The meaning behind the cosplayers at the end is that it is a throw back to the original opening. People crowded around just to see Tar, the person. Now people only come to listen to the music she conducts, but not see her personally.
Because she doesn’t place importance on her identity, in relation to her art, she becomes blind to her actual self in pursuit of genius and _moving_ work. Later in the film, when she visits her impoverished childhood home, we find out that her real name is not “Lydia Tár”, but “Linda Tarr”. It seems that she's always had to recreate herself, her identity, to match the level of genius that her work radiates. By the end, we see that she has become a victim of the very identity she chose to ignore, now she's being ignored all together.
She also talks, in that opening interview scene, of a female conductor who was "ghetto-ized into obscurity" and I think that's become the case with her too. In her world, in her opinion where she came from and eventually ends up is the "ghetto". Something she's been running from all her life.
@@mrchrisliddell Yes, so to speak, both wind up in a ghetto of obscurity, but for very different reasons: the conductor mentioned in the opening interview was ghettoized because she had no power; Lydia Tar, on the other hand, wound up ghettoized because she had power, abused it and she was then removed from power.
Another thing I just picked up on, watching this again, is that Max's words toward the end are violent and brutal in a sense. The complete opposite of ideals about being pangender and embracing inclusion. The character claims to be all about that, and yet uses hateful and misogynistic language when they feel "cornered." Gosh, what a brilliant film.
Indeed! He calls her a 'bitch'. That's pretty rude bi-pan creature, pretty damn rude. Hopefully this younger generation of 2000 different boxes to check for their identity grow up and expand their parameters to zero boxes.
Well and worse, after trying to use his weak justifications and ‘polite’ rebuttals assuming they could be used as an intellectual defense, only to have a MUCH smarter, if still morally dubious, person very rationally decimate their argument, it exposes how uneducated an opinion they truly have. So, faced with a bruised ego and without anything else to fall back on, they resort to the childlike insults the Internet taught them that run counter to the equally childlike logic they tried to weaponize. This is not to put down anyone who identifies as any of these identities. It’s to say if you are going to make a bold statement like “cis white European composers aren’t interesting,” you better have a more rationalized and thought out reasoning than just “well, that’s my opinion.” Especially if you’re AN ASPIRING COMPOSER AT JUILLIARD!
@@baronesswithabrush1991 Nope. It’s the squeamish, left-wing crowd that generally strives to be offended every day. If they don’t wake up offended, they literally search the Internet for old videos, new videos, old tweets, etc., so they can satisfy their need to be offended and then screech about it. If that isn’t a mental illness, I really don’t know what is.
I think it's also important to note that she's not really immune to this kind of thinking. Later in the film when a colleague quotes Schopenhauer she dismisses him in a similar way.
@@kennethmeeker6369 i'd like to hear what she has to say about Schopenhauer's aesthetic, as it is one of the most positive validations of art and artists.
Yes. Cate Blanchett is an actor. And so good at it that many conflate her with Lidia Tár. Blanchett is not Tár, no more than she is Guerin or Irina or ... She's an actor and she's glorious. Her work will outlive anything from the neighbourhood.
One point that wasn't adressed in this video is that even if Tár's student is wrong (I agree he is), she didn't have to publicly humiliate him by having the group basically vote on who was winning the debate. That to me was a way of foreshadowing her manipulative technics and eagerness to destroy her perceived enemies.
Exactly! You are the only one to this point that have noticed this and commented on it. More than the class content, the scene helps us to understand how she can loose her balance when dealing with other people when they don't react as she expected. She expected him to understand her point of view, but his unwillingness to do so triggers her to diminish him in public (totally wrong of her, of course). Also, it's constructed to show us how that moment can be "edited" and totally taken out of context by people who were recording it with their phones. Because that's what the other students do and it cannot be justified by her humiliating one of them.
@@JussaraAlmeida2912 I love that detail in the sequence shot. It not only serves as a resource that helps the narrative, but also for us to observe Tár's every movement to the point that it is almost impossible to get the wrong context. But the students who recorded her took her totally out of context and she came off as a sexual predator when, in THIS specific case, she was not. Instead of seeing her as a stubborn person who is capable of humiliating someone of lower status because they disagree with her point of view; which was what we saw.
The world is brutal why not get ready for that in school? The Arts are incredibly competitive and it's teachers like this who will prepare you for that
@@hortleberrycircusbround9678, I'm not debating that. I just think this scene foreshadows that we are seeing the portrait of a complex and nuances individual.
Lydia in this scene is a good demonstration of why great artists don't necessarily make great teachers. Every great music teacher I've had was not a great artist; conversely, every bad music teacher I've had (and there were many) were brilliant, but highly impatient and egotistical. The best way to learn from great artists, in my opinion, is just study their art and become a very astute, intense observer.
There is one problem. When you are a young, opinionated, coddled, arrogant sod like the young gentleman being portrayed here, you will not learn from the great artists simply baecause you are rejecting them because of arbitrary characteristics like gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and other incidental nonsense, thus closing off your mind from really learning, and thus being unable to produce anything but tripe yourself. Just look at Rings of Power, Velma or Witcher - Blood Origins. Written and execited by egomaniacal schmucks who really think they could surpass the creators without having the talen, ability or temperament.
Is she a great artist though? She certainly thinks she is but the movie shows I think that’s she’s a prententious snob who thinks she’s better than she actually is
People forget it is not Cate Blanchette who wrote the words, but the screenwriter. Granted, she agreed to play the role, but the screenwriter(s) deserve to be lauded for their brave step. So does everyone else who worked on the film.
Exactly. Too often the actor and sometimes the director receive ALL the praise while screenwriters, who actually create the situations and the quotes, are criminally underrated.
Todd Field said he wrote the screenplay for Balnchett to play, so it would make sense that he wrote the words with her ability to portray and embody them.
According to the director, Lydia lost the discussion, not because she had the wrong arguments, but because she humiliated the student which wasn't neccesary and it proves Tár is more preoccupied about asserting her power than in being right!
Nah - these tender wimps need to be humiliated to grow a thicker skin and join the real world. These woke boobs are catered to- too much in those ivory towers
Lost the discussion because she was trying to make the student understand that one cannot judge the life of a person three centuries ago under today’s eyes? The guy represents the cultural tragedy and the pandemic of stupidity we’re living nowadays.
@@ramireza6904??? the sensitive one is her. Like he has his standpoint whether its right or wrong. She cannot take it and therefore wants to humiliate him.
There are indeed 3 people in the room but the third isn't Max's leg. Isn't that Francesca standing at the back of the auditorium filming the whole episode as part of her plan to destroy Lydia?
Yes, she is at the top of the frame creating a triangle between her, Tar and Max in the beginning of the scene. The quiet, objective observer being at the top of this morality triangle seems pretty significant.
I think it's interesting that this scene comes shortly after the interview where Tár stresses the importance of understanding Mahler and his personal life in interpreting his 5th symphony. In this context, it seems like Tár has no problem synthesising the art with the artist, except when doing so would stop you from engaging with the art, exactly what Tár fears happening to her.
Brilliant film, and that scene was masterful. For me, I got the sense that she's sincerely making a point and trying to educate, but as I watched it, I was appalled at how abusive she was to Max. She could have more gently opened Max up to the wider viewpoint without humiliating him., but she chose to destroy him rather than enlighten in a more learning-focused way. To me, it came across as cruel, and of course at that point in the film, I had no notion of how cruel she would turn out to be.
But she DID try to educate him in a patient, learning-focused way, and Max's response was completely cynical and stupid. It was perhaps cruel of her to loose her temper, but she is completely saying the truth. Had Max given any sort of argument, any sort of actual critical thinking, or if he were actually LISTENING to what she was trying to say, it would've been wrong to destroy him like that. As far as I see it, she gave him a hard truth that he much needed to receive in order to grow.
@@adrimiq Exactly, he was so trying to be on a higher moral ground with his comment about Bach's misogyny but at the piano with Tar, he didnt even try anymore lol. He deliberately admittted he hated straight white male composers for no reason at all, and that was when Tar decided to destroy him in such an educating way.
One of the things almost everyone seems to be missing, including the person who made this film without acknowledging that cruelty, is that Max is autistic and/or adhd, and that accounts for his leg, his speech including not being great at impromptu expressing himself, and possibly his interest in conducting/talent for it anyway. This is not just her humiliating someone for having a different opinion (a legitimate one, since it does matter what someone's character is when we consider their legacy, and they don't have a right to only be remembered for being talented), it's her calling a neurodivergent kid up to the front of the class to humiliate him with a position that later gets contradicted in the movie. She's projecting that she doesn't want anyone to judge her for her actions, but indeed she does get judged and punished for doing evil in the end.
There’s something to Lydia’s awareness of how she intimidates others and her ability to control or shut down the experiences of others. Their feelings - of agitation, discomfort or fear are simply not allowed. She overpowers those she’s up against both emotionally and physically. This is evidenced by her clamping down on Max’s thigh as well as arresting her assistant conductor’s incessant pen-clicking. You even see the fear in the woman’s face in the dreamlike sequence (memory?) where Lydia is caressing the woman but is almost vampiric in her moves.
Not to mention the exchange with the child in the school yard who has been bullying her daughter. She is an uber competitive character, which one would have to be to sport the resume she has obtained. Life is competition. Top tiered success in the arts is more competitive than life.
Max's thigh movements and the pen clicking are hard to ignore and incredibly annoying to the point of wanting to scream. Those 2 things are NOT a case of overpowering . Even watching the film I wanted to yell at Max to just fucking stop.
@@yulianna8004 I agree. Incredibly irritating, but also, I'd feel some kind of way if someone commanded me to stop my nervous tic. Especially by reaching over to physically bar me from doing said tic. Save those moves for your child. As adults, we can only request that people stop doing the things that annoy us. Anything else is, IMO, too dominating. Still, this movie is renting a lot of space in my head - a good sign!
I find this a very one-sided analysis of her character. She is not blunt or insensitive in difficult situations. The way she holds and dances with her wife until her heart calms down is beautiful and gentle. She doesn't say "you, my son, are a complete idiot, wtf are you even doing here" like some others (me, probably) would have after that colossally idiotic announcement on his part, but makes an effort to explain and show the complexity and beauty of Bach's music - who would even want to waste their time doing this in a conservatory level music class? The guy's attitude and insight reflects a teenager from a high school, not an adult music student. She feels guilty and sick to her stomach after Krista's suicide. She's being gentle with the older guys in every scene. I could go on. I read a bunch of reviews before watching the movie and read about her being an awful predator and etc., and then I watched the movie and was stunned how much more likeable I ended of finding her than I expected.
@@glasss1978 I agree, she's a complex sentient being. I never read reviews before seeing a film. Only after. I want to go into the thing with a completely open mind always.
Ironically, the people that advocate for it the strongest are the ones that are more likely to get canceled. They created a monster and then it ate them.
I think the shot where Lydia sits on the stairs of the stage is beautiful. The composition is so well done. The students sitting across each other perfectly symmetrical, creating these "arrows" that point us towards the subject in the middle, Lydia. As an artist, I couldn't help but notice those things. Sorry, I'm geeking out 😭
Yes, it’s interesting that Max, the bipoc pan, gender student, who seems to relish in his inclusive idealism resorts to name-calling and stomping out of the class because of his inability to debate the topic. And this is the problem we see with young people today who are so sensitive, and so attached to identity politics that they’re unable to hear another side, without becoming utterly offended and unable to engage in debating the issue intelligently, thus denying themselves an opportunity to possibly learn something beyond their own prejudices. This also shows that the so-called most tolerant are actually the least tolerant.
I'm not sure I agree. At this point in the film, she wasn't in the hot seat and it was probably inconceivable to her how events would unfold. I think this part of the film is literally asking the question - can we no longer enjoy R-Kelly and Celine Dion's duet, I believe I can Fly because R-Kelly is a monster? She's also making the argument that if you can boil Bach down to being a straight cis-gendered Christian - it is okay to pretend that is all he was/is then Max can be boiled down to his identity too. So - can/should talent be separated from the person? One part he didn't address was how part of this scene was later taken out of context and part of her downfall and that it was probably recorded by her assistant. Curiously everything bad that happened to her could have probably not turned out the way it did had she simply given her assistant a promotion.
Reducing Bach and anyone to tags is the sad reality of this time. The death of the XX century and everything she stood for is inevitable. I sort of wonder what was she playing in the end of the movie: did she compose the music for the videogame? That is one detail that would make everything different.
@@afrosamourai400, I have no kids, so I’d be shocked. But, of course, there are personal and other reasons not to like given artists. At any rate, Bach isn’t accused of sexual misconduct as far as I know. He was a married straight man with a lot of kids - seems a lame reason to hate him. If however something comes to light that shows him to have been a murderous monster, does that actually take the value from his music? Did anyone ever like R Kelly’s music because they thought he was a great guy, or did they like it simply because they liked it?
I like that Tar's hypocrisy is also revealed in this scene, because she dismisses a composer Max likes because her reasons behind her pieces are "vague," however she loves Holst's Symphony No. 5 because it's "mysterious," which could mean the exact same thing as "vague" to another person.
She also claims it is needed to understand Mahler's life and marriage to properly play his symphony which... madam, isn't that exactly what you said not to do? She is most definitely an hypocrite.
Profound pieces are always described with a sense of ambiguity or mystery.. the goal of a masterpiece is to imbed clues within its "grammatical" structure.. through different transitional properties composers are asked to unfurl the mystery. I think her describing a piece as mysterious is actually an astute observation but likely again borrowed from a Bernstein lecture.
The student (Max) prefers different music, her student Olga preferred different music, and even the neighbors trying to sell the adjacent unit thought of her music as an annoyance. Being an EGOT winner and surrounded by accolades, she thought of herself and HER world of music as OBJECTIVELY good. Catching Max's knee and debating him, trying to "win" over Olga, and other means are all her way of exercising her power to reinforce her subjective worldview and pass it off as objective. Her coming to terms with not being a good person and her failings to convince these other parties of her objectiveness progress as she loses her power. In the end with the video game cosplayers, she was striped of her power (reputation, authority, ability to "control time"), BUT she accepts the subjectivity of what she would previously think is a lower form of art - the video game music. I think the ending shows Max being somewhat right, in that having to conform to what music is widely considered to be "objectively good" or "higher" forms of art is contradictory to the existence of art itself.
This scene was a beautiful display of power dynamics. I don’t agree that Tar “obliterated the students line of thought.” They are entitled to be moved or not moved by anything they want for whatever reason, but they were engaged in a power dynamic that favored Tar in the moment. It could be argued that Tar crossed the line by grabbing the student’s leg and trying to further control them. She humiliated the student in front of the class in a display of power that Tar probably saw as an attempt to inspire in a very old school charismatic / tough love kind of way. Just because Tar seemingly dominated the exchange does not mean she is right… nor wrong. That is the brilliance of the decision to make this a long take… nothing was cut out… you saw it all and are free to see the nuance and interpret it for yourself with nothing hidden. - further making the edited version later in the film seem so dishonest in its deletion of nuance. The edited version puts Tar in a power dynamic where she is disadvantaged. Amazing. Best film of the year. Two different generations battling. Very very compelling. Best film of the year.
