film denies you the experience every time. It's frustrating.

What was more frustrating is the unanswered questions. She hears sounds.. beeping coming from somewhere. A scream in the woods. Is she going mad? Is she schizophrenic? Nothing comes of it later in the film. Some serious accusations were made against her, which is the turning point in the film where she starts to get a bit more crazy, which any person might do under the circumstances. Were the accusations true or false? Who knows. She attended a meeting to discuss the accusations and that's it. The movie pretty much ends there. The ending felt rushed, there was too much build up and not emphasis on the parts of her life that were actually dramatic. Quite a bit of screen time also goes towards showing her relationship with her daughter. She takes her to school, tells her not to go into her office, deals with someone who's bullying her at school. Why? What is the point in any of this screen time? To show there's a human beneath the cold, professional exterior perhaps. Despite this, in the end, Tar still felt cold and lifeless.

The acting was fantastic, every character felt real that I must admit. Unfortunately the film was too anticlimactic, and didn't capture my imagination.

This was a very deep and very dense movie that turned out to be incredibly difficult to watch and took a tremendous amount of effort to get through. That's not taking anything away from the movie or the story, but it is just a very difficult story and Cate Blanchett's performance, though amazing as it was, was that of a character with a very few redeeming qualities other than her talent. And it is never easy to relate to someone blessed with prodigious talent, yet lacking in humanity and grace, much less a shred of nobility.

I guess it was intended as an essay on the potentially toxic effects of fame, fortune and power. Maybe.

I have to say that Tar is an exceptional movie but it took me two viewings to fully appreciate it. In my first viewing, I felt that it was slow and slightly boring even though there was lots of talk about classical music, which I am familiar with. There was a bit of ambiguity about whether Lydia actually committed criminal acts until well into the movie and it is rarely ever explicitly discussed. Very hushed like it would be in real life.

Other than the pace of the movie, I had no other complaints even in the first viewing. I felt that Cate Blanchett has definitively placed herself on the greats with the performance she showed here. The movie was essentially a character study of Lydia Tar and I thought that she was masterful. On my second viewing, I noticed how subtly emotionally manipulative she was -showing the audience the glimpse of her true colors. There were also subtle actions and shots that I missed and didn't make connections in the first viewing such as Lydia quickly erasing her original score once she realized it was Olga's playing. I also noticed her demeanor towards Francesca was also borderline problematic and that Krista (the redhaired victim) was watching her in the NY talk. All of these made me realize that you may need a second viewing to truly understand how "tarred" Lydia was. The movie doesn't always spell things out for you but that subtlety, as I realized in my second viewing, was quite exquisite.

Everything goes 0-100 in the matter of 20 minutes as Lydia's acts are uncovered but I found the ending hilarious. A lifetime of musical achievement and she is out in Asia conducting what looks like to be a young adult orchestra, game music for cosplayer event. It was just so unexpected and was comical that she still had the same poise and attitude towards music despite how much she has fallen, showing a striking contrast with the beginning of the film.

This movie showed me that I still have a long way to go in film appreciation and the beauty of subtlety. I expect fully that Lydia Tar will go down as a notable example in film of people who fell from the pedestal.

Opens with credits and a woman singing which was like nails on a chalkboard. Once you get past that it's still a snooze-fest. Watching someone interviewed is rarely interesting. I think the credits were a warning to leave as soon as possible. For this to be nominated for an Academy Award just goes to prove that the award means nothing outside of the industry. I suggest you take a shower while the credits roll and then call several friends to discuss where you are all going for dinner before fixing some little nibbles and light beverages before settling in for the slog of a movie that never gets better or interesting.