Tár is not a bad movie
OrchestrasIt is – to paraphrase Otto Klemperer* – a very bad movie.
The first forty minutes are taken up with harangues and diatribes by its central character, a lesbian conductor (played by Cate Blanchett), who spouts musical clichés, historical half-truths and actual factoids about conducting, performing and generally making a career in music.
The 40 minutes pass very slowly. There was some heavy breathing going on in the half-empty cinema. Blanchett then throws a strop at a woke-speaking Juilliard student who would swiftly have been evicted from the class by any real-life teacher in that stern institution.
She goes on to lunch with a character named Kaplan, who is not only funding her equality foundation but comepting with her in the business of performing Mahler. Kaplan in the movie is made up – spectacles, hair – to resemble the late Gilbert E Kaplan, a financial publisher who made a second career conducting Mahler’s second symphony. It is a gratuitously nasty caricature of Gil, (whom I knew well) and whom many of the world’s leading conductors consulted on minutiate in the score. He was a noted expert. Some malign person among the credited musical advisers – John Mauceri? Nathalie Stutzmann? – must have borne him a lasting grudge.
The story improves once the conductor hits Berlin, where some of the domestic interiors are brilliantly designed. Her living quarters arfe enviable. Rarely, however, does Blanchett look credible in the act of conducting. She even ‘conducts’ every note of the opening trumpet solo of Mahler’s fifth symphony, a matter most maestros would leave to the trumpeter’s discretion.
The film’s signal weakness is the absence of any character, central or supporting, for whom we might feel a smidgeon of sympathy. Blanchett’s conductor is a sexual predator of very little charm or subtlety. Her victims appear to be half-willing in pursuit of a career that she ultimately denies them. No successful conductor in modern times has got far without a reservoir of personal warmth. Tar, it appears, has none.
As the credits rolled, my overwhelming feeling was one of relief at not havng to sit through more.
If there’s an Oscar going for this farrago of symphonic simulation, give it to the interior designer.
* The opening line refers to a riposte by the notably crusty Otto Klemperer. Informed that a certain English contender was ‘not a bad conductor’, Klemperer snorted: ‘Ja, he is a very bad conductor.’
Movies are movies. It’s not going to get the industry or art-form perfect, nor is that the point. The point is to tell a story. It’s fiction, not reality.
“The film’s signal weakness is the absence of any character, central or supporting, for whom we might feel a smidgeon of sympathy. Blanchett’s conductor is a sexual predator of very little charm or subtlety. Her victims appear to be half-willing in pursuit of a career that she ultimately denies them.”
Really? That sounds very familiar to me. The conducting world in particular is filled with a lot of the winner at-all-cost types. Low integrity, high desperation. I could name names, but then you’d censor my post. And while there are plenty of men, there are certainly more than a few that are women. And over and over again we talk about the poor victims, but what about those that willingly subjugated themselves, that profited from their experience in the form of work, connections, whatnot? More people should be talking about that.
You go on to say that “No successful conductor in modern times has got far without a reservoir of personal warmth. Tar, it appears, has none.”
Personal warmth? Well, I think I understand what you’re trying to say here, but I can name a list of ten conductors in the blink of an eye that have none.
It is common for movies or tv shows to lack sympathetic characters. I’m not sure what film school is pumping out the narrative that characters need not be likable but I wish they’d stop.
Agreed. Conducting is a difficult profession when approached with talent and humility yet serves as a convenient vehicle for the talentless to parade their social incompetence.
I was glad to read the review, but I need not bother to watch Hollywoke anymore.
In this case, I only refer to the picture of a lady dressed like a man.
Deuteronomy 22:5
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Its not a movie. Its a Documentary with the names jumbled up for discretion…
This guy gets it.
Not even close.
Interminable and preposterous. I didn’t quite make it to the end, although I lasted longer than my two companions, who bailed before I did.
Yep, long and clunky
I bought the CD for Cate’s towering Mahler fifth, which she conducted with “extraordinary skill,” as DG’s PR bods tell us.
So it seems this film has an anti-lesbian AND antisemitic touch!?
Not having seen it yet, I am beginning to wonder what message the film makers want to convey?
So if the principal character is straight would that be an anti-hetero touch?
Sorry to disappoint you – it has neither.
It seems the “reviewer” went to see a movie different to the one the director made. It is not a documentary and not meant to be one. suggesting that it should conform to every realistic aspect of the profession depicted is absolutely ludicrous. Do you say the same about films where a doctor or teacher is the main character?