I think that's pretty simplistic to frame the disagreement as one between generations. Max's position is pretty ridiculous and far outside the norm for even the more progressive Gen Zers and millennials who are more likely to be sympathetic.
@@sanai97 About what exactly? "White male cis composers are not my thing," he says. Does this apply to Philip Glass? Mika? Ed Sheeran? I have no clue what he's saying honestly.
your ability to identify symbolic aspects I would've never thought to even look for or had the ability to see myself, is incredible. the epitome of a good video essay; leaving with newfound insight and appreciation for a film I already thought was amazing
I've watched the movie twice and each time I was left with different conclusions. The genius of the movie itself are the nuances and ambiguity of hints .It is like looking at Mona Lisa in Louvre from different angles. Reading related comments opens more possibilities for interpretations but doesn't give one the definite answer. Brilliant movie!
Except at the end of the film when she is sickened by the 'women for sale' scene - a MALE would have simply chosen one of the 'numbers' and had a 'happy ending' massage. Other reviews seem to indicate that this scene causes her to realize that she has been imposing her power and charisma to attract new casual sex partners and now finds it wrong. I think she already knew she was doing that, and that the partners were aware and consenting. I don't think it's necessarily a sudden reckoning of any kind.
@@baronesswithabrush1991 I think it sort of is both. She’s presented with a very LITERAL transactional relationship in that scene and it kind of solidifies what her partner confronted her about earlier. It may not be a “I now see the error of my ways” moment, but there appears to be some sort of clarity or realization happening. Whether it actually caused lasting change or simply a momentary overwhelming rush of conflicted feelings is up to the viewer.
@@JustinZarian Or the realization that she is in a brothel when she expected a regular massage parlor. As I said before: "a MALE would have simply chosen one of the 'numbers' and had a 'happy ending' massage." A woman finds prostitution sickening (in this case, literally). And as long as women can be bought and sold in our society, women will never be 'equal' to men. Yes, your point is valid about her having been confronted about the 'transactional' nature of all her relationships, but that IS the point of the patriarchy and capitalism, isn't it? It is sickening that is it thus. About Damn Time that changes!!!!
Whatever!! Michele Yeo is AMAZING!! I’m sick to DEATH of hearing about Cate Blanchet!! Ugh!! Ok. We get it. She’s a great actress but come on now!! There are other great actors out there! Personally I’d rather see Michele any day over Cate. Just my opinion.
You forgot to mention something important about his final words to her (everyone seems to miss this), he calls her a "bitch", which is an inherently sexist term! Something that he should be totally against, as I'm sure that he also sees himself as feminist minded person as well. It's with this line that he is the most hypocritical! Why does everyone miss this point? Perhaps it's because it is so obvious, or perhaps it's because that word has become so accepted and commonplace, even amongst liberals. I myself never use the word, either in jest or in anger.
This was also one of my main take aways from the scene, that he refuses to take Bach seriously due to his misogyny but then insults Tar with a gendered insult and storms off
@@thewatcher1947 That's exactly what I'm saying. And this bratty self-righteous Gen Z kid, who thinks he's all about being woke, uses it to insult her (because she defended Johann Sebastian Bach, that, straight, Protestant dead European white male. And she's absolutely right to do so. Bach's music is beyond great, it was sublime. and his music goes way beyond all of that BS that kid was talking about). And I'm a gay atheist liberal. And that kid annoyed the hell out of me!
@@EvilSapphireR No, dick is not an inherently sexist term because it simply refers to a piece of male anatomy. Of course, you can call someone a dick, kind of like calling them an asshole. But I think it's still different. Bitch is traditionally a term that means a female dog meant for breeding purposes. The whole contextual nature of that insult is different and inherently more sexist than the term dick is.
We can't see the hair, but it could be the same person we saw before, the red-headed one, watching her on the stage with Adam Gopnik. And at this moment at Julliard, this person could be the one recording the class and, later, editing the video to get her cancelled.
@@bennyfaziocriminalmastermind it makes her wrong in this specific scenario because after MeToo all predators have panics about social media. They all fear they'll be canceled someday.
This movie wasn't a middle finger to the social media crowd... It was trying to show how "separating the art from the artist", in the age of information, can backfire and allow very talented people to continually abuse their power. Many famous artists and athletes have gotten away with a lot of unethical behavior because their work is considered important or valuable to society.
This is a brilliant deconstruction. I just want to add one point to it. She's in control of this entire conversation and as the teacher, she knows that Max is aching to be allowed to exit the critique, where he is not in control and cannot be in control. He's arguably autistic (Note the stimming) and indisputably socially awkward. It's obvious that he's anxious. She keeps pretending to let him be done with being dissected in public, and then dragging him back into the spotlight. It's impossible that she doesn't know how humiliating this is. This is a shameless power play, one of many in this film.The fact that she's a genius and makes a powerful point doesn't change that.
3 things - (1) When she is sitting on the stairs infront of the musicians, you are reminded that she is a gatekeeper to the profession he is trying to master. It's a reminder of the power dynamics there. (2) Tár later contradicts her own points that she has made here when speaking to her mentor. Showing she is also not immune to this line of thinking and indicating a level of criticism she and her mentor places on composers and conductors. (3) Taking the whole film into context (her own misdeeds and fall from grace) I think this scene is one of a larger discussion showing the layers for and against. This scene alone does fall on one side but the film overall explores the wider concept.
On the piano bench when Max rejects her attempt to get through to him, Lydia turns abruptly in the opposite direction. That is literally the turning point where Lydia realizes Max cannot be reached.
Imagine if you were that girl who commited suicide, you would still think that is it great that Tar is still there making ,,GREAT ART" while you were raped by her and abused? Like yeah people are not 100 % morally right, but she is definitely one of the worse ones.
@@samuelp2133 The greatest artists ever were often the biggest monsters. I don't see why we should cancel the art of the artists as long as we condemn what they do and what they did to innocent people.
this movie is brilliant. had the movie come out a year after everything everywhere all at once, Cate would've had won her second oscar. You need to watch this movie three times
Kudos to you for such an intelligent analysis. I love this movie and love it so much more because of this scene. It’s so spot on in addressing the current identity politics that we’ve been experiencing. I believe that she was sincere in this scene. For her, the talent of the artist and the supreme beauty and pleasure that his art can create should be the only things worth considered. Despite her abuse of power in several decision makings, her selection of Olga for the solo cello position is the only right one to make. So, grooming or not, her passion and her drive for perfection in the art end up leading her way.
I think there was a genuine sincerity but then she devolved into brow beating a shaking him in front of the whole class because he wouldn’t budge. She took personal offence to that. That was the first thing that stuck out to me when i first watched it. Of course eveyone feels differently about the scene, which is why it’s so good. There is so much nuance.
this scene was so uncomfortable to me but brilliant my god i wanted to start shaking my leg like the kid... like safdie brothers levels of anxiety inducing and impending doom
@@neilmcintosh5150 Why do some have to make literally EVERYTHING a political issue? There was nothing about politics in the original comment at all. You don't even know who they were siding with, if anyone.
I don't see how anyone could say the student "won" this argument. I could have (maybe) forgiven him for saying he didn't care for Bach because of his personal life, but he also said that he didn't care for music composed by straight white men in general. This is a downright asinine position to hold, especially for a classical musician, knowing full well that if his music were dismissed based on his skin colour, sexuality etc. he would consider it unfair. Regardless of her motives, Tar was right to point out his hypocrisy and punch him in the face with it. All he could do was resort to a cheap insult. He lost the exchange. Badly.
Couldn't agree more. I think more than anything, this scene is a clash between generation and views. The excuses that Max give to dismiss Bach importance is a shot at a generation that, not only can't separate art from the artist, but also keep looking for "flaws" to discredit such important work. I think this scene is not really a shot at "woke culture" and more about this young generation not having open mind for art.
You missed the point, he doesn't have to care about bach to learn how to conduct orchestras, it's not an obligation to like bach..she was trying to force him to like bach..what's implicit here is also the fact that for this generation the erasure of female or non white composers is seen as problematic and unfair, that's why max prefered a white female music to bach..
I saw the film last night. I loved this scene. I loved it so much This morning I called several musician friends to discuss it at length. Thanks for your brilliant critique.
In my view, the contrived conflict between Tar (the perceived intellectual superior) and Max (the apparent personification of everything that is wrong with cancel culture) is primarily a vehicle for the higher issue of separating the art from the artist. As George Orwell in a 1946 essay wrote of Salvador Dali: "One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate, or in a sense, affect the other." But like all good writing, there are many intended and unintended messages that can be drawn from this passage: Intellectual arrogance; Shallow cancel culture; Unethical teacher-student relationship, even Tar attempting to separate her own flaws from her mastery. Maybe you see many more messages and that is the brilliance of this scene.
When she played to him on the piano, I really thought by the end of the song his leg would stop shaking and he would be soothed. Tar was trying to connect to him, to open his mind, to reach his heart (not to mention her insight into the song - as a series of questions and answers was profoundly moving and valuable to a student) - and when he coldly declined I felt her pain. I think that’s the pain that drove her to double down on her argument, and I didn’t have a problem with that at all. He could have connected with her and he chose to disconnect without any clear or structured argument.
@@kassiogomes8498 Why does anyone have to connect with anyone else? Because we know a state of connection is healthy for us and makes us happy. When disconnected from those around us, we turn to unhealthy habits. And music is all about connection. She doesn’t *have* to be right but I am very convinced by her case here, and not by his.
@@TheSimWizard We cannot agree in everything. That's not how society works. We desagree in a lot of things because we have different backgrounds. People have to learn to respect other people's opinion. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN A POSITION OF POWER. He doesn't want to conduct Bach. She isn't there to change his music taste. She was hired to give a conducting lesson and got out of her way to humiliate a student about his music taste. Do you know why she was so eager to be right in that debate? Because she knows that people would think the same thing about her if they knew she was a sexual predator. And it happened. I doubt any young musician would ever play her music ever again, especially women. At the end of the day, he doesn't play Bach and nobody plays Lydia Tár. But more important: You don't have to be convinced by anyone's case. That's not how movies work.
@@kassiogomes8498 I don’t have to be convinced by a character in a movie’s case, just like you don’t have to object to their behaviours like you have. But that’s the beauty of film, and especially a scene like this. It starts an important conversation. This student was entitled to his opinion, but unless he finds a rigorous way of expressing this opinion, how can he expect anyone to agree? Tar became emotional because of her love for music. He showed very little love for the subject he was there to study. In the end, she abused her power, but I’d still rather be at a dinner table with her than him…
@@TheSimWizard I don't understand why anyone has to agree with him. We have to respect. His choice doesn't affect anyone. He is learning how to conduct an orchestra, she should be talking about conducting not about what music he likes. And who said she loves music? She doesn't. She loves power. She changed her score because she wanted to sleep with the new girl. She didn't gave deserving promotion to her assistant because it would make her look bad. She blacklisted a talent young women because she didn't want to sleep with her anymore. She didn't think of music in any of this occasions. But yeah, go ahead, have a dinner with the sexual harasser because a grad student doesn't like Bach.
I took the shaking, "twitchy" leg as his suppressed rage that finally comes out when he calls her a --itch and storms off the stage... y'know, like a child throwing a tantrum would. He's not "progressive", he's defamatory and disrespectful.
Wow😮. Amazing breakdown and analysis work here!! I cannot wait to see this film! By what you've delineated here in this scene, it's a seminal work with an extraordinarily talented Star in Cate, the deft hand of a cinematographer and DP as well as a director who quite obviously understands the script to bring such life to these multi-layered and nuanced scenes. Well done! 🙏🏻
@@TheMisfitPond I do want to make a point though that Lydia is not winning in this scene. Although Max is a bit neurotic and close-minded, he's on the right side history. Her motto of "separating the art from the artist" is losing its appeal to modern audiences where creating important works is not a good enough excuse to get away with abuse or unethical behavior. Because Lydia (whose real name is Linda) doesn’t place importance on her identity, in relation to her art, she becomes blind to her actual self in pursuit of genius and ✨moving✨ work. This ends up catching up with her when she's cancelled and now has a conducting job for a video game where her identity is definitely not valued.
“Don’t be so eager to be offended,” might be the greatest line from a movie this year. The current trend of racial, political, and sexual purity tests sound an awful lot like today’s young people are cancelling others in order to filter out everyone except those whom they deem “supreme.” Ironic how so many of these same folks use terms like Nazi or fascist to describe those with whom they do not align in the aforementioned regards, yet are quick to do everything possible in order to cease the very livelihoods from their sociopolitical “others.” There ought to be a term for people whose unfounded sense of entitlement led them to believe that their flaccid opinions were edicts and those in opposition in any way should be considered dangerous, immoral, violent criminals and treated as such. I suppose narcissists would do, but I think there’s something new to this special brand of folks.
Political correctness is fascism sold in a pretty wrap. Haven’t you noticed that every major dictator for the past century has been a leftist? Hitler, socialist, Mussolini, socialist, Mao, communist, Stalin, communist, and it continues to this day with the likes of communist China and socialist Venezuela. All these people crying about fascism and whatnot have the exact same mindset for their purposes. Peaky Blinders actually had a great line about the two extremes meeting each other in its last season. That politics isn’t a line, but a circle, and when you go far enough right, you’ll end up meeting someone who’s gone far enough on the left, and it will be one and the same.
@@alexman378 I suppose that’s what happens when the filmmaker isn’t out on Twitter complaining that his movie didn’t make a billion dollars because “whiny social justice advocates,” wouldn’t go see it. Messaging in movies is fine, but if the message is unpopular or so in-your-face as to be annoying (or both), it tends to detract an audience. Nice to see that this one’s doing well, at least critically, so far.
If you refuse to let anyone have an opinion, or a voice that doesn’t align with your own opinion - then I’m sorry but you are a fascist - which is exactly what cancel culture is
idk if the marginalized ppl in question are suddenly entitled for having more of a voice against the systems that oppress them…unless you’re referring to some other subset of ppl that are randomly speaking out against prejudice
Definitely one of the deepest parts of this is her defending artists that have done bad things, because she is doing bad things, and does not want to get canceled herself, I totally read that before I even knew how corrupt she was
@@blehbleh9283 there are no real controversies with Bach. If anything that should show you how emotionally deterimed Fools are today to find problems where they don't exist.
I think we need to be perfectly clear, here... the student's refusal to engage with Bach's or Beethoven's work had *_nothing whatsoever to do_* with any alleged moral failings on their part. He didn't so much as hint at that. What he DID mention was their race, their sex, and their sexual orientation. We have a word for people like that. Judging others only on the color of their skin is racist. Judging solely based on sex is sexist. Being white is not a moral failing. Being straight is not a moral failing. Being male is not a moral failing. The student is a racist and sexist piece of shit. As a minority myself, I find his mindset itself to be completely unjustifiable and immoral and I'm fucking sick of seeing it everywhere.
I love that its done in a oner and the next time this conversation is seen, it's been cut up removing context and making it seem as vulgar as possible.
Even though I agree with Tár’s point to an extent, you have to draw the line. She openly embarrassed Max and obviously made them visibly uncomfortable. I get that you can’t always be sensitive to everyone but their foot was shaking the entire time. They were terrified. And in this terror they lashed out.
