Let's focus on the real victim in Todd Field's film _Tar_
first. _Tar_ is a disgraceful hack job that dishonors
classical music. It is as malicious and dishonest in its
smear job on classical music as the Juilliard youtube
clip heavily edited to slander Lydia Tar for sexual
harassment. Given the film's focus on Mahler's 5th symphony
in general and the sublime slow (fourth) movement in
particular, a honest "dialogue" would be to play that
piece at length to let the viewer judge whether classical
music is indeed "divine" and all those superlatives claimed
by the musicians. Instead the film uses the barest slip
of the slow movement -- its very end -- which suffices to
leave even Cate Blanchett's smooth-as-marble operator Tar
shattered, her face crumbling into a heap for the only time
in the film. There are plenty of chances to insert it
into the film. It could also be played at the very end
(via the Thai orchestra, which would give the film a balanced
epiphany). Or during the opening credits. Instead we get
the most narcissistic movie opening ever, 4+ minutes of B&W
credits over a pretentious choral chant, pointedly devoid
of instrumental accompaniment. Field must really hate
classical instrumental music, and thinks really highly
of his snide put-down.

Now back to Cate Blanchett. Her Tar is shown to be a fake
through and through (even her upbringing is invented).
What is the point of getting us to watch her for 2+ hours
(she is in every scene) but deny her any discernible human
truth? Blanchett's Tar seems so superficial; it is all
a performance. Unfortunately, that is also Blanchett's
MO in a nutshell; she can do the external stuff to a fault
but little seems to come from inside her. Her first scene
with wife Nina Hoss is particularly telling. Hoss is about
46 in real life and Blanchett 6 years older according to
the imdb, but the German has aged so gracefully; the lines
in her face channel her energy inwards, towards somewhere
deep. There is nothing inwards for Blanchett. I wrongly
thought she has turned the page after _Knight of Cups_,
that she has grown into a more soulful actress. You can
argue that's the way the character is written, although
it would be a failure of the writing. Compare also with
Jessica Chastain. Elizabeth Sloane in _Miss Sloane_ is
no less intellectually imposing and verbally brilliant
than Lydia Tar, but Chastain makes her brilliance so
organic and immediate; there is no lag time, she doesn't
have to think, it all flows out of her. In _355_ (an
inferior film to be sure), Chastain spars with a fighting
partner and afterwards she is so out of breath we can't
hear her lines. Tar spars too, but genuine panting
moments never occur (except after the rehearsal of the 4th
movement). She is the real robot she keeps accusing
everyone else of becoming.

Other than the amazing Nina Hoss, the highlights of _Tar_
are the Sophie Kauer character, and the use of the Berlin
Philharmonie. Kauer is a real-life cellist, not an actress,
but she comes off so natural -- her poor posture, hungry
appetite, fresh energy, and all. Not even Field's constipated
directing can corrupt her. And it is nice to see the
Berlin music cathedral again. I once sat there, among
rich old German bankers and their young beautiful Russian
companions while listening to Anne-Sophie Mutter play
Vivaldi. So yes, there is a lot of fakery and commercialism
in classical music alright, but there are also the real deals ...
AS Mutter is an incredibly beautiful and graceful woman,
but when playing the violin she is none of those things.
She becomes a force of nature, her face incredibly contorted
as she wrings the last drop of power from her 1710 Strad.
For a very brief moment Blanchett seems to achieve that,
but she could have done so much more.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The film seems to want to focus on the predatory behavior
of Lydia Tar. Is it encouraging us to jump to conclusions?
Tar is certainly sleazy, trying to seduce the young cellist,
making her guilty of attempted adultery. But it is not clear
the conductor of a symphony is truly the boss, in the sense
of US corporations where sleeping with subordinates is a
firing offense. You can that a liaison between conductor
and performer is more akin to that between a movie director
and actress. No one seems to mind that too much. (Anyone
care to rip into the critics' darling Noah Baumbach for that?
Didn't think so.)

The real reason Tar is a monster is that she contributes
to the suicide of a student. It is very unclear what the
relation between the two is, but that doesn't even matter.
If there is no relation and Tar accidentally kills the
student, say in a traffic accident, it should haunt her for
life. Taking a life is irrevocable and final. But Tar is
more focused on erasing the evidence of their interactions,
and her attempt to blackball the student out of a job.

Here is where the director fails us, where he becomes the
monster. Perhaps knowing the suicide can overshadow the
film and his pet theme (apparently sexual harassment), he
elides the victim, refusing to show her face, refusing
to let Tar be haunted by her. (Instead she hears random
noises.) So this is where a single directorial decision
changes the meaning of a film, for the worse. It is
reminiscent of Ang Lee refusing to show Tony Leung
torturing the resistant fighters in _Lust, Caution_,
ruining that film.

Can a conductor change the meaning of music the way
the director can ruin his film? I am mostly untrained
in music; I can make out 4 instruments at a time at
best. Usually the most noticible thing is the tempo.
I remember listening to Anne-Sophie Mutter play the
Bruch concerto in Pittsburgh. I am used to von Karajan's
propulsive pace, especially near the finale of the first
movement. Manfred Honeck instead made the piece sound
like something stuck in a traffic jam. It was the
single worse recital I have heard in my life. But
the interpretation of classical music has actually
changed a lot over the centuries, and not just because
of the evolution of the instruments. The Siberlius
violin concerto is one of the greatest of all time,
and perhaps the most difficult for the soloist ever.
It is sufficiently modern that some early recordings
exist. Siberlius was said to favor one particular
violinist, saying her interpretation was exactly how
he wrote it. If you listen to her on youtube now,
you would hardly recognize the piece as *the* Siberlius
concerto that we love so much. I just listen, so
this is not something that gives me heartburn, but
I can imagine music scholars being troubled by such
things. So yes, the conductor can make a difference.
Field should *definitely* have shown us the 7-minute
4th movement that Tar threatens to inflict on her
audience.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)