Those who know about these things, actual movie critics, rate it very highly. As do I. It’s an exceptional piece of work with a towering central performance. Blanchett should win he third Oscar and deservedly so.
Superb Commentary by Mr. Lebrecht! I think I agree with this commentary more than any one I have read in the last couple of years. The film is totally contrived from the opening and to anyone with the slightest knowledge of music performance, even an amateur orchestral player like myself, would recognize how distorted a view of orchestral playing the film portrays. And yes the conducting of the M5 is hilarious. Can you imagine the Principal Trumpet of the BPO requiring the conductor to articulate every note of the opening ! The guy would probably do the opposite.
Tàr is NOT about conducting or Mahler or music: it’s about the abuse of power and the reluctance to relinquish POWER, via the scenario of — yes, conducting and the microcosmos of a symphony orchestra. Like a true work of art, the screenplay, the writing, and the message delivered through it is AMBIGUOUS.
Finally a review that represents how classical musicians feel about this movie… ever since the trailer came out I have just been concerned about the false and tainted impression of the classical music world that Tar will leave on the general public.
Alot of unsavory conduct attributed to those in the top tier of a challenging, disciplined field of unique rewards
If the reaction of the “general public” becomes the main concern of moviemakers and, for that matter, other artists, then no great works of cinema or other arts will ever be made.
to clarify, in my original comment I am talking about the impression of the “general public” towards classical music, while you are talking about how an audience will react to the film, totally unrelated things
Sorry, Norman, but your review is a hatchet-job of a very fine film. And your failure to give Cate Blanchett her due for a riveting performance, citing picayune details of her baton-waving, is particularly harsh.
“No successful conductor in modern times has got far without a reservoir of personal warmth.”
I mean, really? Really?
(Remember, journalists get to see one thing; musicians and support staff see quite another. But no-one at the Financial Times invites rank-and-file violinists or junior management staff to lunch interviews in top restaurants).
Freddie Fisher used to when he was editor.
It’s been downhill since then, clearly.
Cate Blanchett is no Don Ameche !
And I think we can thank the deity of choice for that, on Don’s behalf!!
Now you are also a movie critic?
What makes you one, having your platform?
The fictional characters in a movie are often times exaggeration of reality, this movie is not an exception. However, I could name few “real conductors” who have done everything possible to become famous Fast! Guided by grandiose ambition with no warmth anywhere to be seen.
You are welcome to scrutinize those, but a movie…. ? Let that for the real film critics.
The more you know about a topic — name the subject — the more irritated you get about films and for that matter news articles that purport to be about it. But you happily accept — even rely on — the films and news articles on the topics you don’t know about. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is, of all films, This is Spinal Tap, which I went to see with a friend who was something of a rock musician. We both enjoyed the film but he was enjoying stuff I was not even aware of.
Tár was pretty good. A bit in love with itself on just how “clever” it is, but with fine acting from the great Cate. 2.5 hours.
Some friends asked about her conducting. Only a few scenes, but she was coached quite well save a few downbeats gone amiss.
If you’re a Cate fan, I think you’ll like it. Nice art direction, too. If you’re a fan of, and somewhat knowledgeable about, classical music, I think you’ll enjoy the many references.
For civilians, 6/10.
Now to the professional, practicing classical musicians.
You should have a look.
Not sure about you, but I loved the close insider angles with real names galore and what reads like real life situations (they’re not). Lots of excellent anti cancel culture references and a superb scene during a Juilliard masterclass.
Sure, a conductor has a huge ego and can be cruel. News at Ten.
But worth a look. BTW, ignore the blather from the few “offended” musicians. Blanchett’s Juilliard speech takes care of them.
Of course, YMMV.
I noticed a few conductor speeches and situations were lifted right from The Art of Great Conducting, both volumes available on YouTube.
Film. Remember that word?
What were the musical cliches she spouted? Could you give examples?
No sympathetic characters – how about Sharon, the violinist who is Lydia’s wife? I found her very sympathetic.
Far too thinly drawn and directed. We have no idea what makes her tick.
The film is stylistically expressionistic so Dickensian details of ‘what makes a character tick’ are not the focus of the filmmaker. The telling is more Don DeLillo and not Dickens. The level of verisimilitude is enough to hold the portrayal of all the characters and the acting is first-rate for all the characters. The entire film is insinuation and ambiguity, the psychosis of power and ego within a largely closed environment (for the great majority of people).
