Watched Tár today. Pretty excellent. Todd Fields has made three films in his career and garnered 6 Academy Award noms just for his parts of this films over those three (including noms for many of his top cast). He's really great at what he does.
Tar can't really be put in a box or be chalked up as supporting a particular view, it feels more like a psychological study of the eponymous character and interesting in how it reminds me more of foreign films I've watched made by folks like Olivier Assayas (than a typical American film) -- maybe the average movie-going audience in the US doesn't know quite how to parse them, as I've seen some less finessed takes on what the film is saying. I see it as exploring particular spaces, with the ultimate story still being about Lydia Tar, her strengths and flaws, the guilt that grows nibbling and then gnawing at the corners of her psyche, and then a reset of her life. She's both glorious and awful, and it's really also a review of how easily power can corrupt if someone allows the trappings of power to go to their head. So many small and large lies, so much opportunities practice self-indulgence while pretending to be beyond such things, viewing life as a series of transactions rather than commitment to other important individuals in one's life.
Blanchett does offer a powerful performance, there's no denying that.
It's sad to with so many falling from grace. Just reminded of James Levine (who I actually saw once at the Met, one of my dad's high school music students was principal bassoonist there for some years), who was associated with so much success and the pinnacle of concert music for so many years, but apparently also for whom there was talk behind the scenes for years of his abuses. In this world and so many others that have insular power, there's a culture where much is known, yet little is done until a kind of critical mass is reached.
I felt like the film also asked a bit of hard questions about identity politics, that are difficult and confusing to answer -- whether it's tied into systematic inequities or individual abuses. If a person who achieves admirable things ends up also being a dick (or even a monster), how does that impact the value of what they've provided? How much can the work be separated from the creator? This is still a relevant topic today. I think Fields has a strong approach in that he explores it but I don't feel like he is dictating an answer to that.