This is a monumental scene. Loved it. Found it so moving and a question constantly asked in the arts. Can you separate the artist from the art? And of course the rigidity of youthful views and self righteous judgements.
Definitely the best analogy of the basis of the film,,, the powerful woman can also be a deadly weapon,,, and all the abuse of that power will end up the same, cancelled,,, but the question you put still hangs in the air,,,do we separate greatness from the creator of that greatness,,,it is one of the few dilemmas of this generation who haven't really come to an answer yet,,, can only be described as a brilliant film, the direction cannot be ignored here,,,,it is outstanding,,, for me as a simple woman 50 year old woman watching and enjoying how this generation are moving forward with the feminism that started centuries ago,, as all generations do better than the last,,, this film creates wounderful observations of how we all move forward towards equality and respect both men and women, and the comment to have luckily kept all his hangers in the closet facing the same way had a profound meaning to our morals ,,, 🇮🇪
I've seen Tar twice and this review opened my non intuitive mind to something that went over my head in the movie. Why did I never consider the possibility that Tar was only shaming Macks, to cover her own reputation when her world was about to collapse around her?
I had a different reaction. Since she has clearly curated a carefully constructed image of herself, there might be a bit of jealously that she feels he is being his "authentic" self (he's not) and she can't be. Even though she's a woman, a lesbian, and from a meager background, she still has to play that role in what was traditionally male. Plus, we're conditioned to love certain music and certain composers--that was the standard that no one challenged for decades. The cringey student is simply parroting the new standard narrative of today of being opposed to anything "traditional" just to be oppositional, throwing away brilliant composers in the process.
Un film straordinario che ti entra nel profondo e ti fa pensare.....di questi tempi non è una cosa così scontata.Bravi tutti gli interpreti ,con una Cate veramente da Oscar.👏👏👏
Those observations, especially about the blocking of the scene (things I would have probably missed on a conscious level) were truly fascinating insights to me. You clearly know the craft of movie making and scene building. And the ambiguity of Tár’s motives have drawn me in to a point where I’m going to have to see this movie, despite now knowing where the story is going to end, and the ironic zinger that lies in wait for the character. Sadly, I have already seen how people on the extremes of both sides of the debate-divide have pounced on this character (and this scene in particular) to place their own spin on how to read it, in order to serve one agenda or the other. The tragedy being that there are countless people out there who do seem to need intellectual shepherds, for instruction on how to interpret the meaning of things. Of course, if these people become aware of the fact that, as you so deftly point out, this scene (when it’s viewed in the context of the complete story) can be interpreted in a number of ways, they may come to realise that this is the very point of the movie and the art they are witnessing? The very fact that it has this ambiguity, which makes opposing people feel able to hold it up as an argument for two opposing view points, shows me (at least) that what the movie is saying is something other than either of those things and that extremists are missing the point completely. The very fact that it presses so hard on these hot-button topics will probably make it a, “must see,” movie and result in Oscars all round. But that is why, for my own part, I am SO GLAD that there are still people like you around; able to penetrate the superficial, to reveal the technique and the interpret the art on display for the audience; and to show us that there is so much more to appreciate in the drama of the characters and the way they are presented to us. And that is why, after seeing this as my first video of yours (I think it’s the first time I’ve seen one of your vids at least?) I will subscribe. Thank you for seeing with depth and feeling, and then sharing that with us. ✌️
I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out how quickly Max flipped and became misogynistic once Tar made her point, calling her a 'fucking bitch'. Which is particularly ironic and hypocritical given that he claimed to put misogyny in front of music in his justification to ignore Bach, as a champion and defender of gender and diversity, and then called his teacher a bitch right afterwards for disagreeing with him. Reminds me of some non-binary males I met who claimed to not be men to gain popularity and then once things started going wrong for their ego, immediately reverted to acting just like sexist men. Brilliant exposition of the hypocrisy in Max's thinking and how it is, just like Tar, his ego that drives his musical persona
@@JussaraAlmeida2912 Thanks. I could go on and on re: that topic. Especially to a like minded individual. But, I will not at the moment. It attracts the trolls 😈who seem to hang out just waiting to annoy...
this is so much great analysis. what i took from the scene on my viewing was that for the first time in my memory i'd actually seen a class play out rather than be shown the last minute of it with like some well-known fact to round it off. they actually wrote a kind of classroom situation that made sense. later on, when the video surfaces it becomes obvious we need to see the whole class play out so that we know that the video is carefuly edited. still impressed with it tho, i think it's a very thoughtful film and not at all what i expected in the best way. and your analysis just made the scene so much better for me.
what's really cool about this film is the difference in perspective of everyone who watched it. for me, tar didn't win that argument. by not holding people accountable for their actions, they can be put on a pedestal. however, if we judge people by the contents of their character first, we eliminate boosting the egos of those who don't necessarily deserve it. it's more complex than that though, and truthfully there are artists whose music I appreciate despite hating who they are as a person, but maybe that is part of the problem.
I appreciate that this video pointed out how the position of the actors in the master class scene showed not only their relative size to each other, but that illustrated the power dynamic between Lydia Tar and the student. Moving on to the brief discussion of the conclusion of “Tar”, I’ve been thinking about this film quite a bit. * One main idea in the movie is that it explores the control of others by the artist. - What Lydia does not realize until the end is that her attempted control (as the artist/professor) is limited, especially when certain boundaries are crossed. - Sometimes the way that Lydia is photographed makes her look like a royal ruler. From her lofty position she seems to think she is untouchable. But she isn’t. - The people around Lydia can bring her down. And their tools can be classroom student’s smartphone cameras or a subordinate’s emails or a lawsuit by the family of a colleague who committed suicide.
Wonderful analysis! I love the ambiguity of Fields' films, especially _Tár_ & _In The Bedroom._ It's a much more complex scene (and film) than many see it as - kind of a Rorschach test for viewers. I can understand both viewpoints, while also seeing the total hypocrisy of _both_ characters. Life is so relarely - if ever - black & white.
unpopular opinion: this scene is not as nuanced as it could be/people claim it is. many people in the comments seem to view this scene as very nuanced only because they favour Tar's perspective and see this scene as her "destroying woke culture". in reality the debate on whether you truly can separate the art from the artist is far more complex than this. i feel like if you come away from a scene thinking "[insert person] won", you've already lost all nuance.
agreed, fields did a good job of fairly presenting both sides of a contemporary argument without encouraging the audience to pick a “winner.” although personally, within the context of the movie, it’s clear that tár’s arrogance prevents her from seeing adam’s pov and if anything provides an insight into how pompous she is.
@@danieldini8685the student’s pov is frankly childish and dumb. and I say that as a poc myself. I don’t think Tar was even particularly harsh. She explained why she has her perspective and asked thought provoking questions.
@@danieldini8685 The Zoomer boy is a joke and got destroyed in that debate. How did he end it after he got butthurt? He walked out and said you're a f@@@@@@ b@@@@.
The reason you feel that there's a lack of nuance is because you're acting as if this scene exists in a vacuum. While Tar is not met with much resistance in this single scene, we weigh her beliefs against the actions we learn about later in the movie. It's also important to note that she's and adult intellectual arguing with a college student who isn't really prepared to argue back. Similar to right wing hacks like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who complain that leftists won't debate them, yet only seem to be interested in debating random college students they know the can best simply based on rhetorical skill. Yes, there are people who see this scene as "College professor owns woke student", but that's the fault of those particular viewers not the film itself.
Excellent examination of the scene. Especially valuable is your points on the position of the characters - it can add a lot to a film to be more aware of where the characters are located both in the frame and in relation to each other (such as when they get to the piano the camera's positioned to show Max closer - at that moment Tar literally wants to "get behind" i.e. support Max in giving Bach a fair listen, only to "get in front of him" physically and metaphorically once he rejects doing so). Also want to note director Todd Field put something astonishing in this scene - something so creatively daring even he backed from it a bit: NO ONE IN THE ROOM IS FILMING. So when Tar is confronted later with footage, where did that footage come from?! The shot of Tar viewing the footage is incredibly brief, but even so we're seeing that encounter from a range of camera angles and cuts that simply could not have been made from the sparse crowd viewing the proceedings from the stands. I think in an earlier draft this discrepancy was more explicit but Field felt it was a bridge of abstraction too far for the audience hence the fleeting focus on it in the final film.
At 12:12 it is key to point out that Tar is standing there onnthe steps telling the student to his back as he walks out that he is simply a product of social media. That was the brilliant moment of this most dramatic scene. I didn't even realize it was one continuous shot because I was so captivated by it. It is how I would expect a maestro to "call out" a closed minded student who is indeed a product of social media and using woke nonsense to justify their non-conforming which is just a refusal to be "selective without substance". If I was Tar, I would channel John Houseman (who is a benefactor of the Julliard School by the way) from the film "The Paper Chase". I would have walked up to the student and handed him a dime and say, "Here is a dime. Please call your mother and tell her is it very unlikely of you becoming a musician." And then dismiss him post haste from the class.
It's hard to believe this student would have pursued a career in classical music with that kind of attitude. Much less make it into a music conservatory, which I assume is what this is. Great analysis of the scene, btw. As a classical musician, I still can't believe this was written, and so technically and beautifully razor sharp in its observations about this rarified culture, let alone being filmed with such great actors, direction and the inclusion of hardcore classical music, not just the top 40 hits. My dreams came true this year. I hope it wins all the awards but it may just be too smart and niche-y for most people.
I expect there are lots of people who pursue careers in fields where they don't belong and who get accepted into prestigious schools BECAUSE they are BIPOC or something ethnically advantaged in today's culture. When Tar asks the question how would he prefer his work to be judged, we know the real answer. He expects to be judged favorably because he is BIPOC. It is about the destruction of quality in favor of mindless DEI. Diversity is something to be accepted enthusiastically, but not promoted over merit. Max is favoring the destruction of quality and merit in favor of identity. I don't think Tar is too hard on him at all. She loves music, so his attitude is deeply offensive. His attitude will destroy music. This is why I think the fact that Tar tries to destroy the careers of women is an inconsistency in the script. Either the women should have been poor musicians or Tar should not have destroyed them. We know that in real life women often try to destroy other women's careers out of malice, but that doesn't work in this film.
@@ashleyblack155 lool. Tár doesn't love music. She loves power. That's the message of the movie. She doesn't humiliate the student because he doesn't like Bach. He doesn't have to love Bach. He is entitled to like whatever he likes for whatever reasons. And black people are favored??!? Oh please, please tell me a successful black conductor.
@@kassiogomes8498 doesn't change the fact that his opinion is really stupid. Any good teacher would try to help a student with such a stupid opinion to see reason.
@@lordfarquaad3996 His opinion is HIS OPINION. She isn't there to change his music taste. She's there to teach the techniques of conducting an orchestra.
@@kassiogomes8498 part of being a conductor is analyzing music. When she brought him to the piano, she was trying to help him analyze the piece by Bach despite his opinion of it, and all he had to say after was "I still don't like it cus he's white". Like okay? That doesn't change the fact that you can still analyze his music and learn from it. If you aren't willing to step outside of your comfort zone, then your learning is going to be severely impaired. Also, it's her class so she can choose what the learning material is.
She did not need to speak so cruelly to the student, but the "lecture" scene is so beautifully made. It could have been a damn fine movie in itself--period. It's one of many questions the film asks and it takes Cate Blanchett to deliver it. What a joyous watch with so much to ponder.
@@TheMisfitPond well my main language is Spanish so normally I have a higher threshold when watching movies in English and determining whether lines seem natural or acted if you know what I mean. When it is really bad it seems like they're just really reciting from memory and comes off pretty unnatural and forced. This guy passed that threshold for me so it must be bad haha.
Totally agree! His acting was very self conscious and the leg shaking not subtle at all, you notice it more because Cate’s performance is so committed and he comes across as unconvincing in comparison. It does take me out of the scene a bit as I see the actor behind the character being nervous acting alongside Cate Blanchett!
I fuckin love Monster Hunter, I saw their shoutout in the opening credits and wondered what place the game would take in the movie and I was so pleased when I got to the end
Todd Field’s screenplay is incredible, and the classroom scene is a standout 👍🏼. I saw in The Bedroom but definitely want to see his other movies, written or directed.
You’d think Todd Field’s entire brief but powerful catalogue would make the Criterion cut, if the idea is to preserve films of significance. If nearly every Wes Anderson film can end up with a Criterion (if not all of them by now), surely there’s room for In the Bedroom, Little Children, and Tar. I’m hoping a few more Paul Thomas Anderson flicks get the Criterion treatment as well.
Watching this scene brought on a lot of memories and feelings from being in college. I wasn't studying at Juilliard but it was a very serious program for my degree with a lot of the teachers who were also working professionals in the field. I was constantly filled with anxiety trying to meet the expectations of my teachers and I think a few even ravished in it. So I related a lot with Max and the constant anxiety and pressure he was feeling. I also knew exactly what was coming when Tar got up onto the lecture seats and said something like "what if we use the same standards to analyze you" but with a lot bigger words. When she said that I cringed out loud and face palmed. Whether or not I agree with either of them doesn't really matter to me because in the end this scene pulled out a lot of emotions for me and I think that's what makes it so special. Also side note! The piece he's playing at the very beginning is actually Tar's theme song on the OST. Interesting little tid-bit, especially since she doesn't like it. The conductor who'd put together the OST said it's supposed to sound like what a Chinese porcelain pot looks like, fragile and on the verge of breaking at any moment.
In a way that can be true but simply being open-minded to particular non-conventional identities or ideas doesn't mean you're automatically open-minded to anything and everything that is presented in front of you.
This is the exact opposite of my interpretation of this scene. Lydia is claiming that classics deserve reverence and that personality means nothing. Meanwhile, mere moments before we saw her claim that the only way to conduct is to feel the original authors full intent in the context they wrote it. I see this as Lydia revealing that she just says whatever she wants to win the argument. She clearly seems thrown by this piece, as she doesn't know this more modern composition, and falls back to classics that everyone knows. When challenged, she reacts poorly and attacks the student because she knows she has done morally repugnant things akin to the things that these other conductors have done.
@@professorhuggins5418e don’t even know if she had done anything wrong. We never see her doing it and have no proof of her doing it. I think what you are doing is exactly what the movie denounces : cancel culture. Plus, the author intent when writing the piece has nothing to do with the author behavior otherwise.
