reading your review of Tar made me look up Little Children. you seem to have liked it, Scott, (you gave it a B), but the plot summary of it really makes it sound hollow.
Very excited for both these movies, though I don't know how anything can live up to The Handmaiden. That film is equally parts excellent and nearly impossible to recommend without giving a lot of caveats. ("Hey coworker! I think you'd really enjoy this movie with explicit lesbian sex scenes, BDSM, and grooming! It's really good!")
I'll never be able to forget seeing that because it was just me and a row full of older women. It was a Drafthouse so nobody was making any noise which almost made it worse because then I was wondering what was going through their heads instead.
You don’t really address my primary reservation about TÁR (which I liked, albeit not as much as you did): Why make this story about a woman when (EDIT: some of) the behavior depicted is exclusive to men? You correctly note that Field and Blanchett make Lydia Tár such a complex character that the film avoids being merely a Disclosure-esque provocation, but that in and of itself doesn’t explain the decision to gender-flip in the first place. What does that achieve? (I’m not saying there are no good answers—have one myself. Just curious about how you see it.)
This is a hard question to answer, except to say that I recoil at the idea of making a movie like this around a man. There's almost something too obvious and familiar about male predation that would distract from the other dynamics at play in the film. I also think there's something specific here about powerful women who are heralded for advancing other women in their field, but take advantage of the noxious abuses their position affords them.
Yeah, there's a heavy element of "fuck you, I got mine" which you can sort of get if you cast - say - a gay man, but like you said, it would be too obvious. I found it really interesting how much she scoffs at this idea of gender equality in the field; it's this sort of reactionary stance against progressive stances where someone marginalized had to weather the storm and compartmentalize, so why can't everyone else?
I thought of Sheryl Sandberg: well, *I* worked hard and made it, so therefore maybe sexism and gender discrimination are overblown and you all just need to be amazing like me, a conventionally attractive white woman who lucked into some very influential early mentors.
That’s more or less where I landed: It defamiliarizes a scenario that would otherwise be overly blunt in its impact. But I find that the film only really works for me if I think of Tár as representing a man, which is…odd, at best. Gets in the way a bit. But I’m hoping that’ll ease up on a second viewing.
My read is that if Field makes this about a man, we all spend the next 3 months in a #notallmen/#yesallwomen back and forth that obscures all the excellent subtle things happening in this movie. By making her a woman, we can actually have a conversation about power and exploitation without a certain subset getting defensive and derailing things. And the movie is able to make its point about how common a behavior this used to be- it's telling that Andres's first reaction is "what did you hear about me?!" and his second is to list (almost wistfully) all the stories from the old days.
Wow, Tar, fantastic. Can’t imagine anything bumping that out of my #1 spot for the year. A year when Everything Everywhere All At Once was released!
Can we get a spoiler discussion space for Tar? There’s so much to unpack here, especially since, praise be, Field trusts us enough to hint, allude, and gesture to things without spelling them out.
I don't know how we would accommodate such a space, unfortunately. As much as we've tried to stretch the newsletter format into something resembling a website, it will only stretch so much. But yes, it's definitely a film worth talking about.
I think all you need is to create a separate comments section by creating a different article- doesn't even need to be a full article, just "talk about Tar here". I don't want to get spoilery on the main review since it's not fair to ppl who haven't seen it.
Substack folks, you must be creating your project roadmaps for next year right about now. Spend 2 weeks of SWE time enabling slightly more complicated discussion setups, please! Also, a wider range of emoji reactions!
"Blanchett’s aristocratic air" indeed. It's what helps make Blanchett so utterly convincing in this role. Don't all actors pick up some residue (good or bad) from their previous roles that just becomes part of their screen persona?
Was this a case of expectation peril? Just watched this today, and contrary to just about every critic out there, I found Tar to be lacking. Mostly because:
1) "Field implies persuasively that Lydia’s flaws cannot be disentangled from her brilliance." The key word there is implies...I so dearly wish it wasn't implied but explicated. Shown! I don't need Voldemort-level of blood drinking here, but wouldn't it have been great to see the positive side effects of Lydia's depravity in her conducting? Olga already gave her a pointer on her composition -- how about if her puppy love fueled an all-night session of songwriting? All I saw from Lydia's infatuation of Olga was her getting lost and hurt in what looked like a The Wire-Baltimorean project. (Also, I was reminded of Parasite a bit!) That sequence did have a nice metaphorical payoff, too -- the monster within also is now the monster outside (Lydia did look pretty bad from that fall).
2) As much as I respect Todd Field as a filmmaker, there were moments when I wanted to nudge him a little..."We're here, you know? Your audience." I appreciate the verisimilitude of classical music and all that it entails, but after the third name drop of someone I have no clue about, I feel even further pushed away from the material. Again, I'm not talking about EI5 here, just...not so much information. One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the scene between Lydia and the Julliard student (Max?). Perfect level of information + insight.
3) Mark Strong's wig needs its own Twitter feed.
4) If classical music isn't your thing but you are still hankering for a movie that stars Cate Blanchett in a riveting performance where she plays an entitled individual deserving of comeuppance:
Decision to Leave sounds fantastic.
reading your review of Tar made me look up Little Children. you seem to have liked it, Scott, (you gave it a B), but the plot summary of it really makes it sound hollow.