Coppola said after his Godfather trillogy his worse reviews came from people within organized crime, but, he went on, my focus was the family whether they are involved in crime, philantropy, politics, or business.
Tar would have been an interesting dystopian sci-fi movie had it been made several decades ago.
A futuristic world, not unlike our own, where sociopathic behavior, especially the manipulation of eager young talent, is implicitly encouraged yet even beautiful lesbians aren’t safe if they dare challenge the misguided beliefs of students armed with powerful technology.
“She even ‘conducts’ every note of the opening trumpet solo of Mahler’s fifth symphony, a matter most maestros would leave to the trumpeter’s discretion.”
Uh, no.
They don’t direct each note. Just like good film directors don’t give line readings to the actors they trust.
Uh, yes.
You write like a know it all fathead. I’d ask whatever community college you graduated from for a full refund.
It’s not a movie, it’s an opportunity for classical musicians and fans to ignore the themes and character development in favor of letting everyone hear how in-the-know they are.
Tar was an excellent film about how power can corrupt and aptly used the role of a music director as the perfect case study. It is also a commentary on cancel culture and societal overcorrection. And Blanchett was incredible in the role, but snobs complain about her ictus. Sorry.
For the record those who claim it’s a poorly concealed biopic about Marin Alsop? Give me a break!
In general, I sense that Hollywood movies about music and musicians are written, not to what they are, but to what the non-musician public imagines they are.
They are putting on screen what they think the public will recognize.
The non-musician public imagines musical performance is mostly about vivid displays of emotion and ostentatious gesturing. The non-musician public doesn’t know much about rehearsal, ensemble, practicing, listening, etc.
These imaginings have been driven by… Hollywood movies… so it’s all quite circular and self-perpetuating.
Online bios of Tar’s writer/director assert he was a “budding” jazz musician as a teen but all that seems to have been left behind after his college years.
If you think Tar is about classical music, then you’ve missed the point. It’s about celebrity and cult of personality — Tar could have easily been a football player, actor, tech CEO, etc.
I find it particularly ironic that posters on this board, and especially Norman, hate it so much and think it’s not authentic to the world of classical music when so many posts on this site are about disfunction in the classical music world — the egos, scandals, labor issues, funding problems, etc.
Norman calls out the thinly-veiled criticism of Gilbert Kaplan. Again, posts on this site are often about problematic arts funders and the way funders are able to dictate artistic decision. Kaplan may well have been a nice and genuine person, but there’s still something troubling about the fact that people like him can buy their way onto the podium.
So he had a hobby. Big deal. He gave people work and had fun.
Thomas Beecham bought his way into the business. So what?
Thank you. Now I know for sure, not to waste my time with “Tar”. I’d rather watch asphalt dry (pun intended).
Don´t you trust your own opinion? I´d rather watch asphalt dry than trusting the opinion of others.
I find the attitude here – among people who are soooo discerning about their musical tastes – rather odd with comments like, “it’s just a movie”. How are movies and good music different? . . . Are you not aware of at least some of the truly great movies of the past?
How are movies and music NOT different? For one thing, the former are being perceived by eyes first and ears second, while the latter (should be) by ears only. Besides, the latter is often a part of the former, while it is not usually the other way around.
Thank you Alan, I agree that it is an exceptional movie with an amazing performance by Blanchett. I loved the complexities and multiple layers of this film. I enjoyed reading numerous reviews to get different perspectives. But this so-called review by Mr. Lebrecht is absurd.
Of course, it’s not uncommon for some men to be negative when a serious, thoughtful film centers on a woman.
At least it isn´t as boring as most of Klemperer´s performances.
Just saw it.Fantastic movie,well played…..
Blamchett is a terrible actress. But then the film could be a good reflection of the bunch of terrible conductors on the podium these days. T_________n, V____i, P J___i, and one of the absolute worst, most atrocious who was obviously promoted by the record companies to try bring in a younger audience and save classical music(sell records)… begins with M and ends in A.
Just women or men, too?
Ridiculous…..But your pen name says it all…LOL
Well,don´t worry.There´s always a Steven Seagall flick for connaisseurs of great acting like you….
Really dumb comment. Tar is a masterpiece. Yes, it’s not a great action adventure movie but it’s a multi-layered complex drama that makes you think and talk, By far the best movie of 2022.
