Categories
Movie Reviews

Tár Lacks Punch or Purpose

I’m squinting to see what’s so great about the critically acclaimed Tár, and…I’m still not seeing it.

Chained to mediocrity by a pondering, lecture-y screenplay that nevertheless avoids any real stances on the issues it strains to raise, Tár, directed by Todd Field, fails to animate the character drama at the heart of its story. It wants to be a modern-day King Lear: a self-inflicted fall from grace of an egotistical but sympathetic protagonist. But even more, it wants to splash around in political controversy. The result is little more than a stale summation of the MeToo era, a boring both-sides tale of contemporary gender politics.

Lydia Tár (Cate Blanchett), conductor of the Berlin orchestra, is a predatory abuser of young women. She’s arrogant and frigid, and she appears to have caused the suicide of a young woman with her diabolical behavior. On the other hand, she loves classical music and believes in the power of art.

You see the difficulty of rooting for this character. Enjoying old composers doesn’t automatically make you likable. (To acquire the notion that it does, I suspect that Field has misunderstood A Clockwork Orange (1973)). Nor does facing off against equally irredeemable foes, like the whiny social justice warriors that Field pits against Tar.

These brats are, indeed, horrible. But a sympathetic character still must have relatable traits, and Lydia Tár has none. It would be as if Lear, instead of withholding Cordelia’s share of the kingdom for her lack of sycophancy, had instead raped her for no reason at all. He would be awfully difficult to identify with after such an act.

As I indicated before, these basic failures of dramatic characterization are traceable to the film’s preference to spend its time hemming and hawing about MeToo and cancel culture. On one hand, Field portrays the movement’s proponents as a conceited, ignorant mob; on the other, he goes to great pains to portray Tár as the very type of individual that necessitates their crusade. This provides balance—but not nuance. A more skillful storyteller would have shown us the complex reality behind the media narratives. Field has only presented both extremes and declined to choose between the two. Some may see this as “objectivity;” I see it as aimlessness.

I admit that I’m biased toward any film—or any media at all—that proclaims the aesthetic value of art. After all, art needs its champions at a time when all manner of misers, idlers, and ideologues vocally question its legitimacy. But I know enough not to parade a film like Tár as the vehicle for my beloved cause. It’s too dramatically unrewarding to succeed as either a tribute to or criticism of classic aesthetic principles.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more movies reviews, see my review of Avatar: The Way of Water.