Thank you for taking the time to analyze this scene - you helped articulate a lot of what I was thinking/feeling as I was watching this. I especially love your point/question of whether Tar is doing this out of intellectual sincerity. There was certainly a time (probably when I was the same age as Max) when I saw the world the same as Max. So I completely understand how he feels. Tar’s approach was so refreshing because it did feel as though Tar was sincerely trying to inspire Max. Where I disagree with you is your description of Tar’s “mic drop” moment. She may have won that intellectual debate, but it was at the cost of humiliating her own student. You’re right, she was very powerful in that moment - but it was the use of power over someone else. It was a missed opportunity for Tar to empathize and understand Max’s point of view (which granted is extremely difficult, especially when you feel so passionate about your point of view). However, I do believe that as the instructor of the course , I think she has an ethical duty to not cause harm to her students. Certainly Max’s storming off is not an effective strategy, in this context, it was how he saw was his best way to have agency in a situation where your professor goes from sincere intellectual curiosity to completely dismissing Max’s point of view. It’s very understandable that when individuals bring up issues of identity politics it can easily polarize individuals and automatically put people on the defensive (myself included), Tar’s position as a professor comes with the responsibility of continuing to grow and develop professionally. I appreciated that you put Tar in the hot seat at the end of your video to provide further reflection for us viewers. One thing I would add though is that the point Tar used to “win” the debate turns out that Tar herself is guilty of committing when she changed her score when she recognized the person auditioning’s shoes as the same as the woman she was attracted to in the washroom just before the audition. Thus, the question of whether she was motivated by sincere intellectual curiosity is diluted by her own hypocrisy. Thank you again for taking the time to make this video - your thoughtful analysis got me to think and reflect more 😊.
The film shows the fundamental difference between cancelling someone based on identity (which is nonsense) and deeds (which are debatable, but certainly more understandable).
Great commentary!! For me the mise en scène reflects sonic waves (her grand opinion) issuing forth. Also for me, the third character in the scene is Francesca who we barely see waaay up in the rafters but, I believe, turns out to be the perspective that the Juilliard "cancel super-cut" video was filmed from.
Although personal motives might play into her passionate response, you really don’t need them to explain why Tár can’t accept Max’ position. Bach is vital to the language of classical music, he has inspired every single classical composer following him and he defines what musical genius means. So questioning Bach for en-vogue pseudocritical reasons (who was also quite a decent man compared to other great (white, cis, german) composers) is equivalent to questioning the entirety of classical music. She has to feel threatened by this, especially as this comes from a conducting student, who should know so much better.
For people who want to point how "shallow" Max's thinking is, you have a very shallow reading of this scene, that it's just about a "snowflake sjw" getting crushed. You're acting just like Max She's not even responding to him, she's droning on and on about counter-examples, but i feel like she too is discarding his point of view just like he's discarding people's point of view based on their ethnicity, sex, and orientation. She should've asked him why would we he be a part of classical music if he hates it's pioneers and progenitors? i venture he would say because he's reshaping it as his own and using it to tell his story. she then would answer ok that's what these pioneers were trying to do with folk traditions, which is turn them from what they saw as low-culture into high-culture things, for better or for worse, and now Max can do with it what he wants, but he at least must acknowledge their existence in order to move the conversation forward, the conversation meaning the medium of classical music. But no, she has to turn it into a scolding match and when she fails to get her way she decides to humiliate him in front of the class, which to me foreshadows her bullying persona which is actually the main theme of the movie, not cancel culture. (And I only say this because the movie itself only brings up cancel culture sporadically and it's not the main point of the movie by far) So in short, I read this as both a failure of Max and Lydia Tar to communicate well, and both decide to bully the other. Max and his friends trying to cancel Lydia because she humiliated him in the class and because she doesn't agree with them, and Lydia humiliating him instead of being a nurturing understanding person, which we find out she's far from being that person later in the movie.
Honestly I think this is a fair reading of the scene. I think Tar does come away with the more reasonable point of view.. but her intention devolves into malice more than her desire to enlighten… but I will say that she did give it an honesty try with the piano segment… everything there was fair and genuine but when Max expressed how he couldn’t really care any less, she also gave up on that approach
@@maryvallettakeith6146 I don't think cis men are expected to be "nurturing" unlike women which is problematic and sexist. However, like Lionel said, I also believe all teachers regardless of their gender should try to encourage and support students. That being said, Tar's demeanor and personality could have been shaped by (or always was but suited for) male dominated industry where cis men would hound and bully gender minorities. In order to survive in a toxic environment such as this, people like Lydia would have to become brutal and inhumane. Think about Margaret Tatcher. She told herself women were weak and too emotional to be successful in life. Obviously she internalized misogyny, but she also made herself the "Iron Lady" to survive the brutal world of politics.
I just looked Bach up. As a child, he went to a school that was filled with bullies and picked on. As a teacher at 20, none of the students wanted to listen to him, and he was beaten up by one of his students. He did call the student a bad name, and the student attacked him for that. He had 20 children, but half or over half of them (depends on the account) died, many of them before the age of three. People had a lot of children back then because many did not survive to adulthood. His first wife died. I already know a fair amount about Schopenhauer. It helps also to know about Bach. I don't think it was an accident he was the focus of this scene.
This doesn't really add much to your observation on the wings part, but I just noticed after you pointing this out that her scoring sheet is right above her head, almost like a halo.
I went to music school -as much as what you point out as technically brilliant is the way it’s set up and shot what is even more brilliant is how throughout the film and in this scene especially is how when working with music the more you are working towards a moment of beauty the less able you are going to be able to put that moment into words..and so instead there is a reliance upon lore to explain the unexplainable: what the composer said, what the performer did, what happened this day or that..and here among other things referring to very funny way of linking Bach to the modern performer via the eccentric genius of Glenn Gould..it’s a scene worth watching over and over not just for what’s being said but also the idea of the out of control ego that is this person at the height of her powers able to riff on anything (not unlike her hero Leonard Bernstein is shown to have been previously doing in a later devastating scene) but what’s not believable is a woke musician who’d actually dismiss Bach for being supposedly misogynistic..no way such a jackass would get anywhere close to a conservatory..or if it is nowadays possible then we are all in deep trouble
We are given evidence that she black balled Krista, but we are not given conclusive evidence whether or not Krista was unstable and obsessive. If she was, would it be wrong to warn other institutions of her? The film leaves it up to the audience to interpret.
I kind of feel like you misrepresented Tar's side by saying that the second part of the scene is "separating the art from the artist". Now I don't remember every piece of dialog from the movie, but I vaguely remember that at the start of the movie she was saying that the reason her and some other conductor were performing the same peace differently is because they focused on the different emotions in the writers life. As I remember other conductor was focusing on the whole life of the peace-writer which was sad and Tar was focusing on the specific time of life before sadness so she was trying to convey love through her arrangement. This puts Tar's belief against Max's not because Max wasn't separating the art from the artist, but because Max didn't want to understand, and consider everything that contributed to, in this instance, Bach's work: the emotions of writer at the moment of writing, the time period; now when I think about it again, the medical conditions of the artist as well. That scene where Tar says that she is feeling burning sensation in her shoulder and the doctor says they aren't going to do anything about it and it will go away after some time; I would have to watch the movie again, but that scene and piece of dialog was probably put there with reason. But all in all the great video and I completely understand the fixation on the scene it is probably one of the most amazing scenes I have seen so far and I am glad people are acknowledging it. Also it is completely possible and maybe even probable that I am reading too deep into it and that the movie is saying exactly what you said it was saying. (I didn't read interviews with the director so if I am just embarrassing myself just keep scrolling and thank you for attending my TED Talk :P )
I think what you’re saying about Tar’s overall perspective is absolutely correct. The argument of separating the art from the artist is a bit simplified in this particular scene because of how notions of identity and morality come into play. When most people discuss the subject of separating the art from the artist, it’s usually in reference to not being able to relate to the work or take it seriously due to a disconnect in identity, morals and ideology. So in this scene, Tar is expressing her defense of morally flawed artists in the sense that their work still holds value worth appreciation and study. So in this way, she is arguing that it is necessary to separate one’s hindsight ego and identity from the artist themselves in order to understand their work on a more human level. But she’s not saying that the artists life and intentions don’t matter in their art. She’s simply defending the notion that one should still be able to intimately immersive themselves in a human beings work of art regardless of disagreements of morals and disconnect in identity. At least that’s my take. Really great discussion topic! Thanks for bringing it to my comments section!
Joke is, they talk about Bach here who 1) one of the most incredible composers EVER lived and 2) not even a morally ambigous character (we still know painfully little of his provate life). The guy's issue with him is that he was a white, cis male who fathered 20 kids (many of whom died as infants) in an age of lack of contraception. Like whtf... Some ppl may think she went too far roasting him, but I say, this level of stupid deserves all the roasting in the world... I agree with every word she said in this scene.
Me too! As soon as he has to mention being pangender of course he's going to be ridiculously woke. Should we erase the contributions people have made based on their sex, race or religion? I really just don't like that thinking. I have never disliked someone based on these factors. To dismiss someone's work because they don't fit into your agenda just seems so short-sighted. Then for him to tell her she's a "fucking bitch" and walk out just proves he isn't even able to have a debate on the issue. His feelings were hurt, so he lashes out and walks away. Pretty pathetic.
@@nirachien2274 yes. The Art vs Artist debate is typically about morality and morally ambiguous (or down right dispicable) artists. Whether their art directly stems from their questionable actions, or even if not directly, should we still be expected to enjoy it knowing what kind of person created it. Could you watch a film with Armie Hammer now and not think about those texts, for example? (I struggle) This is a fascinating subject and is relevant, but this scene had nothing to do with it. It wasn't about morality, it was indeed about two of the protected characteristics (race and sexual orientation) that we find morally unacceptable AND illegal to discriminate against these days. In this sense, the guy was not even coming from a "woke" perspective but just the opposite, funnily enough. If it's true, as someone mentioned somewhere, that Todd Field considers the guy winning this scene, it proves that he really doesn't know what he's doing with this movie. You're totally right, he completely lost the debate with storming out of it.
@@glasss1978 thank you, people make no sense..the question here was, is it obligatory to like bach? Could The private life of an artist influence you to like or dislike him? People are definitively missing the point here, it's not about art but morality and power, tar tried to force him to like bach which was a dumb attitude, let the kid like what he wants..
Such a great scene. But also, as a teacher she doesn't sublimate herself to her students' needs either. The basic job she has here is not to convince Max their choice of piece is lame, hey let's inspire something better. It is to help them with what they want to work on. She never asks them why that piece moves them or what it is that can be brought to "vague intentions" to make a piece exciting. She ran away with her ego long before it got to art vs the artist. The scene is very much about her own glory -- and she clearly is teaching at the expense of her student. She's vampire-like. Even as she makes fabulous points in the gorgeous scene. That's just not the way to inspire a student to do anything, nailing them like that in front of their peers.
If we were to judge everybody based on the standards of cancel culture, none of us would sustain very long considering the outcome has been limited to a black and white issue. The pendulum has swung to the extreme where anybody with a little blemish is thrown into the same box with actual perpetrators. There is such a thing as transactional favors and abuse of power coexisting between people. If people could only be more honest about the ways in which they’ve wield power on both sides, we might actually be more forgiving toward ourselves and others. This is not to excuse sexual assaults of any kind, it’s about having an open dialogue about the facts.
The meaning behind the cosplayers at the end is that it is a throw back to the original opening. People crowded around just to see Tar, the person. Now people only come to listen to the music she conducts, but not see her personally.
Indeed! She finally, as she says in this scene, obliterates herself - completely disappears behind the "music." It is no longer about her or her ego.
That's really perceptive! Thanks
Because she doesn’t place importance on her identity, in relation to her art, she becomes blind to her actual self in pursuit of genius and _moving_ work. Later in the film, when she visits her impoverished childhood home, we find out that her real name is not “Lydia Tár”, but “Linda Tarr”. It seems that she's always had to recreate herself, her identity, to match the level of genius that her work radiates. By the end, we see that she has become a victim of the very identity she chose to ignore, now she's being ignored all together.
She also talks, in that opening interview scene, of a female conductor who was "ghetto-ized into obscurity" and I think that's become the case with her too. In her world, in her opinion where she came from and eventually ends up is the "ghetto". Something she's been running from all her life.
@@mrchrisliddell Yes, so to speak, both wind up in a ghetto of obscurity, but for very different reasons: the conductor mentioned in the opening interview was ghettoized because she had no power; Lydia Tar, on the other hand, wound up ghettoized because she had power, abused it and she was then removed from power.
Another thing I just picked up on, watching this again, is that Max's words toward the end are violent and brutal in a sense. The complete opposite of ideals about being pangender and embracing inclusion. The character claims to be all about that, and yet uses hateful and misogynistic language when they feel "cornered." Gosh, what a brilliant film.
Indeed! He calls her a 'bitch'. That's pretty rude bi-pan creature, pretty damn rude. Hopefully this younger generation of 2000 different boxes to check for their identity grow up and expand their parameters to zero boxes.
Well and worse, after trying to use his weak justifications and ‘polite’ rebuttals assuming they could be used as an intellectual defense, only to have a MUCH smarter, if still morally dubious, person very rationally decimate their argument, it exposes how uneducated an opinion they truly have. So, faced with a bruised ego and without anything else to fall back on, they resort to the childlike insults the Internet taught them that run counter to the equally childlike logic they tried to weaponize.
This is not to put down anyone who identifies as any of these identities. It’s to say if you are going to make a bold statement like “cis white European composers aren’t interesting,” you better have a more rationalized and thought out reasoning than just “well, that’s my opinion.” Especially if you’re AN ASPIRING COMPOSER AT JUILLIARD!
It’s typical of offense addicts.
@@deebee4575 I have never heard the term 'offense addict' -- is that an S&M thing? (partly joking)
@@baronesswithabrush1991 Nope. It’s the squeamish, left-wing crowd that generally strives to be offended every day. If they don’t wake up offended, they literally search the Internet for old videos, new videos, old tweets, etc., so they can satisfy their need to be offended and then screech about it.
If that isn’t a mental illness, I really don’t know what is.
I think it's also important to note that she's not really immune to this kind of thinking. Later in the film when a colleague quotes Schopenhauer she dismisses him in a similar way.
WTF? dissing Schopenhaur's aesthetic of music is absolute heresy, or idiocy, rather!
@@smkh2890 she didn’t claim to be god , we’re all imperfect dear
@@kennethmeeker6369 i'd like to hear what she has to say about Schopenhauer's aesthetic, as it is one of the most positive validations of art and artists.
i missed this
@@pavlejeremic7110 I have not seen the whole movie as I live in Queensland Australia and it has only been shown in Victoria so far.
Our Cate is also an accomplished theatre actor. I think this scene really showcases those skills.
'Our' Cate? Really? It's 2023, and no woman is the possession of ANY COUNTRY! Freedom!!!!!!!!!!
Yes.
Cate Blanchett is an actor.
And so good at it that many conflate her with Lidia Tár.
Blanchett is not Tár, no more than she is Guerin or Irina or ...
She's an actor and she's glorious.
Her work will outlive anything from the neighbourhood.
@@kernotter Irina Spalko was, is and will always be a great character. Thanks for the heads up.
Long takes really separate the good from the great filmmakers, actors & cinematography.
One point that wasn't adressed in this video is that even if Tár's student is wrong (I agree he is), she didn't have to publicly humiliate him by having the group basically vote on who was winning the debate. That to me was a way of foreshadowing her manipulative technics and eagerness to destroy her perceived enemies.
Exactly! You are the only one to this point that have noticed this and commented on it. More than the class content, the scene helps us to understand how she can loose her balance when dealing with other people when they don't react as she expected. She expected him to understand her point of view, but his unwillingness to do so triggers her to diminish him in public (totally wrong of her, of course). Also, it's constructed to show us how that moment can be "edited" and totally taken out of context by people who were recording it with their phones. Because that's what the other students do and it cannot be justified by her humiliating one of them.
