Cate Blanchett is brilliant in Tár, but too much ambiguity, occasionally odd execution, and a lack of thematic commitment prevent this classical music-inspired drama from truly crescendoing.
Overall Score: 8/10
Image: Focus Features / Universal Pictures
Typically, psychological dramas will either work for me or they won’t. There’s never really an in-between. Therefore, going into Tár, I was sure that only one of these truths would apply. Yet, surprisingly, I honestly have to say that I’m kind of in the middle when it comes to this film. In other words, while I do like and admire it a lot, I also find it very frustrating.
Many different things about Tár are just brilliant. This is especially true when you look at it on a technical level. The sound design, for example, is superb, and it pairs nicely with the movie’s outstanding cinematography (both of which are on full display during the beautifully shot scenes involving Lydia Tár and her orchestra). Todd Field’s direction is also impressive, and I like that he’s very meticulous in his approach. And lastly, who can forget about Cate Blanchett? The two-time Oscar-winning actress (who’s probably on her way to winning her third) truly shines in this film, delivering a powerful and incredibly nuanced performance that so perfectly captures the arrogance, complexity, and corrupt nature of Tár as a character and shows just how much of a force she is to be reckoned with. Blanchett really gives it her all, and frankly, it’s hard to imagine anyone else taking on the role, let alone someone who would do just as good of a job.
From there, let’s move on to the writing — which is pretty much where a lot of my fascination with Tár ends and my frustration with it begins. “Less is more,” people like to say. Well, here, I’d argue that Field could’ve done so much more. For instance, clearly, there are several major thought-provoking themes that he could’ve explored thoroughly. Yet, instead, he purposefully refrains from actively making any form of social commentary. And so, consequently, Tár can feel a little hollow in some ways. Also, Field tends to keep things ambiguous, which, as a result, means that his intentions are often unclear. I’m not saying that I want to be spoon-fed by Field, just that, in this case, I think he would’ve been better off not choosing to leave so many things open-ended. Of course, art is inherently subjective, but allowing it to be so to the point where the artist’s intent becomes unidentifiable isn’t necessarily a good thing. It’s like staring at a blank white canvas with a black dot or circle in its center. Sure, its meaning and purpose can be interpreted in many different ways, but at the end of the day, what is it actually trying to say?
Then we come to what might be the most confounding aspect of this film yet: its ending. To avoid spoiling anything, let’s just say that on the one hand, Tár’s final moments are brilliant and do a great job of showing just how far our main character has fallen, but on the other, it’s just as utterly absurd. What I mean by this is that these last few minutes are so out of place that they’re almost enough to take you entirely out of the movie. And while I get that this was likely a deliberate decision made by Field, I’m still baffled by how something can simultaneously be so ingenious and equally just as dumb.
But at the end of the day, I like Tár. I really do. It’s interesting, well-crafted, and features an undeniably phenomenal performance from Cate Blanchett. Yet, sadly, it’s also not quite there in terms of writing. Maybe I’ll feel differently about it when I revisit it in the future, but for now, that’s all I have to say about this film.
Comments