|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 27, 2022 14:34:37 GMT
I already talked about how Blanchett's performance is one of the greatest in English language film - male or female - ever. That's in the "Last Great Performance" thread. But now I've seen the movie twice - and think it deserves this thread - because the movie has a complexity and distancing factor all its own. So let's give it a place for a deep dive review / discussion: I've actually seen all 4 of my favorite movies of 2022 twice now (um) - Miracol (2021 / 2022), Decision To Leave, Tár, Pearl - all get better too btw - and the 2nd viewing of Tár teaches you to accept the things the film witholds from you and confirms the things you are sure of. Starting with a awesome sly visual cue - the exhaustive, endless end credits played at the beginning it's HER end, because she is ........over, naturally and then with 2 successive scenes which play crucilally into Lydia Tár's story arc .......when you replay her arc in your head......that's quite a daring move to trust an audience to retain that much without manipulating .......... but rather just presenting her.........and trust you te recall and contextualize The direction of this movie by Todd Field is really special - and I think in some ways gets lost in the bravura performance by his lead........Field is in Bergman mode here - in some ways in his late 60s peak work Shame / Hour of the Wolf of presenting things that may or may not be happening "exactly" in the was the film presents Lydia's POV........like Bergman - that DOESN'T mean they didn't happen at all ....... Many things LITERALLY happen to Lydia but they also symbolically happen too - what's that sound "mean"? Was there a sound at all? Was "the animal" real? We know what it represents - certainly it's the wolf at door - but what about the actuality of things? Why don't we see more Lydia's brother - because (I think) to Field THAT is a separate movie - but that scene is a crucial one I think between who she "was" and who she "is". So to is her "massage" scene with a creepy, lurid undertext that in any other movie would be spelled out and in this one trusts you to entirely depend on Blanchett's face to convey an idea in the script but not words to match that idea. "What about the actuality of things" is what Tár is about and it's a magnificent juggling act Field orchestrates and Blanchett delivers on. I should mention how uniformly excellent the movie is as a whole the supporting cast (especially Hoss - are Blanchett & Hoss the world's TWO best actress? Maybe......), the dense, complex sound design, the scope of the location..........superb film. This year has turned out to be great after sucking for many, many months - Miracol, Decision To Leave, Tár are better than anything I saw last year actually........ Partners in crime:
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Oct 28, 2022 22:13:52 GMT
Mostly dull and uninvolving. The first hour is fucking excruciatingly boring. It gradually starts to get a little better after that, but there are only a few brief sequences that rose above the doldrums and had me invested before I went back to shrugging. The main problem is Lydia... who's such an unbelievably half-baked character. You have no reason to empathize with her. She doesn't even seem awful enough to relish in watching her downfall. She's just kind of there. A hollow protagonist for a hollow film.
Cate has some great moments... but I don't think I'd even put this in her top 10 performances tbh.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 29, 2022 3:03:43 GMT
Half brilliant, half exhausting, and it really wheezes to a halt in the last half-hour. Blanchett's great but I kinda think Viced is right: the character isn't as rich as she needs to be. A distaff Daniel Plainview, she is not.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 29, 2022 3:43:02 GMT
Blanchett's great but I kinda think Viced is right: the character isn't as rich as she needs to be. A distaff Daniel Plainview, she is not. I haven't seen Tár yet, but tbh I'm not sure if I'd describe Daniel Plainview as a particularly "rich" character either. Don't get me wrong, I adore DDL's performance, and TWBB is one of my favorite films, but I don't actually think there's all THAT much depth to the character. To me, he's playing an archetype with pretty straightforward motivations and psychology.... what makes it great though is how vividly it's realized.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Oct 29, 2022 6:33:58 GMT
There's probably more brilliant pieces in this than anything else I've seen in 2022 - which makes it all the more frustrating I didn't completely fall in love with it (at least on first viewing).
Blanchett's performance is a sure tour de force. It most obviously struck me during that great early Juilliard scene, which is shot all in one take and over the course of 10+ consecutive minutes Blanchett has to lecture practically non-stop and shift emotions at least 50 times (sometimes subtly, sometimes less so) and it's a virtuoso scene of the sort that I wish the movie had more of. The movie is obviously designed as a performance showcase for her and that's maybe part of its shortcoming for me too - I basically never like movies where that's the case. And while Blanchett is almost always exciting to watch the movie itself often isn't (which maybe doesn't make sense given she's in nearly every frame of it - perhaps asking too much of her).