Excellent coment my friend.
@@JussaraAlmeida2912 I love that detail in the sequence shot. It not only serves as a resource that helps the narrative, but also for us to observe Tár's every movement to the point that it is almost impossible to get the wrong context. But the students who recorded her took her totally out of context and she came off as a sexual predator when, in THIS specific case, she was not. Instead of seeing her as a stubborn person who is capable of humiliating someone of lower status because they disagree with her point of view; which was what we saw.
The world is brutal why not get ready for that in school? The Arts are incredibly competitive and it's teachers like this who will prepare you for that
@@hortleberrycircusbround9678, I'm not debating that. I just think this scene foreshadows that we are seeing the portrait of a complex and nuances individual.
Lydia in this scene is a good demonstration of why great artists don't necessarily make great teachers. Every great music teacher I've had was not a great artist; conversely, every bad music teacher I've had (and there were many) were brilliant, but highly impatient and egotistical. The best way to learn from great artists, in my opinion, is just study their art and become a very astute, intense observer.
There is one problem. When you are a young, opinionated, coddled, arrogant sod like the young gentleman being portrayed here, you will not learn from the great artists simply baecause you are rejecting them because of arbitrary characteristics like gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and other incidental nonsense, thus closing off your mind from really learning, and thus being unable to produce anything but tripe yourself. Just look at Rings of Power, Velma or Witcher - Blood Origins. Written and execited by egomaniacal schmucks who really think they could surpass the creators without having the talen, ability or temperament.
Is she a great artist though? She certainly thinks she is but the movie shows I think that’s she’s a prententious snob who thinks she’s better than she actually is
Hayden would very much disagree with you along with Leopard and Wolfgang Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and many many more
@@Muschelschubs3r yes
@@Muschelschubs3r you really tied this to velma
People forget it is not Cate Blanchette who wrote the words, but the screenwriter. Granted, she agreed to play the role, but the screenwriter(s) deserve to be lauded for their brave step. So does everyone else who worked on the film.
Todd Field is the one who wrote the script - and - directed the movie.
Exactly. Too often the actor and sometimes the director receive ALL the praise while screenwriters, who actually create the situations and the quotes, are criminally underrated.
@@infjelphabasupporter8416 Screenwriters everywhere thank you. Enjoy your day.
Todd Field said he wrote the screenplay for Balnchett to play, so it would make sense that he wrote the words with her ability to portray and embody them.
@@BrownsBacker I didn't know that. He still deserves credit for what he wrote though. Enjoy your weekend and enjoy the movies.
According to the director, Lydia lost the discussion, not because she had the wrong arguments, but because she humiliated the student which wasn't neccesary and it proves Tár is more preoccupied about asserting her power than in being right!
Nah - these tender wimps need to be humiliated to grow a thicker skin and join the real world. These woke boobs are catered to- too much in those ivory towers
" she humiliated the student" did she? Why are most ppl so hyper sensible (mostly about specific topics) these days...
Lost the discussion because she was trying to make the student understand that one cannot judge the life of a person three centuries ago under today’s eyes? The guy represents the cultural tragedy and the pandemic of stupidity we’re living nowadays.
@@ramireza6904??? the sensitive one is her. Like he has his standpoint whether its right or wrong. She cannot take it and therefore wants to humiliate him.
There are indeed 3 people in the room but the third isn't Max's leg. Isn't that Francesca standing at the back of the auditorium filming the whole episode as part of her plan to destroy Lydia?
THIS!!!!
Yes, she is at the top of the frame creating a triangle between her, Tar and Max in the beginning of the scene. The quiet, objective observer being at the top of this morality triangle seems pretty significant.
Bravo! Well observed
OMG SHE WAS THE PHONE
IT ALL MAKES SENSE
but with who was she texting hmm
so it was her all along...
The architect of your soul is social media.
I love that line so much
Said the lady who sexually assault people her whole life.
And this architect is building cities
@@nachel6306 destructive ones
@@nachel6306 not really
I think it's interesting that this scene comes shortly after the interview where Tár stresses the importance of understanding Mahler and his personal life in interpreting his 5th symphony. In this context, it seems like Tár has no problem synthesising the art with the artist, except when doing so would stop you from engaging with the art, exactly what Tár fears happening to her.
Brilliant film, and that scene was masterful. For me, I got the sense that she's sincerely making a point and trying to educate, but as I watched it, I was appalled at how abusive she was to Max. She could have more gently opened Max up to the wider viewpoint without humiliating him., but she chose to destroy him rather than enlighten in a more learning-focused way. To me, it came across as cruel, and of course at that point in the film, I had no notion of how cruel she would turn out to be.
But she DID try to educate him in a patient, learning-focused way, and Max's response was completely cynical and stupid. It was perhaps cruel of her to loose her temper, but she is completely saying the truth. Had Max given any sort of argument, any sort of actual critical thinking, or if he were actually LISTENING to what she was trying to say, it would've been wrong to destroy him like that. As far as I see it, she gave him a hard truth that he much needed to receive in order to grow.
@@adrimiq Exactly, he was so trying to be on a higher moral ground with his comment about Bach's misogyny but at the piano with Tar, he didnt even try anymore lol. He deliberately admittted he hated straight white male composers for no reason at all, and that was when Tar decided to destroy him in such an educating way.
One of the things almost everyone seems to be missing, including the person who made this film without acknowledging that cruelty, is that Max is autistic and/or adhd, and that accounts for his leg, his speech including not being great at impromptu expressing himself, and possibly his interest in conducting/talent for it anyway. This is not just her humiliating someone for having a different opinion (a legitimate one, since it does matter what someone's character is when we consider their legacy, and they don't have a right to only be remembered for being talented), it's her calling a neurodivergent kid up to the front of the class to humiliate him with a position that later gets contradicted in the movie. She's projecting that she doesn't want anyone to judge her for her actions, but indeed she does get judged and punished for doing evil in the end.
There’s something to Lydia’s awareness of how she intimidates others and her ability to control or shut down the experiences of others. Their feelings - of agitation, discomfort or fear are simply not allowed.
She overpowers those she’s up against both emotionally and physically. This is evidenced by her clamping down on Max’s thigh as well as arresting her assistant conductor’s incessant pen-clicking. You even see the fear in the woman’s face in the dreamlike sequence (memory?) where Lydia is caressing the woman but is almost vampiric in her moves.
Not to mention the exchange with the child in the school yard who has been bullying her daughter. She is an uber competitive character, which one would have to be to sport the resume she has obtained. Life is competition. Top tiered success in the arts is more competitive than life.
Max's thigh movements and the pen clicking are hard to ignore and incredibly annoying to the point of wanting to scream. Those 2 things are NOT a case of overpowering . Even watching the film I wanted to yell at Max to just fucking stop.
@@yulianna8004 I agree. Incredibly irritating, but also, I'd feel some kind of way if someone commanded me to stop my nervous tic. Especially by reaching over to physically bar me from doing said tic. Save those moves for your child. As adults, we can only request that people stop doing the things that annoy us. Anything else is, IMO, too dominating. Still, this movie is renting a lot of space in my head - a good sign!
I find this a very one-sided analysis of her character. She is not blunt or insensitive in difficult situations. The way she holds and dances with her wife until her heart calms down is beautiful and gentle. She doesn't say "you, my son, are a complete idiot, wtf are you even doing here" like some others (me, probably) would have after that colossally idiotic announcement on his part, but makes an effort to explain and show the complexity and beauty of Bach's music - who would even want to waste their time doing this in a conservatory level music class? The guy's attitude and insight reflects a teenager from a high school, not an adult music student. She feels guilty and sick to her stomach after Krista's suicide. She's being gentle with the older guys in every scene. I could go on. I read a bunch of reviews before watching the movie and read about her being an awful predator and etc., and then I watched the movie and was stunned how much more likeable I ended of finding her than I expected.
@@glasss1978 I agree, she's a complex sentient being. I never read reviews before seeing a film. Only after. I want to go into the thing with a completely open mind always.
Its true though - cancel culture is cool and socially acceptable UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU
Cancel culture is “cool”?? My oh my 🤦♂️
@@playermartin286 sadly, to some
Lydia Tar the groomer and blacklister deserved it.
Ironically, the people that advocate for it the strongest are the ones that are more likely to get canceled. They created a monster and then it ate them.
@@Mr.EintheMorningmost of them don’t. Cancel culture it have good side and bad side,if you never done anything bad it less likely to happen to you.
I think the shot where Lydia sits on the stairs of the stage is beautiful. The composition is so well done. The students sitting across each other perfectly symmetrical, creating these "arrows" that point us towards the subject in the middle, Lydia. As an artist, I couldn't help but notice those things. Sorry, I'm geeking out 😭
No need to apologize... it's _LOVELY!_ The film's cinematography, and overall craft, is absolutely brilliant.
Yes, it’s interesting that Max, the bipoc pan, gender student, who seems to relish in his inclusive idealism resorts to name-calling and stomping out of the class because of his inability to debate the topic. And this is the problem we see with young people today who are so sensitive, and so attached to identity politics that they’re unable to hear another side, without becoming utterly offended and unable to engage in debating the issue intelligently, thus denying themselves an opportunity to possibly learn something beyond their own prejudices. This also shows that the so-called most tolerant are actually the least tolerant.
No sorry needed. I'm always grateful for insights like this from people with a better eye than I have.
Your last argument totally nailed it. She took the student's argument personal because she wanted people to admire her despite her behaviour
I'm not sure I agree. At this point in the film, she wasn't in the hot seat and it was probably inconceivable to her how events would unfold. I think this part of the film is literally asking the question - can we no longer enjoy R-Kelly and Celine Dion's duet, I believe I can Fly because R-Kelly is a monster? She's also making the argument that if you can boil Bach down to being a straight cis-gendered Christian - it is okay to pretend that is all he was/is then Max can be boiled down to his identity too. So - can/should talent be separated from the person? One part he didn't address was how part of this scene was later taken out of context and part of her downfall and that it was probably recorded by her assistant. Curiously everything bad that happened to her could have probably not turned out the way it did had she simply given her assistant a promotion.
@@thomasmartin8362 Well explained.
Reducing Bach and anyone to tags is the sad reality of this time. The death of the XX century and everything she stood for is inevitable. I sort of wonder what was she playing in the end of the movie: did she compose the music for the videogame? That is one detail that would make everything different.
@@thomasmartin8362 if R kelly raped your kid could you enjoy i believe i can fly?
@@afrosamourai400, I have no kids, so I’d be shocked. But, of course, there are personal and other reasons not to like given artists. At any rate, Bach isn’t accused of sexual misconduct as far as I know. He was a married straight man with a lot of kids - seems a lame reason to hate him. If however something comes to light that shows him to have been a murderous monster, does that actually take the value from his music? Did anyone ever like R Kelly’s music because they thought he was a great guy, or did they like it simply because they liked it?
I like that Tar's hypocrisy is also revealed in this scene, because she dismisses a composer Max likes because her reasons behind her pieces are "vague," however she loves Holst's Symphony No. 5 because it's "mysterious," which could mean the exact same thing as "vague" to another person.
Makes sense as she's wrestling with her own ego and condescension throughout most the film.
She also claims it is needed to understand Mahler's life and marriage to properly play his symphony which... madam, isn't that exactly what you said not to do?
She is most definitely an hypocrite.
I think mysterious can be interpreted as hiding something, while vague can be interpreted as without direction.
Profound pieces are always described with a sense of ambiguity or mystery.. the goal of a masterpiece is to imbed clues within its "grammatical" structure.. through different transitional properties composers are asked to unfurl the mystery. I think her describing a piece as mysterious is actually an astute observation but likely again borrowed from a Bernstein lecture.
@@benjaminperry4126 Oh, I'm not saying that calling a piece mysterious is wrong or a "bad" observation; my comment is more about Tar's subjectivity.
The student (Max) prefers different music, her student Olga preferred different music, and even the neighbors trying to sell the adjacent unit thought of her music as an annoyance. Being an EGOT winner and surrounded by accolades, she thought of herself and HER world of music as OBJECTIVELY good. Catching Max's knee and debating him, trying to "win" over Olga, and other means are all her way of exercising her power to reinforce her subjective worldview and pass it off as objective.
Her coming to terms with not being a good person and her failings to convince these other parties of her objectiveness progress as she loses her power. In the end with the video game cosplayers, she was striped of her power (reputation, authority, ability to "control time"), BUT she accepts the subjectivity of what she would previously think is a lower form of art - the video game music.
I think the ending shows Max being somewhat right, in that having to conform to what music is widely considered to be "objectively good" or "higher" forms of art is contradictory to the existence of art itself.
This scene was a beautiful display of power dynamics. I don’t agree that Tar “obliterated the students line of thought.” They are entitled to be moved or not moved by anything they want for whatever reason, but they were engaged in a power dynamic that favored Tar in the moment. It could be argued that Tar crossed the line by grabbing the student’s leg and trying to further control them. She humiliated the student in front of the class in a display of power that Tar probably saw as an attempt to inspire in a very old school charismatic / tough love kind of way. Just because Tar seemingly dominated the exchange does not mean she is right… nor wrong. That is the brilliance of the decision to make this a long take… nothing was cut out… you saw it all and are free to see the nuance and interpret it for yourself with nothing hidden. - further making the edited version later in the film seem so dishonest in its deletion of nuance. The edited version puts Tar in a power dynamic where she is disadvantaged.
Amazing. Best film of the year.
Two different generations battling. Very very compelling. Best film of the year.
I think that's pretty simplistic to frame the disagreement as one between generations. Max's position is pretty ridiculous and far outside the norm for even the more progressive Gen Zers and millennials who are more likely to be sympathetic.
@@eternalmusic2736 surely the scene is about multiple things at once.
@@Zenshirokojima Sure... but a battle of generations is not one of those things
Max was fucking right and I'll stand him fr
@@sanai97 About what exactly? "White male cis composers are not my thing," he says. Does this apply to Philip Glass? Mika? Ed Sheeran? I have no clue what he's saying honestly.
your ability to identify symbolic aspects I would've never thought to even look for or had the ability to see myself, is incredible. the epitome of a good video essay; leaving with newfound insight and appreciation for a film I already thought was amazing
Excellent analysis. Cate Blanchett made acting look so easy but in reality, it’s hard to carry out by actors.
The great ones always make it seem effortless but it’s difficult af.
I've watched the movie twice and each time I was left with different conclusions. The genius of the movie itself are the nuances and ambiguity of hints .It is like looking at Mona Lisa in Louvre from different angles. Reading related comments opens more possibilities for interpretations but doesn't give one the definite answer. Brilliant movie!
Exactly! I've watched three times and agree with you.
"Don't be so eager to be offended."
The modern equivalent is "Don't be so Will Smithy."
No Will Smith is the canceled guy everyone sticks up for for some reason.
No will smith is the over hated guy while sex offenders get standing ovations
what a way to miss the whole point of everything
Will laughed at Chris rock’s joke. It was until Jada gave him the eyes he decided to give the slap that was heard all around the world
Can anyone tell me about the reference of Anna in the conversation and how it offended max in the last.