I disagree. I loved it. Particularly because it seems to be a mirror for all sorts of people, specifically classical music people. The point of all that bloviating about classical music culture is to show its silliness and insanity. I find it very interesting to see which people don’t like it. It usually means that the film hits a little close to home.
The movie is a portrait of pointed ambiguity, the abuse of power, human nature which erects these structures and postions, and what are we left with when we are rejected from it all.
THANK YOU! That’s absolutely it. It’s not a movie about music. Particularly your closing sentence.
There’s one detail I can’t stand, and which put me off the film long before it opened: The title. What sort of a name is that supposed to be? with its meaningless Slavic accent on the a?
I haven’t seen Tar, because I have a simple rule: If they can’t put together an engaging 90 second trailer from 90+ minutes of film, the film is going to be a waste of time and possibly worse. And Tar has two of the most irritating, least enticing trailers I have ever seen. Hard pass.
My rule is different: do not judge movies by their trailers. Sometimes it’s the other way around, but in this case the movie is much better than its trailers.
Messrs. Lebrecht and Raimi, as well as the contributor Alank, have said it all for me.
I’ve seen only a snippet of the scene where the Blanchett character harangues a student (a black guy) for being a Woke a–hole. But since Blanchett (and I’m guessing most of the movie’s crew too) are in real life quite Woke themselves, I don’t know how that scene is supposed to be interpreted. But maybe it’s just melodrama for the sake of melodrama?
Regardless, if Tar is affected overall by the same characteristics that influenced 2014’s Whiplash (a film based on a music teacher at Julliard and his students of jazz), then it’s a given that the scenes and screenplay are full of melodrama for melodrama’s sake. That format is very popular with movie makers.
If you want to see and hear the real Berlin Phil play Mahler with a fine conductor, visit Berlin or their Digital Concert Hall. This is a work of fiction and should be judged by the standards of fiction. In my opinion, this movie, imperfect as it is, has a lot to say about many serious issues of our contemporary society and Cate Blanchett’s acting in it is exceptionally good.
I don’t need to ‘like’ characters in a film. There was no one to like in Citizen Kane. Moreover I was willing to go along with the premise, as long as ms. Blanchett was carrying the load. It IS a movie after all, not a documentary. No antisemitic or anti-lesbian aspect was evident to me. It was essentially about the exercise of power and ambition; the sordid exchange between the two. It’s what we’re seeing right now in the GOP House. The biggest flaw, and it was a doozy, was when Tar physically attacked her replacement on the stage of the Berlin Philharmonie in front of an audience. That melodramatic touch was plainly absurd. And totally unnecessary. It should have been left on the cutting room floor.
No – did you miss his physical resemblance to Mahler? It was her idol destroying her, and she reacted with agony and madness.
I just can’t watch any more American films where people shout at each other and behave super aggressively. The flip side is people sweeping like one of those religious statues – or the stigmata. All the wounds exposed and grinding us all into bored rigidity.
The US was once able to make wonderful films; thank goodness we have those restored now, safe in perpetuity.
Yes, American movies are all like soap operas now. Everyone’s always at each other’s throats.
It´s fiction,not a documentary……The film is visually brilliant,ambitous,unconventional and exciting…The acting is superb,the storytelling compex and gripping…..That´s far more than the slick,sappy and pathetic Song of Names ….
I found Tár tedious and unengaging. As others have noted, there were very few attractive characters. I also found the faded, almost monochrome look of the movie enervating. Where were light and colour in this drab world?
By the way, I hope the management of the Philharmonia Orchestra has complained to the movie makers that it was the NPO, not the LPO as claimed by a character in Tár, which performed on the video of the Elgar Concerto made by Du Pré and Barenboim.
LPO. https://youtu.be/UUgdbqt2ON0
Hi Gary, check the closing credits of the video. The orchestra is the New Philharmonia.
It’s as unwise to believe everything you read in the description field of a YouTube video as it is to believe everything you read in Wikipedia.
Thanks Norman, I’m going to see Ava-Tár instead!
Surely the point of this movie is that it unpicks the behaviour of MALE conductors of a previous generation. Those of us who work in this business know full well who they were, and what they did…..
A waste of Cate’s talent, a story that has no depth, a portrayal of the music world that is certainly very misguided, and lost time I can never recover. On the only positive side, all the background musicians were actually professionals, and the Elgar scenes played by a good cellist, wonderful to see instruments played on camera by people who live for them.