The book is well worth a read. Perrotta is a terrific writer in that he's deep but the books move at a lightning pace
Very excited for both these movies, though I don't know how anything can live up to The Handmaiden. That film is equally parts excellent and nearly impossible to recommend without giving a lot of caveats. ("Hey coworker! I think you'd really enjoy this movie with explicit lesbian sex scenes, BDSM, and grooming! It's really good!")
I'll never be able to forget seeing that because it was just me and a row full of older women. It was a Drafthouse so nobody was making any noise which almost made it worse because then I was wondering what was going through their heads instead.
You don’t really address my primary reservation about TÁR (which I liked, albeit not as much as you did): Why make this story about a woman when (EDIT: some of) the behavior depicted is exclusive to men? You correctly note that Field and Blanchett make Lydia Tár such a complex character that the film avoids being merely a Disclosure-esque provocation, but that in and of itself doesn’t explain the decision to gender-flip in the first place. What does that achieve? (I’m not saying there are no good answers—have one myself. Just curious about how you see it.)
This is a hard question to answer, except to say that I recoil at the idea of making a movie like this around a man. There's almost something too obvious and familiar about male predation that would distract from the other dynamics at play in the film. I also think there's something specific here about powerful women who are heralded for advancing other women in their field, but take advantage of the noxious abuses their position affords them.
Yeah, there's a heavy element of "fuck you, I got mine" which you can sort of get if you cast - say - a gay man, but like you said, it would be too obvious. I found it really interesting how much she scoffs at this idea of gender equality in the field; it's this sort of reactionary stance against progressive stances where someone marginalized had to weather the storm and compartmentalize, so why can't everyone else?
I thought of Sheryl Sandberg: well, *I* worked hard and made it, so therefore maybe sexism and gender discrimination are overblown and you all just need to be amazing like me, a conventionally attractive white woman who lucked into some very influential early mentors.
That’s more or less where I landed: It defamiliarizes a scenario that would otherwise be overly blunt in its impact. But I find that the film only really works for me if I think of Tár as representing a man, which is…odd, at best. Gets in the way a bit. But I’m hoping that’ll ease up on a second viewing.
Just watched this film today-- Lydia does refer to herself as Petra's father to the little gal she scared half to death, in German, no less! :)
My read is that if Field makes this about a man, we all spend the next 3 months in a #notallmen/#yesallwomen back and forth that obscures all the excellent subtle things happening in this movie. By making her a woman, we can actually have a conversation about power and exploitation without a certain subset getting defensive and derailing things. And the movie is able to make its point about how common a behavior this used to be- it's telling that Andres's first reaction is "what did you hear about me?!" and his second is to list (almost wistfully) all the stories from the old days.
Wow, Tar, fantastic. Can’t imagine anything bumping that out of my #1 spot for the year. A year when Everything Everywhere All At Once was released!
Can we get a spoiler discussion space for Tar? There’s so much to unpack here, especially since, praise be, Field trusts us enough to hint, allude, and gesture to things without spelling them out.
I don't know how we would accommodate such a space, unfortunately. As much as we've tried to stretch the newsletter format into something resembling a website, it will only stretch so much. But yes, it's definitely a film worth talking about.
I think all you need is to create a separate comments section by creating a different article- doesn't even need to be a full article, just "talk about Tar here". I don't want to get spoilery on the main review since it's not fair to ppl who haven't seen it.
Substack folks, you must be creating your project roadmaps for next year right about now. Spend 2 weeks of SWE time enabling slightly more complicated discussion setups, please! Also, a wider range of emoji reactions!
"Blanchett’s aristocratic air" indeed. It's what helps make Blanchett so utterly convincing in this role. Don't all actors pick up some residue (good or bad) from their previous roles that just becomes part of their screen persona?
Was this a case of expectation peril? Just watched this today, and contrary to just about every critic out there, I found Tar to be lacking. Mostly because:
1) "Field implies persuasively that Lydia’s flaws cannot be disentangled from her brilliance." The key word there is implies...I so dearly wish it wasn't implied but explicated. Shown! I don't need Voldemort-level of blood drinking here, but wouldn't it have been great to see the positive side effects of Lydia's depravity in her conducting? Olga already gave her a pointer on her composition -- how about if her puppy love fueled an all-night session of songwriting? All I saw from Lydia's infatuation of Olga was her getting lost and hurt in what looked like a The Wire-Baltimorean project. (Also, I was reminded of Parasite a bit!) That sequence did have a nice metaphorical payoff, too -- the monster within also is now the monster outside (Lydia did look pretty bad from that fall).
2) As much as I respect Todd Field as a filmmaker, there were moments when I wanted to nudge him a little..."We're here, you know? Your audience." I appreciate the verisimilitude of classical music and all that it entails, but after the third name drop of someone I have no clue about, I feel even further pushed away from the material. Again, I'm not talking about EI5 here, just...not so much information. One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the scene between Lydia and the Julliard student (Max?). Perfect level of information + insight.
3) Mark Strong's wig needs its own Twitter feed.
4) If classical music isn't your thing but you are still hankering for a movie that stars Cate Blanchett in a riveting performance where she plays an entitled individual deserving of comeuppance:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334873/
Runs about an hour less and does a pretty good job. Also, written and directed by a guy who is now fully cancelled. 🙃