Thanks for giving such a thorough analysis of the scene. Definitely going to watch this again. Cate Blanchett’s performance was awesome
She basically behaved like men in power and that's what made it shocking. It was brilliant.
That's the point of the movie..every gender can abuse his power
Except at the end of the film when she is sickened by the 'women for sale' scene - a MALE would have simply chosen one of the 'numbers' and had a 'happy ending' massage. Other reviews seem to indicate that this scene causes her to realize that she has been imposing her power and charisma to attract new casual sex partners and now finds it wrong. I think she already knew she was doing that, and that the partners were aware and consenting. I don't think it's necessarily a sudden reckoning of any kind.
@@baronesswithabrush1991 I think it sort of is both. She’s presented with a very LITERAL transactional relationship in that scene and it kind of solidifies what her partner confronted her about earlier. It may not be a “I now see the error of my ways” moment, but there appears to be some sort of clarity or realization happening. Whether it actually caused lasting change or simply a momentary overwhelming rush of conflicted feelings is up to the viewer.
@@JustinZarian Or the realization that she is in a brothel when she expected a regular massage parlor. As I said before: "a MALE would have simply chosen one of the 'numbers' and had a 'happy ending' massage." A woman finds prostitution sickening (in this case, literally). And as long as women can be bought and sold in our society, women will never be 'equal' to men. Yes, your point is valid about her having been confronted about the 'transactional' nature of all her relationships, but that IS the point of the patriarchy and capitalism, isn't it? It is sickening that is it thus. About Damn Time that changes!!!!
No. She behaved like a lesbian with power. Very common practice among some.
Michelle Yeoh was excellent but I must say Cate was another level up
Michelle Yeoh in what?
@@atticstattic Everything, Everywhere, and All at Once.
@@gingernightmare9152
I couldn't figure out where Yeoh came into the video.
Whatever!! Michele Yeo is AMAZING!! I’m sick to DEATH of hearing about Cate Blanchet!! Ugh!! Ok. We get it. She’s a great actress but come on now!! There are other great actors out there! Personally I’d rather see Michele any day over Cate. Just my opinion.
@@ronrendon And everyone else is sick to death of hearing about Yeoh. Brought up here in a video that has absolutely nothing to do with her.
Bro, I would watch the whole analysis of the whole movie. Perfect.
Yes please analyze it all! I know it’s meant to be ambiguous I would just love to see your own takeaways
Notice that at the piano bench, the exit sign is pointing at both of them, foreshadowing Max's exit and eventually Lydia's exit.
You forgot to mention something important about his final words to her (everyone seems to miss this), he calls her a "bitch", which is an inherently sexist term! Something that he should be totally against, as I'm sure that he also sees himself as feminist minded person as well. It's with this line that he is the most hypocritical! Why does everyone miss this point? Perhaps it's because it is so obvious, or perhaps it's because that word has become so accepted and commonplace, even amongst liberals. I myself never use the word, either in jest or in anger.
This was also one of my main take aways from the scene, that he refuses to take Bach seriously due to his misogyny but then insults Tar with a gendered insult and storms off
It shouldn't be accepted even 1% among liberals by their own standards
@@thewatcher1947 That's exactly what I'm saying. And this bratty self-righteous Gen Z kid, who thinks he's all about being woke, uses it to insult her (because she defended Johann Sebastian Bach, that, straight, Protestant dead European white male. And she's absolutely right to do so. Bach's music is beyond great, it was sublime. and his music goes way beyond all of that BS that kid was talking about). And I'm a gay atheist liberal. And that kid annoyed the hell out of me!
Is 'dick' an inherently sexist term?
@@EvilSapphireR No, dick is not an inherently sexist term because it simply refers to a piece of male anatomy. Of course, you can call someone a dick, kind of like calling them an asshole. But I think it's still different. Bitch is traditionally a term that means a female dog meant for breeding purposes. The whole contextual nature of that insult is different and inherently more sexist than the term dick is.
3:48 The figure standing in the back is slightly disturbing, anyone knows who it is?
We can't see the hair, but it could be the same person we saw before, the red-headed one, watching her on the stage with Adam Gopnik. And at this moment at Julliard, this person could be the one recording the class and, later, editing the video to get her cancelled.
Excellent analysis of an equally excellent scene. So many people on social media should watch this scene and take notes from it.
Are you saying that people should learn lessons about separating the artist from the art from a sexual predator?
@@kassiogomes8498 does the fact that she’s a sexual predator make her wrong in every other scenario just by default?
@@bennyfaziocriminalmastermind it makes her wrong in this specific scenario because after MeToo all predators have panics about social media. They all fear they'll be canceled someday.
This movie wasn't a middle finger to the social media crowd... It was trying to show how "separating the art from the artist", in the age of information, can backfire and allow very talented people to continually abuse their power. Many famous artists and athletes have gotten away with a lot of unethical behavior because their work is considered important or valuable to society.
@@binaryvoid0101 wdym in the age of information?
This is a brilliant deconstruction. I just want to add one point to it. She's in control of this entire conversation and as the teacher, she knows that Max is aching to be allowed to exit the critique, where he is not in control and cannot be in control. He's arguably autistic (Note the stimming) and indisputably socially awkward. It's obvious that he's anxious. She keeps pretending to let him be done with being dissected in public, and then dragging him back into the spotlight. It's impossible that she doesn't know how humiliating this is. This is a shameless power play, one of many in this film.The fact that she's a genius and makes a powerful point doesn't change that.
3 things - (1) When she is sitting on the stairs infront of the musicians, you are reminded that she is a gatekeeper to the profession he is trying to master. It's a reminder of the power dynamics there.
(2) Tár later contradicts her own points that she has made here when speaking to her mentor. Showing she is also not immune to this line of thinking and indicating a level of criticism she and her mentor places on composers and conductors.
(3) Taking the whole film into context (her own misdeeds and fall from grace) I think this scene is one of a larger discussion showing the layers for and against. This scene alone does fall on one side but the film overall explores the wider concept.
On the piano bench when Max rejects her attempt to get through to him, Lydia turns abruptly in the opposite direction. That is literally the turning point where Lydia realizes Max cannot be reached.
Great point. Love those choices made in Tar.
It's not just the fact that art is being ignored that way. Show me just one person in the entire world that is 100% moralistic superior.
Imagine if you were that girl who commited suicide, you would still think that is it great that Tar is still there making ,,GREAT ART" while you were raped by her and abused? Like yeah people are not 100 % morally right, but she is definitely one of the worse ones.
@@samuelp2133 The greatest artists ever were often the biggest monsters. I don't see why we should cancel the art of the artists as long as we condemn what they do and what they did to innocent people.
this movie is brilliant. had the movie come out a year after everything everywhere all at once, Cate would've had won her second oscar. You need to watch this movie three times
Kudos to you for such an intelligent analysis. I love this movie and love it so much more because of this scene. It’s so spot on in addressing the current identity politics that we’ve been experiencing. I believe that she was sincere in this scene. For her, the talent of the artist and the supreme beauty and pleasure that his art can create should be the only things worth considered. Despite her abuse of power in several decision makings, her selection of Olga for the solo cello position is the only right one to make. So, grooming or not, her passion and her drive for perfection in the art end up leading her way.
I think there was a genuine sincerity but then she devolved into brow beating a shaking him in front of the whole class because he wouldn’t budge. She took personal offence to that. That was the first thing that stuck out to me when i first watched it. Of course eveyone feels differently about the scene, which is why it’s so good. There is so much nuance.
this scene was so uncomfortable to me but brilliant my god i wanted to start shaking my leg like the kid... like safdie brothers levels of anxiety inducing and impending doom
Uncomfortable in what way? Uncomfortable because you are woke yourself?
@@neilmcintosh5150 huh? it’s uncomfortable because it’s realistic and you can feel the tension building throughout. not sure what your deal is
@@danascully122 Except it was the ignorant student that made viewers uncomfortable and anxious. Not Lydia Tar herself.
Not me. I was on her side. The kid was weak.
@@neilmcintosh5150 Why do some have to make literally EVERYTHING a political issue? There was nothing about politics in the original comment at all. You don't even know who they were siding with, if anyone.
I don't see how anyone could say the student "won" this argument. I could have (maybe) forgiven him for saying he didn't care for Bach because of his personal life, but he also said that he didn't care for music composed by straight white men in general. This is a downright asinine position to hold, especially for a classical musician, knowing full well that if his music were dismissed based on his skin colour, sexuality etc. he would consider it unfair. Regardless of her motives, Tar was right to point out his hypocrisy and punch him in the face with it. All he could do was resort to a cheap insult. He lost the exchange. Badly.
Couldn't agree more. I think more than anything, this scene is a clash between generation and views. The excuses that Max give to dismiss Bach importance is a shot at a generation that, not only can't separate art from the artist, but also keep looking for "flaws" to discredit such important work.
I think this scene is not really a shot at "woke culture" and more about this young generation not having open mind for art.
Only a brain dead lefty would think the student had a point or won.
Yes. Everything is equal between blacks and whites. There is no difference or anything.
@@kassiogomes8498 Only losers feel oppressed in 2023 America.
You missed the point, he doesn't have to care about bach to learn how to conduct orchestras, it's not an obligation to like bach..she was trying to force him to like bach..what's implicit here is also the fact that for this generation the erasure of female or non white composers is seen as problematic and unfair, that's why max prefered a white female music to bach..
I saw the film last night. I loved this scene. I loved it so much This morning I called several musician friends to discuss it at length. Thanks for your brilliant critique.
In my view, the contrived conflict between Tar (the perceived intellectual superior) and Max (the apparent personification of everything that is wrong with cancel culture) is primarily a vehicle for the higher issue of separating the art from the artist. As George Orwell in a 1946 essay wrote of Salvador Dali: "One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate, or in a sense, affect the other." But like all good writing, there are many intended and unintended messages that can be drawn from this passage: Intellectual arrogance; Shallow cancel culture; Unethical teacher-student relationship, even Tar attempting to separate her own flaws from her mastery. Maybe you see many more messages and that is the brilliance of this scene.
"I don't study Bach because I don't like him."
"YOU'RE A STUDENT! You don't have to like something you gotta learn!"
When she played to him on the piano, I really thought by the end of the song his leg would stop shaking and he would be soothed. Tar was trying to connect to him, to open his mind, to reach his heart (not to mention her insight into the song - as a series of questions and answers was profoundly moving and valuable to a student) - and when he coldly declined I felt her pain. I think that’s the pain that drove her to double down on her argument, and I didn’t have a problem with that at all. He could have connected with her and he chose to disconnect without any clear or structured argument.
Why does he have to connect with her? Why does she need to be the right one?
@@kassiogomes8498 Why does anyone have to connect with anyone else? Because we know a state of connection is healthy for us and makes us happy. When disconnected from those around us, we turn to unhealthy habits. And music is all about connection. She doesn’t *have* to be right but I am very convinced by her case here, and not by his.
@@TheSimWizard We cannot agree in everything. That's not how society works. We desagree in a lot of things because we have different backgrounds. People have to learn to respect other people's opinion. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN A POSITION OF POWER. He doesn't want to conduct Bach. She isn't there to change his music taste. She was hired to give a conducting lesson and got out of her way to humiliate a student about his music taste.
Do you know why she was so eager to be right in that debate? Because she knows that people would think the same thing about her if they knew she was a sexual predator.
And it happened. I doubt any young musician would ever play her music ever again, especially women.
At the end of the day, he doesn't play Bach and nobody plays Lydia Tár.
But more important: You don't have to be convinced by anyone's case. That's not how movies work.
@@kassiogomes8498 I don’t have to be convinced by a character in a movie’s case, just like you don’t have to object to their behaviours like you have. But that’s the beauty of film, and especially a scene like this. It starts an important conversation. This student was entitled to his opinion, but unless he finds a rigorous way of expressing this opinion, how can he expect anyone to agree? Tar became emotional because of her love for music. He showed very little love for the subject he was there to study. In the end, she abused her power, but I’d still rather be at a dinner table with her than him…
@@TheSimWizard I don't understand why anyone has to agree with him. We have to respect. His choice doesn't affect anyone. He is learning how to conduct an orchestra, she should be talking about conducting not about what music he likes.
And who said she loves music? She doesn't. She loves power. She changed her score because she wanted to sleep with the new girl. She didn't gave deserving promotion to her assistant because it would make her look bad. She blacklisted a talent young women because she didn't want to sleep with her anymore. She didn't think of music in any of this occasions. But yeah, go ahead, have a dinner with the sexual harasser because a grad student doesn't like Bach.
Incredible scene analysis bro! One of my favorite scenes this year.
Cate Blanchett did a recent interview on the Mark Kermode/Simon Mayo podcast and she reinforces a lot of your points!! Excellent review!!
I took the shaking, "twitchy" leg as his suppressed rage that finally comes out when he calls her a --itch and storms off the stage... y'know, like a child throwing a tantrum would. He's not "progressive", he's defamatory and disrespectful.
Wow😮. Amazing breakdown and analysis work here!! I cannot wait to see this film! By what you've delineated here in this scene, it's a seminal work with an extraordinarily talented Star in Cate, the deft hand of a cinematographer and DP as well as a director who quite obviously understands the script to bring such life to these multi-layered and nuanced scenes. Well done! 🙏🏻
Thank you so much! It’s always great to hear when someone got something insightful out of my videos! Hope you also enjoy the film in its entirety.
@@TheMisfitPond I do want to make a point though that Lydia is not winning in this scene. Although Max is a bit neurotic and close-minded, he's on the right side history. Her motto of "separating the art from the artist" is losing its appeal to modern audiences where creating important works is not a good enough excuse to get away with abuse or unethical behavior. Because Lydia (whose real name is Linda) doesn’t place importance on her identity, in relation to her art, she becomes blind to her actual self in pursuit of genius and ✨moving✨ work. This ends up catching up with her when she's cancelled and now has a conducting job for a video game where her identity is definitely not valued.
One will be judged by the same measure one judges others.
“Don’t be so eager to be offended,” might be the greatest line from a movie this year. The current trend of racial, political, and sexual purity tests sound an awful lot like today’s young people are cancelling others in order to filter out everyone except those whom they deem “supreme.” Ironic how so many of these same folks use terms like Nazi or fascist to describe those with whom they do not align in the aforementioned regards, yet are quick to do everything possible in order to cease the very livelihoods from their sociopolitical “others.” There ought to be a term for people whose unfounded sense of entitlement led them to believe that their flaccid opinions were edicts and those in opposition in any way should be considered dangerous, immoral, violent criminals and treated as such. I suppose narcissists would do, but I think there’s something new to this special brand of folks.
Political correctness is fascism sold in a pretty wrap. Haven’t you noticed that every major dictator for the past century has been a leftist? Hitler, socialist, Mussolini, socialist, Mao, communist, Stalin, communist, and it continues to this day with the likes of communist China and socialist Venezuela. All these people crying about fascism and whatnot have the exact same mindset for their purposes.
Peaky Blinders actually had a great line about the two extremes meeting each other in its last season. That politics isn’t a line, but a circle, and when you go far enough right, you’ll end up meeting someone who’s gone far enough on the left, and it will be one and the same.
