TÁR: A story of rise, and fall
A woman changes her name, dons a uniform of exquisitely tailored suits and, with genuine talent, sheds her old skin in order to become a world-class conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic – to become Lydia Tár. The film opens with an audience in shadows, spotlight on Tár who is being interviewed on stage by The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik. Gopnik begins with a monologue introduction, Tár is clearly a maestro, offering insights on what it is to hear music, when music really starts. The shot pans back to a silhouette of a woman’s ponytailed head, her assistant, mouthing Tár’s words. This interview too is a performance. It’s the first hint that alongside talent, the ‘maestro’ is just one of the many faces this character has. The film explores all of them. The good, the bad and the ugly. Cancel culture, power dynamics, exploitation, love, lust and whether art can be appreciated despite the flaws of an artist, are all investigated in this film which works in the blurry, grey areas. It doesn’t seem to give a clear opinion on these themes, just lays out a story that points to the not-so-straightforward nature of things.
The film is set in music. In this case, the elite nature of it, the politics of it and the sound of it. But sound seems to play another role. What made Tár great, the sound of music she could guide out of an orchestra, also haunts her — misophonia, an extreme sensitivity to sound that disrupts her sleep and impacts her psyche. Visually the film has electric moments, the fierce movements of musicians as they are eliciting powerful or suprisingly soft sounds from their instruments. At other times, silence is the backdrop to gloomy scenes of Berlin that have an eerie, anxiety-provoking affect — not unlike a Daphne Du Maurier novel.
Some have criticised the portrayal of a world-class female conductor being an unlikeable character — considering it’s tough enough for women as it is without the rare portrayals of those who make it to the top spots being unflattering. Why make Tár quite so awful? A fair question but one that also prompted me wonder why women can’t be brilliant and awful, yet admired, in the same way many white male artists have been? I guess she’s a protagonist, not a hero. Criticism that the film is anti—women is complex, and there’s probably no right answer here. A couple of factors I consider are that it’s one of the few films I’ve seen in a while where all of the leading roles are female (albeit not a terribly diverse group). Secondly, the Dresden Philharmonic participated — the actors in the orchestra are world-class musicians, as their talent couldn’t be faked. Perhaps this involvement by musicians contributes to a sensitivity reading of sorts, maybe, maybe not. In any case, the film is a provocative conversation starter…
After the film my partner and I spoke a lot about it, debated it, had a verbal relay of our different interpretations of particular scenes. We struggled — navigating ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as we discussed, in a bid to find the politically correct or moral high ground on relevant issues raised. But here those issues are complicated, with characters playing in the space between right and wrong, through context. Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss and Sophie Kauer, directed by Todd Field, wrapped me up in this nuanced story. I don’t know anything about acting, except that if I don’t notice it at all … it must be good.