Tár (Marin Alsop‘s criticism)

Have seen the film twice now, loved it, and have just read Marin Alsop’s comments in Variety.

https://variety.com/2023/film/global...235482490/amp/

Specifically, Alsop says that, once the film reveals Lydia’s , she was ‘offended: …offended as a woman …offended as a conductor …offended as a lesbian’.

I do realise that this is a version of the kind of discussion that has inevitably popped up/developed in other threads, but to me, the best thing about the film is that Lydia is shown as a complex character, with flaws. It is a very realistic portrayal of the environment in the world of classical music, especially the very top.

Is the issue that Lydia is an I almost feel like for once, I see evidence of some kind of reverse, paradoxical bias, as if there’s an inherent problem with having a

Again, there have been some threads here touching upon this, but is it really again an example of people expecting ‘positive reinforcement’ from a ‘strong woman’ lesbian character, and nothing more? I feel like it’s just absurd and would be entirely unrealistic, as it’s widely understood that getting to the very top of any competitive field, especially ‘as a woman’ and especially a field as grounded in history and tradition (and, to an extent, religion) as western classical music, one does need to be ‘a bit of a bitch’ (one can of course disagree, but that’s my personal experience (and no, I am not at the top of my field)).

Alsop adds, ‘To have an opportunity to portray a woman in that role and to make her . And that’s exactly the sort of thing that bothers me, as if all these people want any female character to be a bloody advert for ‘strong females’ to ensure a kind of infinite, idealistic feedback loop that ‘this girl can’. Alsop then suggests that the film ‘assumes women will behave as badly as men’ (I paraphrase), which in itself strikes me as hilariously sexist, as if

For what that’s worth, I loved Lydia and was wholly on her side, though I’m pretty much allergic to ‘strong female’ characters. I also felt it was quite easy to be on her side (her wife manipulating her relationship with the child was revolting).

I need to see Tarr is about all I can comment on about this.

I did think it might be a bit of an irrelevant thread as it’s not out everywhere yet, but I watched it online a good few weeks ago, so thought maybe someone would have seen it already.

I have read that interpretation as well and I find it quite intriguing, as I didn’t get that vibe at all (similarly, have seen it described as a horror film and couldn’t relate to that at all, either, even as a massive horror lover).

Well, that's spoiled now. LOL.

It really isn’t, though.

Spoilers!

Also, I see it’s returning to the cinema near me this month so I may see it soon.

I’ve added some more but it looks a bit ridiculous now, I can never strike the right balance with these.

It’s fine haha. I don’t think it’ll ruin the movie too much.

Lots of people getting offended these days. Some by a female lesbian protagonist who's actually a bad person, others by the Bach scene, and so on.

I think it was ingenious to make Lydia a woman and a lesbian and THEN make her all the things that are usually slapped onto straight men. It's a no-brainer, but being an a-hole is not unique to being a heterosexual male.

So, being offended by Tar, as a woman or a lesbian, is as stupid as being offended by 90% of serial killer/rapist/thief/abuser/murderer/a-hole characters in film in the past 100 years as a straight male.

The thing with Alsop might be more of a Hearst type of thing, though. There are many similarities between her and Lydia, so she might be seeing this as a sort of libel. Who knows.

Anyway, the film's whole point is that Lydia is an awful person but she doesn't see herself as one. She sees herself as better than others and finds excuses for her behavior. She is still a strong woman character but she's strong in all the wrong ways. In the end, she survives but the final reveal is absolutely ridiculous.

Also, as for being on Lydia's side, the film is quite ambiguous, but there are some really strong indicators that she's guilty.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

It seems like this turns on the question of something closer to fact...whether it's actually true. The nature of the defense, mainly that only men can be abusive, is dubious at the very least. Ironically, Alsop was conductor of the Baltimore Symphony for some years, I saw her perform a bunch of times and her treatment by local media as well as the audience was quite positive.

I don't recall exactly why she left, but that's not surprising since tenures by conductors generally do end within 10 years or so. She didn't leave under a cloud as far as I know, nothing was reported in the media. Her orientation was well known and not controversial. Nothing about that story seems relevant to Alsop's experience here so I'd be curious as to what was going on with that story that was so pungent as to provoke those remarks.

Or in a similar suit, I imagine if I found out a lot of my life served as factual points for a fictional character, but then all the liberties were taken to make me look like a worse person than what I was, most notably, worse in a different kind of way, that deviation from my reality would then probably get under my skin.

She definitely is guilty as far as I understand. I meant more that I very much consciously buy into the film’s narrative that her genius somewhat transcends that. Again, to me that felt very apt and more nuanced than most contemporary offerings, as I personally have always felt that ‘the greats’ exist on a different moral plane, which is neither good nor bad, but something that I find quite true to life.

But yeah, though the final reveal could be a bit more elegant, I felt it was quite bold, especially in the contemporary climate. I actually didn’t see it as a ‘reveal’ until you used that word, but yes, it sure is.

Thank you for linking that in! Fascinating stuff.



This is just mindblowing and I did not notice it originally.

That's a great article. It is a truly brilliant film.

Yup, I did notice the . I guess it’s all about meticulously constructed identities.

I guess if that reading is applied, I don’t get a sense of where the film ‘ends’ as far as factual reality is concerned - is she simply But yes, I’m also a huge fan of such ambiguity, which is becoming increasingly rare when we want to just be able to ‘Google the answer’.

Good job I’m due to see it at Picturehouse this Friday, hopefully the big screen makes these things easier to pick up on, though I suppose at this point I’ll be looking out for them.

Maybe that's the point.

Oh, definitely, I think that’s fascinating and a much stronger ending in terms of originality/leaving room for thought.

One thing's for sure - I can't remember Blanchett ever being this good. Her command of English and German and the intensity at which she delivers her performance is absolutely jaw dropping.