I honestly am surprised that this line and scene made it in a modern 2022 movie.
@@alexman378 I suppose that’s what happens when the filmmaker isn’t out on Twitter complaining that his movie didn’t make a billion dollars because “whiny social justice advocates,” wouldn’t go see it. Messaging in movies is fine, but if the message is unpopular or so in-your-face as to be annoying (or both), it tends to detract an audience. Nice to see that this one’s doing well, at least critically, so far.
If you refuse to let anyone have an opinion, or a voice that doesn’t align with your own opinion - then I’m sorry but you are a fascist - which is exactly what cancel culture is
idk if the marginalized ppl in question are suddenly entitled for having more of a voice against the systems that oppress them…unless you’re referring to some other subset of ppl that are randomly speaking out against prejudice
Definitely one of the deepest parts of this is her defending artists that have done bad things, because she is doing bad things, and does not want to get canceled herself, I totally read that before I even knew how corrupt she was
It doesn't make it any less valid.
I don't think she is defending those artists with such a self-serving interest. You missed the point.
The other irony is that her music and work gets played regardless by another composer since her book was stolen
Her work still lives on despite her controversies. Much like Bach who she defends here
@@blehbleh9283 there are no real controversies with Bach. If anything that should show you how emotionally deterimed Fools are today to find problems where they don't exist.
@@hortleberrycircusbround9678 keep telling yourself that
@@tutumazibuko2510 Bach is one of the greatest composers to walk the Earth and only a dim, dum-dum wokester would say otherwise.
I think we need to be perfectly clear, here... the student's refusal to engage with Bach's or Beethoven's work had *_nothing whatsoever to do_* with any alleged moral failings on their part. He didn't so much as hint at that. What he DID mention was their race, their sex, and their sexual orientation.
We have a word for people like that. Judging others only on the color of their skin is racist. Judging solely based on sex is sexist. Being white is not a moral failing. Being straight is not a moral failing. Being male is not a moral failing. The student is a racist and sexist piece of shit. As a minority myself, I find his mindset itself to be completely unjustifiable and immoral and I'm fucking sick of seeing it everywhere.
I love that its done in a oner and the next time this conversation is seen, it's been cut up removing context and making it seem as vulgar as possible.
Yep. Social media does that. That's how the giant orange moron got elected. Memes on social media distorting the truth!
Even though I agree with Tár’s point to an extent, you have to draw the line. She openly embarrassed Max and obviously made them visibly uncomfortable. I get that you can’t always be sensitive to everyone but their foot was shaking the entire time. They were terrified. And in this terror they lashed out.
This is a monumental scene. Loved it. Found it so moving and a question constantly asked in the arts. Can you separate the artist from the art? And of course the rigidity of youthful views and self righteous judgements.
Definitely the best analogy of the basis of the film,,, the powerful woman can also be a deadly weapon,,, and all the abuse of that power will end up the same, cancelled,,, but the question you put still hangs in the air,,,do we separate greatness from the creator of that greatness,,,it is one of the few dilemmas of this generation who haven't really come to an answer yet,,, can only be described as a brilliant film, the direction cannot be ignored here,,,,it is outstanding,,, for me as a simple woman 50 year old woman watching and enjoying how this generation are moving forward with the feminism that started centuries ago,, as all generations do better than the last,,, this film creates wounderful observations of how we all move forward towards equality and respect both men and women, and the comment to have luckily kept all his hangers in the closet facing the same way had a profound meaning to our morals ,,, 🇮🇪
Thanks to this movie I discovered Kalinnikov - Symphony №1. Such a gem.
I've seen Tar twice and this review opened my non intuitive mind to something that went over my head in the movie. Why did I never consider the possibility that Tar was only shaming Macks, to cover her own reputation when her world was about to collapse around her?
She had no idea at the time what would happen to her reputation. She was arrogant and thinking that everyone admired her.
I had a different reaction. Since she has clearly curated a carefully constructed image of herself, there might be a bit of jealously that she feels he is being his "authentic" self (he's not) and she can't be. Even though she's a woman, a lesbian, and from a meager background, she still has to play that role in what was traditionally male. Plus, we're conditioned to love certain music and certain composers--that was the standard that no one challenged for decades. The cringey student is simply parroting the new standard narrative of today of being opposed to anything "traditional" just to be oppositional, throwing away brilliant composers in the process.
I'm reminded that my best teachers in art school were good artists but not exceptional. I think humbleness is key to be a good teacher.
Un film straordinario che ti entra nel profondo e ti fa pensare.....di questi tempi non è una cosa così scontata.Bravi tutti gli interpreti ,con una Cate veramente da Oscar.👏👏👏
Those observations, especially about the blocking of the scene (things I would have probably missed on a conscious level) were truly fascinating insights to me. You clearly know the craft of movie making and scene building. And the ambiguity of Tár’s motives have drawn me in to a point where I’m going to have to see this movie, despite now knowing where the story is going to end, and the ironic zinger that lies in wait for the character.
Sadly, I have already seen how people on the extremes of both sides of the debate-divide have pounced on this character (and this scene in particular) to place their own spin on how to read it, in order to serve one agenda or the other. The tragedy being that there are countless people out there who do seem to need intellectual shepherds, for instruction on how to interpret the meaning of things.
Of course, if these people become aware of the fact that, as you so deftly point out, this scene (when it’s viewed in the context of the complete story) can be interpreted in a number of ways, they may come to realise that this is the very point of the movie and the art they are witnessing? The very fact that it has this ambiguity, which makes opposing people feel able to hold it up as an argument for two opposing view points, shows me (at least) that what the movie is saying is something other than either of those things and that extremists are missing the point completely.
The very fact that it presses so hard on these hot-button topics will probably make it a, “must see,” movie and result in Oscars all round.
But that is why, for my own part, I am SO GLAD that there are still people like you around; able to penetrate the superficial, to reveal the technique and the interpret the art on display for the audience; and to show us that there is so much more to appreciate in the drama of the characters and the way they are presented to us. And that is why, after seeing this as my first video of yours (I think it’s the first time I’ve seen one of your vids at least?) I will subscribe.
Thank you for seeing with depth and feeling, and then sharing that with us. ✌️
I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out how quickly Max flipped and became misogynistic once Tar made her point, calling her a 'fucking bitch'. Which is particularly ironic and hypocritical given that he claimed to put misogyny in front of music in his justification to ignore Bach, as a champion and defender of gender and diversity, and then called his teacher a bitch right afterwards for disagreeing with him. Reminds me of some non-binary males I met who claimed to not be men to gain popularity and then once things started going wrong for their ego, immediately reverted to acting just like sexist men. Brilliant exposition of the hypocrisy in Max's thinking and how it is, just like Tar, his ego that drives his musical persona
Great observation. We still do unfortunately live in a patriarchal society. The default setting is 'men rule'.
Perfectly stated. Thanks.
@@JussaraAlmeida2912 Thanks. I could go on and on re: that topic. Especially to a like minded individual. But, I will not at the moment. It attracts the trolls 😈who seem to hang out just waiting to annoy...
this is so much great analysis.
what i took from the scene on my viewing was that for the first time in my memory i'd actually seen a class play out rather than be shown the last minute of it with like some well-known fact to round it off. they actually wrote a kind of classroom situation that made sense. later on, when the video surfaces it becomes obvious we need to see the whole class play out so that we know that the video is carefuly edited.
still impressed with it tho, i think it's a very thoughtful film and not at all what i expected in the best way. and your analysis just made the scene so much better for me.
what's really cool about this film is the difference in perspective of everyone who watched it. for me, tar didn't win that argument. by not holding people accountable for their actions, they can be put on a pedestal. however, if we judge people by the contents of their character first, we eliminate boosting the egos of those who don't necessarily deserve it. it's more complex than that though, and truthfully there are artists whose music I appreciate despite hating who they are as a person, but maybe that is part of the problem.
I appreciate that this video pointed out how the position of the actors in the master class scene showed not only their relative size to each other, but that illustrated the power dynamic between Lydia Tar and the student.
Moving on to the brief discussion of the conclusion of “Tar”, I’ve been thinking about this film quite a bit.
* One main idea in the movie is that it explores the control of others by the artist.
- What Lydia does not realize until the end is that her attempted control (as the artist/professor) is limited, especially when certain boundaries are crossed.
- Sometimes the way that Lydia is photographed makes her look like a royal ruler. From her lofty position she seems to think she is untouchable. But she isn’t.
- The people around Lydia can bring her down. And their tools can be classroom student’s smartphone cameras or a subordinate’s emails or a lawsuit by the family of a colleague who committed suicide.
Wonderful analysis! I love the ambiguity of Fields' films, especially _Tár_ & _In The Bedroom._
It's a much more complex scene (and film) than many see it as - kind of a Rorschach test for viewers.
I can understand both viewpoints, while also seeing the total hypocrisy of _both_ characters. Life is so relarely - if ever - black & white.
unpopular opinion: this scene is not as nuanced as it could be/people claim it is. many people in the comments seem to view this scene as very nuanced only because they favour Tar's perspective and see this scene as her "destroying woke culture". in reality the debate on whether you truly can separate the art from the artist is far more complex than this. i feel like if you come away from a scene thinking "[insert person] won", you've already lost all nuance.
agreed, fields did a good job of fairly presenting both sides of a contemporary argument without encouraging the audience to pick a “winner.” although personally, within the context of the movie, it’s clear that tár’s arrogance prevents her from seeing adam’s pov and if anything provides an insight into how pompous she is.
@@danieldini8685the student’s pov is frankly childish and dumb. and I say that as a poc myself. I don’t think Tar was even particularly harsh. She explained why she has her perspective and asked thought provoking questions.
@@danieldini8685 The Zoomer boy is a joke and got destroyed in that debate. How did he end it after he got butthurt? He walked out and said you're a f@@@@@@ b@@@@.
The reason you feel that there's a lack of nuance is because you're acting as if this scene exists in a vacuum. While Tar is not met with much resistance in this single scene, we weigh her beliefs against the actions we learn about later in the movie. It's also important to note that she's and adult intellectual arguing with a college student who isn't really prepared to argue back. Similar to right wing hacks like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who complain that leftists won't debate them, yet only seem to be interested in debating random college students they know the can best simply based on rhetorical skill. Yes, there are people who see this scene as "College professor owns woke student", but that's the fault of those particular viewers not the film itself.
@@NoNameBrand450 she humiliated him. How is that not hard?
Excellent examination of the scene. Especially valuable is your points on the position of the characters - it can add a lot to a film to be more aware of where the characters are located both in the frame and in relation to each other (such as when they get to the piano the camera's positioned to show Max closer - at that moment Tar literally wants to "get behind" i.e. support Max in giving Bach a fair listen, only to "get in front of him" physically and metaphorically once he rejects doing so).
Also want to note director Todd Field put something astonishing in this scene - something so creatively daring even he backed from it a bit: NO ONE IN THE ROOM IS FILMING. So when Tar is confronted later with footage, where did that footage come from?! The shot of Tar viewing the footage is incredibly brief, but even so we're seeing that encounter from a range of camera angles and cuts that simply could not have been made from the sparse crowd viewing the proceedings from the stands. I think in an earlier draft this discrepancy was more explicit but Field felt it was a bridge of abstraction too far for the audience hence the fleeting focus on it in the final film.
her ex assistant filmed it. you can see in the modified footage that was released how it was very zoomed in
At 12:12 it is key to point out that Tar is standing there onnthe steps telling the student to his back as he walks out that he is simply a product of social media. That was the brilliant moment of this most dramatic scene. I didn't even realize it was one continuous shot because I was so captivated by it. It is how I would expect a maestro to "call out" a closed minded student who is indeed a product of social media and using woke nonsense to justify their non-conforming which is just a refusal to be "selective without substance". If I was Tar, I would channel John Houseman (who is a benefactor of the Julliard School by the way) from the film "The Paper Chase". I would have walked up to the student and handed him a dime and say, "Here is a dime. Please call your mother and tell her is it very unlikely of you becoming a musician." And then dismiss him post haste from the class.
It's hard to believe this student would have pursued a career in classical music with that kind of attitude. Much less make it into a music conservatory, which I assume is what this is. Great analysis of the scene, btw. As a classical musician, I still can't believe this was written, and so technically and beautifully razor sharp in its observations about this rarified culture, let alone being filmed with such great actors, direction and the inclusion of hardcore classical music, not just the top 40 hits. My dreams came true this year. I hope it wins all the awards but it may just be too smart and niche-y for most people.
I expect there are lots of people who pursue careers in fields where they don't belong and who get accepted into prestigious schools BECAUSE they are BIPOC or something ethnically advantaged in today's culture. When Tar asks the question how would he prefer his work to be judged, we know the real answer. He expects to be judged favorably because he is BIPOC. It is about the destruction of quality in favor of mindless DEI. Diversity is something to be accepted enthusiastically, but not promoted over merit. Max is favoring the destruction of quality and merit in favor of identity. I don't think Tar is too hard on him at all. She loves music, so his attitude is deeply offensive. His attitude will destroy music. This is why I think the fact that Tar tries to destroy the careers of women is an inconsistency in the script. Either the women should have been poor musicians or Tar should not have destroyed them. We know that in real life women often try to destroy other women's careers out of malice, but that doesn't work in this film.
@@ashleyblack155 lool. Tár doesn't love music. She loves power. That's the message of the movie. She doesn't humiliate the student because he doesn't like Bach. He doesn't have to love Bach. He is entitled to like whatever he likes for whatever reasons.
And black people are favored??!? Oh please, please tell me a successful black conductor.
@@kassiogomes8498 doesn't change the fact that his opinion is really stupid. Any good teacher would try to help a student with such a stupid opinion to see reason.
@@lordfarquaad3996 His opinion is HIS OPINION. She isn't there to change his music taste. She's there to teach the techniques of conducting an orchestra.
@@kassiogomes8498 part of being a conductor is analyzing music. When she brought him to the piano, she was trying to help him analyze the piece by Bach despite his opinion of it, and all he had to say after was "I still don't like it cus he's white". Like okay? That doesn't change the fact that you can still analyze his music and learn from it. If you aren't willing to step outside of your comfort zone, then your learning is going to be severely impaired. Also, it's her class so she can choose what the learning material is.
She did not need to speak so cruelly to the student, but the "lecture" scene is so beautifully made. It could have been a damn fine movie in itself--period. It's one of many questions the film asks and it takes Cate Blanchett to deliver it. What a joyous watch with so much to ponder.
Does anyone else think the guy delivered his lines horribly bad? I thought he wrecked the scene with primary school type acting.
You know what.. I think that’s valid. Its not enough to take me out of the scene or anything but it is a tad bit noticeable
@@TheMisfitPond well my main language is Spanish so normally I have a higher threshold when watching movies in English and determining whether lines seem natural or acted if you know what I mean. When it is really bad it seems like they're just really reciting from memory and comes off pretty unnatural and forced. This guy passed that threshold for me so it must be bad haha.
I dont know he was playing a young uncomfortable man. He seemed young and uncomfortable to me.....
It was supposed to be bad as he was an entitled brat!