We’re you approached for the interviewer role played by Adam Gopnik ?
Were
I sat through this movie like a Japanese endurance exercise. Most of all, I wondered – and asked my musician wife, but she had fallen for its soporific curse early on and was soundly snoozing – who on earth the target audience was. If the expert in the room was lulled into a coma before the end of the opening scene, what hope for the uninitiated?
And what an opening scene! After five long minutes of credits accompanied by a dreary and irrelevant – save for a fleeting reference to Tár’s academic interests – nod to ethnomusicology, we were treated to the “interview” device, in which the film maker explains conducting to the masses and Blanchett tries to act like she’s not acting. Dull, dull, dull. Cliché, cliché, cliché.
Then, challenge No.2; the Juilliard scene and the actor who overdid the shaking leg, before torturing us with the white, European patriarchy bullshit. “I’m not into Bach” [eye roll]. Oh god, here we go. “Cis-gender blah, blah, blah…” Just shoot me.
No.3. The lunch scene. Gone is all the didacticism, and in its place a tone poem of insider references that the man on the Clapham omnibus could not possibly appreciate, or care about. Anyone left in the theatre by now is either homeless or really wants a rest from the kids! Great research, sure. But to what end? Boring, boring, boring.
Agree. Gorgeous brushed concrete, Berlin interiors.
Then the sexual predator motif. And she a woman, and a lesbian. What was I watching? A veritable lobotomy of box-ticking, post-Floyd, post-me too, lefty drivel heralding the death of music as we once knew it. For who, pray tell, will flock to the concert hall after this public act of open heart surgery? An industry of power-abusers and the perpetually offended, hardly attractive. Maybe it wasn’t the writer’s intention to promote music, but to pile on the mockery of us classical types. I’m still trying to figure out who this movie is for.
Put it this way, who among you would watch it twice? I’d rather eat a jar of pickled Carolina Reapers than watch Kate Blanchett do THAT move again – the one where she imitates a sprinter leaping out of the blocks at the Olympic 100 meter final…
I’ll bet it’s one of those movies where the actor is conducting along with the music rather than ahead of it. I love seeing that.
Tar is a very good film about compley personalities driven by their compulsion, ambitions,and inner demons….Same as the rather forgotten masterwork “Dyrygent” by Andrzei Wajda,starring Sir John Gielgud as a famous conductor….Both Gielgud and Blanchett are terrific actors,not great conductors….
Cate Blanchett is making a great role in a flawed, but definitely thought-provoking movie. I guess not conductors’despotism is in the main focus, but music’s power to shape the world. And the human psyche.Those who want realism cannot get the surreal dimension of a film that is slowly turning into a personal/collective delirium,driven by the power of music.
This movie is so terrible. Every scene feels interesting but you have no clue what the fuck is really going on. Annoying and boring
When Lebrecht gets it wrong, he gets it SO wrong. Hey, Norman, how about looking at a few of the positives? For one, a film that actually foregrounds serious classical music-making. And so lovely to hear Mahler on a big screen at full blast. As someone else here says, this film is about power and how it is abused. But no. This review is all: “Oh my goodness, did you see her phoney conducting?”
I love this review. The glory showered on this film has mystified me. I have worked in the classical culture scene all my life and saw at once that the conducting scenes were faked. She has no real center in the music. My only complaint (with the review) is that the scene decorator is equally off. No “great” conductor would live in such an awkwardly sterile home. Actual high modern beauty would have gone a long way to giving her some “warmth”.
Music / art involved in some social story today? OK for me, better than use some other things..to explain ambitions or dictatorship everywhere in life today.
Probably it is not the film about conductor, music is just used to describe drastically, maybe it is film about world today.
Has a few very bad scenes include ending, but has a good things about power, dirty games behind all, and that is the world where we are living just now.
Let’s go back in a deep fields of musical art, there is soooo much more beautiful and SAFE!
Sorry to say that but your critic is a bit ridiculous. The purpose of a movie is not to be 100% right. Who cared apart you? And when you say: “ She even ‘conducts’ every note of the opening trumpet solo of Mahler’s fifth symphony, a matter most maestros would leave to the trumpeter’s discretion” again, who cares ? By the way “bad” conductor like Claudio Abbado do it in Mahler 5th. See Lucerne video.