Tár

How much you enjoy Tar will depend largely on how you feel about a film that begins with the credits. There's good reason for it (everything in Tar is considered down to the smallest detail) but if you can't get on board with that kind of self indulgence then you are in for a long two and a half hours.

One of the reasons for beginning with the credits may be that we are about witness a career in reverse. An opening interview lets us know that Lydia Tar is at the top of her profession, a conductor with a dream resume and an EGOT who is about to complete her masterpiece symphony recording. Over the next couple of hours we see her slipping down the mountain as past deeds and the way she treats people in general come back to take a bite out of her perfect life.

The film solely follows Kate Blanchett's Tar for the entire runtime, we see all events from her perspective and she is in every scene. Blanchett put its an astounding performance, indeed it is hard to imagine many, if any, other actors who could have been up to the task. That the whole show rests on such a powerful but subtle turn is Tar's greatest strength but also its only real weakness. Its a nuanced performance that fits perfectly but added to the characters flawed nature it can at times leave proceedings feeling cold and hard to connect with emotionally. Like its titular character Tar is a film of craftmanship and intellect not emotion, although the themes of hierarchy dynamics and abuse are powerful.

If you can get on board with the full force filmaking style then you will find Tar a breathtaking wonder of a movie with something to think about in every scene and something to ponder long after the (second lot of) credits roll.

9 successful recordings out of 10 symphonies.

Initially I was put off by Tár-it's cryptic, drab, and sluggish. Until I realized what the filmmakers were actually accomplishing. No spoilers in this review, but to enjoy the film you have to know certain things:

1. Yes, Cate Blanchett is fantastic and rightfully deserves the accolades.

2. The film is the slowest of slow burns.

3. The film does not hold your hand.

4. The film's narrative cuts out key elements of scenes that other filmmakers would have highlighted. This was the sticking point for me-it didn't dawn on me until halfway through the film what was happening. If you know this going in, I believe you'll have a better experience with the film. The film purposefully *doesn't* show you the "important" elements of scenes or relationships between characters. You have to figure that out yourself, just like putting together the puzzle of who Lydia Tár actually is. Here's a quick non-related example:

Bill stared at the smoke in the frying pan.

Bill rubbed his nose five times and took a call from Ernest while sipping coffee at Station 271.

If those two sentences above were in a book, it would be leaving out major plot points that other authors would have filled in. First, there was a fire in Bill's kitchen. He called the fire department. He had to evacuate, so the fire may have been bad. And who is Ernest, if we have not been introduced to that character before? Why is bill rubbing his nose so much? Is it a tick or OCD or nervous habit?

That's what Tár is like. It presents to you all the items "between the lines" and lets you solve for X for yourself. Once I understood that that was the dominant cinematic approach in this film, it became immensely more enjoyable...and challenging. Very much worth your time if you put in the effort.

During the first minute of this film, Cate Blanchett shows what an extraordinary actress she is. Her character, star conductor Lydia Tár, is waiting to go onstage. There is no dialogue, only body language. But even without words, Blanchett shows what Tár thinks and feels.

Blanchett's remarkable performance is a large part of what makes this a good movie. But there's more. The very clever script gives us a lot to chew on afterards. Tár is a woman in the men-dominated world of classical music. She's not warm, empathic or even very sympathetic. In fact, she has many characteristics that are usually associated with men. She's vain, selfish and manipulative. And that's what gets her in trouble. At the start of the film, she seems to be one of the most admired women in the world. She is extremely famous and successful. At the end, everything has fallen apart.

The film doesn't judge. It leaves it up to the viewer to decide if Lydia Tár is a victim or a culprit. Or maybe both at the same time. The viewer gets a lot of information to make up his (or her) mind. Director Todd Field gives us the story elements slowly, bit by bit. Take the scene where Lydia Tár gives a stern speech to a young girl who bullies her daughter. It shows that she is used to getting everyone in line, according to her wishes. That's useful information to interpret things later on in the movie.

Tár is very much a modern movie. It has things to say about gender, about power, about social media, about being woke. But at the same time, it's a very old-fashioned movie. It takes its time. There are long scenes, and long takes. There's nothing modern in the way it is filmed. And that's a good thing.

Don't be fooled by the great reviews, if you're someone who's not particularly interested in orchestras, conductors and random old musicians from times past, this movie is an utter bore. The first 10 minutes are CREDITS. JUST CREDITS. Then it drags on with the most absolutely annoying, long, mind-numbing scenes where rich, white people just talk to each other about the most esoteric stuff, with cameos of the actress talking to her orchestra about which string needs to be pulled in which direction.

I'm dead serious, 1 and a half hour later, you still can't tell what the hell's going on. It's just scenes of her talking about the most mundane stuff, and playing instruments.

It's a pretentious movie, that appears completely different and way more interesting in the trailer, but in reality is just an elitist blob of nothingness aesthetic. If you value your money and time, don't watch this movie.

Everybody writing about this mock biopic focuses on Cate Blanchett's knock-it-out-of-the-park performance, but when compared to Field's "Little Children" (2006), "Tár" lacks the storytelling and editing skills which make the earlier film a masterpiece of human relations, whereas the latter is an interesting character study that somehow collapses under its own weight.

There's a strong establishing scene showing Tár demolishing an aspiring musician's conceited views on Bach, yet one has to wait for a long time for a follow-up showing the main character's boundary issues. The central topic emerges rather quickly (abuse of power), but there are diversions which support character development, yet drag on the narrative, which is probably why many reviews here find the film frustrating.

Being an ex-Berliner, I like the fact that the city is being used as a real location as opposed to the usual tourist / Cold War hot spots, and the Philharmonics rehearsal scenes are very well done, but they don't really push the story forward and could have easily been wound down a bit.

Nina Hoss as Tár's partner is a brilliant counterpoint, because she keeps a good deal of her thoughts to herself until she doesn't, so more focus on their relationship would have helped the story. Hoss would deserve a supporting actress Academy Award nod if only she had more screen time.

The initial scene of conflict eventually loops back into focus, and Field could have used this to explore societal misjudgment as he did in "Little Children" - but he doesn't, which makes "Tár" rather distant and cold. Field expects viewers to interpret a lot on their own, which is bold and demanding, but with this approach it is crucial to keep focus on an underlying message, otherwise it gets lost.

In conclusion, "Tár" has all the ingredients for a masterpiece - interesting characters, great performances, nice camerawork - but weak storytelling ultimately reduces the film's potential.