Totally agree! His acting was very self conscious and the leg shaking not subtle at all, you notice it more because Cate’s performance is so committed and he comes across as unconvincing in comparison. It does take me out of the scene a bit as I see the actor behind the character being nervous acting alongside Cate Blanchett!
Thoroughly illuminating discussion of this scene - I see it with all new eyes now. Thank you.
I fuckin love Monster Hunter, I saw their shoutout in the opening credits and wondered what place the game would take in the movie and I was so pleased when I got to the end
Todd Field’s screenplay is incredible, and the classroom scene is a standout 👍🏼. I saw in The Bedroom but definitely want to see his other movies, written or directed.
do you think this film will get a criterion release?
I’m not sure but I’d be down for it
You’d think Todd Field’s entire brief but powerful catalogue would make the Criterion cut, if the idea is to preserve films of significance. If nearly every Wes Anderson film can end up with a Criterion (if not all of them by now), surely there’s room for In the Bedroom, Little Children, and Tar. I’m hoping a few more Paul Thomas Anderson flicks get the Criterion treatment as well.
I love that shot of cate against that concrete wall. Great production design.
Watching this scene brought on a lot of memories and feelings from being in college. I wasn't studying at Juilliard but it was a very serious program for my degree with a lot of the teachers who were also working professionals in the field. I was constantly filled with anxiety trying to meet the expectations of my teachers and I think a few even ravished in it. So I related a lot with Max and the constant anxiety and pressure he was feeling. I also knew exactly what was coming when Tar got up onto the lecture seats and said something like "what if we use the same standards to analyze you" but with a lot bigger words. When she said that I cringed out loud and face palmed. Whether or not I agree with either of them doesn't really matter to me because in the end this scene pulled out a lot of emotions for me and I think that's what makes it so special. Also side note! The piece he's playing at the very beginning is actually Tar's theme song on the OST. Interesting little tid-bit, especially since she doesn't like it. The conductor who'd put together the OST said it's supposed to sound like what a Chinese porcelain pot looks like, fragile and on the verge of breaking at any moment.
Max being pansexual is like the definition of someone being open-minded and yet he’s the most close-minded person in the room.
In a way that can be true but simply being open-minded to particular non-conventional identities or ideas doesn't mean you're automatically open-minded to anything and everything that is presented in front of you.
I think open mind beings with being humble, nothing related with being tolerating or venturing sexually.
This is the exact opposite of my interpretation of this scene.
Lydia is claiming that classics deserve reverence and that personality means nothing. Meanwhile, mere moments before we saw her claim that the only way to conduct is to feel the original authors full intent in the context they wrote it. I see this as Lydia revealing that she just says whatever she wants to win the argument.
She clearly seems thrown by this piece, as she doesn't know this more modern composition, and falls back to classics that everyone knows. When challenged, she reacts poorly and attacks the student because she knows she has done morally repugnant things akin to the things that these other conductors have done.
@@professorhuggins5418e don’t even know if she had done anything wrong. We never see her doing it and have no proof of her doing it. I think what you are doing is exactly what the movie denounces : cancel culture.
Plus, the author intent when writing the piece has nothing to do with the author behavior otherwise.
Thank you for taking the time to analyze this scene - you helped articulate a lot of what I was thinking/feeling as I was watching this. I especially love your point/question of whether Tar is doing this out of intellectual sincerity. There was certainly a time (probably when I was the same age as Max) when I saw the world the same as Max. So I completely understand how he feels. Tar’s approach was so refreshing because it did feel as though Tar was sincerely trying to inspire Max.
Where I disagree with you is your description of Tar’s “mic drop” moment. She may have won that intellectual debate, but it was at the cost of humiliating her own student. You’re right, she was very powerful in that moment - but it was the use of power over someone else. It was a missed opportunity for Tar to empathize and understand Max’s point of view (which granted is extremely difficult, especially when you feel so passionate about your point of view). However, I do believe that as the instructor of the course , I think she has an ethical duty to not cause harm to her students. Certainly Max’s storming off is not an effective strategy, in this context, it was how he saw was his best way to have agency in a situation where your professor goes from sincere intellectual curiosity to completely dismissing Max’s point of view. It’s very understandable that when individuals bring up issues of identity politics it can easily polarize individuals and automatically put people on the defensive (myself included), Tar’s position as a professor comes with the responsibility of continuing to grow and develop professionally.
I appreciated that you put Tar in the hot seat at the end of your video to provide further reflection for us viewers. One thing I would add though is that the point Tar used to “win” the debate turns out that Tar herself is guilty of committing when she changed her score when she recognized the person auditioning’s shoes as the same as the woman she was attracted to in the washroom just before the audition. Thus, the question of whether she was motivated by sincere intellectual curiosity is diluted by her own hypocrisy.
Thank you again for taking the time to make this video - your thoughtful analysis got me to think and reflect more 😊.
The film shows the fundamental difference between cancelling someone based on identity (which is nonsense) and deeds (which are debatable, but certainly more understandable).
Great commentary!! For me the mise en scène reflects sonic waves (her grand opinion) issuing forth. Also for me, the third character in the scene is Francesca who we barely see waaay up in the rafters but, I believe, turns out to be the perspective that the Juilliard "cancel super-cut" video was filmed from.
ONE OF THE BEST FILM EVER CREATED
Although personal motives might play into her passionate response, you really don’t need them to explain why Tár can’t accept Max’ position.
Bach is vital to the language of classical music, he has inspired every single classical composer following him and he defines what musical genius means. So questioning Bach for en-vogue pseudocritical reasons (who was also quite a decent man compared to other great (white, cis, german) composers) is equivalent to questioning the entirety of classical music. She has to feel threatened by this, especially as this comes from a conducting student, who should know so much better.
Thank you, that was a great insightful explanation and viewpoint.
For people who want to point how "shallow" Max's thinking is, you have a very shallow reading of this scene, that it's just about a "snowflake sjw" getting crushed.
You're acting just like Max
She's not even responding to him, she's droning on and on about counter-examples, but i feel like she too is discarding his point of view just like he's discarding people's point of view based on their ethnicity, sex, and orientation.
She should've asked him why would we he be a part of classical music if he hates it's pioneers and progenitors? i venture he would say because he's reshaping it as his own and using it to tell his story. she then would answer ok that's what these pioneers were trying to do with folk traditions, which is turn them from what they saw as low-culture into high-culture things, for better or for worse, and now Max can do with it what he wants, but he at least must acknowledge their existence in order to move the conversation forward, the conversation meaning the medium of classical music.
But no, she has to turn it into a scolding match and when she fails to get her way she decides to humiliate him in front of the class, which to me foreshadows her bullying persona which is actually the main theme of the movie, not cancel culture. (And I only say this because the movie itself only brings up cancel culture sporadically and it's not the main point of the movie by far)
So in short, I read this as both a failure of Max and Lydia Tar to communicate well, and both decide to bully the other. Max and his friends trying to cancel Lydia because she humiliated him in the class and because she doesn't agree with them, and Lydia humiliating him instead of being a nurturing understanding person, which we find out she's far from being that person later in the movie.
Honestly I think this is a fair reading of the scene. I think Tar does come away with the more reasonable point of view.. but her intention devolves into malice more than her desire to enlighten… but I will say that she did give it an honesty try with the piano segment… everything there was fair and genuine but when Max expressed how he couldn’t really care any less, she also gave up on that approach
Would you say the same if Tar were a man? Are men expected to 'nurture'?
@@maryvallettakeith6146 yes. a teacher should be nurturing and understanding, man or woman.
@@maryvallettakeith6146 I don't think cis men are expected to be "nurturing" unlike women which is problematic and sexist. However, like Lionel said, I also believe all teachers regardless of their gender should try to encourage and support students. That being said, Tar's demeanor and personality could have been shaped by (or always was but suited for) male dominated industry where cis men would hound and bully gender minorities. In order to survive in a toxic environment such as this, people like Lydia would have to become brutal and inhumane. Think about Margaret Tatcher. She told herself women were weak and too emotional to be successful in life. Obviously she internalized misogyny, but she also made herself the "Iron Lady" to survive the brutal world of politics.
I just looked Bach up. As a child, he went to a school that was filled with bullies and picked on. As a teacher at 20, none of the students wanted to listen to him, and he was beaten up by one of his students. He did call the student a bad name, and the student attacked him for that. He had 20 children, but half or over half of them (depends on the account) died, many of them before the age of three. People had a lot of children back then because many did not survive to adulthood. His first wife died. I already know a fair amount about Schopenhauer. It helps also to know about Bach. I don't think it was an accident he was the focus of this scene.
This doesn't really add much to your observation on the wings part, but I just noticed after you pointing this out that her scoring sheet is right above her head, almost like a halo.
I went to music school -as much as what you point out as technically brilliant is the way it’s set up and shot what is even more brilliant is how throughout the film and in this scene especially is how when working with music the more you are working towards a moment of beauty the less able you are going to be able to put that moment into words..and so instead there is a reliance upon lore to explain the unexplainable: what the composer said, what the performer did, what happened this day or that..and here among other things referring to very funny way of linking Bach to the modern performer via the eccentric genius of Glenn Gould..it’s a scene worth watching over and over not just for what’s being said but also the idea of the out of control ego that is this person at the height of her powers able to riff on anything (not unlike her hero Leonard Bernstein is shown to have been previously doing in a later devastating scene) but what’s not believable is a woke musician who’d actually dismiss Bach for being supposedly misogynistic..no way such a jackass would get anywhere close to a conservatory..or if it is nowadays possible then we are all in deep trouble
"The answer is Twitter." Dead. Great video man.
We are given evidence that she black balled Krista, but we are not given conclusive evidence whether or not Krista was unstable and obsessive. If she was, would it be wrong to warn other institutions of her? The film leaves it up to the audience to interpret.
I kind of feel like you misrepresented Tar's side by saying that the second part of the scene is "separating the art from the artist".
Now I don't remember every piece of dialog from the movie, but I vaguely remember that at the start of the movie she was saying that the reason her and some other conductor were performing the same peace differently is because they focused on the different emotions in the writers life. As I remember other conductor was focusing on the whole life of the peace-writer which was sad and Tar was focusing on the specific time of life before sadness so she was trying to convey love through her arrangement. This puts Tar's belief against Max's not because Max wasn't separating the art from the artist, but because Max didn't want to understand, and consider everything that contributed to, in this instance, Bach's work: the emotions of writer at the moment of writing, the time period; now when I think about it again, the medical conditions of the artist as well. That scene where Tar says that she is feeling burning sensation in her shoulder and the doctor says they aren't going to do anything about it and it will go away after some time; I would have to watch the movie again, but that scene and piece of dialog was probably put there with reason.
But all in all the great video and I completely understand the fixation on the scene it is probably one of the most amazing scenes I have seen so far and I am glad people are acknowledging it.
Also it is completely possible and maybe even probable that I am reading too deep into it and that the movie is saying exactly what you said it was saying.
(I didn't read interviews with the director so if I am just embarrassing myself just keep scrolling and thank you for attending my TED Talk :P )
I think what you’re saying about Tar’s overall perspective is absolutely correct. The argument of separating the art from the artist is a bit simplified in this particular scene because of how notions of identity and morality come into play. When most people discuss the subject of separating the art from the artist, it’s usually in reference to not being able to relate to the work or take it seriously due to a disconnect in identity, morals and ideology. So in this scene, Tar is expressing her defense of morally flawed artists in the sense that their work still holds value worth appreciation and study. So in this way, she is arguing that it is necessary to separate one’s hindsight ego and identity from the artist themselves in order to understand their work on a more human level. But she’s not saying that the artists life and intentions don’t matter in their art. She’s simply defending the notion that one should still be able to intimately immersive themselves in a human beings work of art regardless of disagreements of morals and disconnect in identity. At least that’s my take. Really great discussion topic! Thanks for bringing it to my comments section!
Your question at the end is very interesting. Paraphrasing “Is a question/statement calling for less judgment, made with selfish intent, still valid?”
Joke is, they talk about Bach here who 1) one of the most incredible composers EVER lived and 2) not even a morally ambigous character (we still know painfully little of his provate life). The guy's issue with him is that he was a white, cis male who fathered 20 kids (many of whom died as infants) in an age of lack of contraception. Like whtf... Some ppl may think she went too far roasting him, but I say, this level of stupid deserves all the roasting in the world... I agree with every word she said in this scene.
I agree wholeheartedly. Why is this idiot even studying classical music? Makes no sense.
Completely agree
Me too! As soon as he has to mention being pangender of course he's going to be ridiculously woke. Should we erase the contributions people have made based on their sex, race or religion? I really just don't like that thinking. I have never disliked someone based on these factors. To dismiss someone's work because they don't fit into your agenda just seems so short-sighted. Then for him to tell her she's a "fucking bitch" and walk out just proves he isn't even able to have a debate on the issue. His feelings were hurt, so he lashes out and walks away. Pretty pathetic.
@@nirachien2274 yes. The Art vs Artist debate is typically about morality and morally ambiguous (or down right dispicable) artists. Whether their art directly stems from their questionable actions, or even if not directly, should we still be expected to enjoy it knowing what kind of person created it. Could you watch a film with Armie Hammer now and not think about those texts, for example? (I struggle) This is a fascinating subject and is relevant, but this scene had nothing to do with it. It wasn't about morality, it was indeed about two of the protected characteristics (race and sexual orientation) that we find morally unacceptable AND illegal to discriminate against these days. In this sense, the guy was not even coming from a "woke" perspective but just the opposite, funnily enough. If it's true, as someone mentioned somewhere, that Todd Field considers the guy winning this scene, it proves that he really doesn't know what he's doing with this movie. You're totally right, he completely lost the debate with storming out of it.
@@glasss1978 thank you, people make no sense..the question here was, is it obligatory to like bach? Could The private life of an artist influence you to like or dislike him? People are definitively missing the point here, it's not about art but morality and power, tar tried to force him to like bach which was a dumb attitude, let the kid like what he wants..
Such a great scene. But also, as a teacher she doesn't sublimate herself to her students' needs either. The basic job she has here is not to convince Max their choice of piece is lame, hey let's inspire something better. It is to help them with what they want to work on. She never asks them why that piece moves them or what it is that can be brought to "vague intentions" to make a piece exciting. She ran away with her ego long before it got to art vs the artist. The scene is very much about her own glory -- and she clearly is teaching at the expense of her student. She's vampire-like. Even as she makes fabulous points in the gorgeous scene. That's just not the way to inspire a student to do anything, nailing them like that in front of their peers.
Teachers are too afraid these days to make points like she does. I thought it was fine.
If we were to judge everybody based on the standards of cancel culture, none of us would sustain very long considering the outcome has been limited to a black and white issue. The pendulum has swung to the extreme where anybody with a little blemish is thrown into the same box with actual perpetrators. There is such a thing as transactional favors and abuse of power coexisting between people. If people could only be more honest about the ways in which they’ve wield power on both sides, we might actually be more forgiving toward ourselves and others. This is not to excuse sexual assaults of any kind, it’s about having an open dialogue about the facts.
what is the song at the beginning of the video?
I am fascinated by the scenes where they question the cancel culture of the new generations.
WOW THE WINGS was SO COOL!