But what a performance to build your movie around; as others have noted this is the exact kind of unlikable, sinister, funny, go-for-broke descent into madness that typically only male actors ever get the chance to do. It also has the quality of a lot of my favorite performances where the way we read the performance changes throughout without it feeling like the actor is suddenly changing how they're playing the character (though almost certainly doing so subtly). Tár at first who comes across as a confident, pompous know-it-all but a fairly "normal" academic-minded person, then gradually reveals shades of cruelty, and then delves into something outright sinister - to the point where when she has to appear "normal" again in public the facade is now obvious to us, and it's compelling and even funny to watch her try to uphold something that's so clearly falling apart.
The design of the pacing is so interesting ... and also so much of what I struggled with. The first two hours are so incredibly slow, and then the final half-hour is a breakneck rush to its abrupt (and brilliant! and funny!) ending. The way I tried to justify it to myself while watching it unfold was that it feels like a symphony - and maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass, as someone who really doesn't know a whole lot about classical music. But there is a musical quality to the way it takes the time to, say, introduce all of its instruments - and let the whole thing play out as a slow, creeping crescendo to a final movement where all hell breaks loose - and before there's even been proper time to let the dramatic tempo change sink in, it's already over. I can't say it worked for me in watching it and maybe I'm grasping at straws just to try to justify it; but it interests me.
And for a movie set in the classical music world, it's surprising, and sorta disappointing, just how little music is actually in this. I figured going in that even if dramatic beats weren't working for me, there'd still be great set-pieces of conducting and performing, or a great soundtrack in general - but not really? Didn't Hildur Guonadottir write a score for this? I don't recall hearing any of it. I'm sure Field has reasons for this - and the reason very likely could be there were plenty of cuts with more pervasive musical cues that didn't work as well. I'd buy it. Or the film is just meant to have enough musicality on its own; it sort of does. The sound design however is sublimely detailed - truly - there is a moment where the sharp intrusion of a simple door-knock somehow hit deep in my gut. It puts you on-edge in the way Tár becomes so increasingly obsessed with and sensitive to sound - and almost always in the scenes where she's not talking - as if she's haunted by the silence of not hearing her own "brilliance" for five freaking minutes.
Mostly I think I liked it best when the dark, mysterious parts of Field's direction and storytelling really shone through, when the design of the structure started to click in place, etc. But I'm left wondering if I'm just trying to find meaning and intent where there is none or if this may actually reveal itself to me more as I think about it and maybe watch it again (which both feels essential, and also like a chore I'm reluctant to do).
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 29, 2022 8:41:37 GMT
The design of the pacing is so interesting ... and also so much of what I struggled with. The first two hours are so incredibly slow, and then the final half-hour is a breakneck rush to its abrupt (and brilliant! and funny!) ending. The way I tried to justify it to myself while watching it unfold was that it feels like a symphony - and maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass, as someone who really doesn't know a whole lot about classical music. But there is a musical quality to the way it takes the time to, say, introduce all of its instruments - and let the whole thing play out as a slow, creeping crescendo to a final movement where all hell breaks loose - and before there's even been proper time to let the dramatic tempo change sink in, it's already over. I can't say it worked for me in watching it and maybe I'm grasping at straws just to try to justify it; but it interests me. As I said above, I haven’t seen the film yet (will probably catch it sometime next week), but I think your analogy to a kind of symphonic form makes a lot of sense, especially since the music of Mahler figures into the film’s plot. What you describe actually perfectly characterizes how Mahler’s First Symphony begins and ends – it opens with an extremely slow and minimalist intro that lasts quite a while and builds gradually throughout the first movement... and in the final few minutes of the last movement, the music abruptly explodes with energy and it suddenly becomes very bombastic (the expressive text in the score actually reads “Stormily agitated – Energetic”). Of course, a slow intro and bombastic finale are not unique to that particular symphony or composer, and are very common in symphonies in general... but given how that specific Mahler symphony is rather famous for its long, substantially drawn-out intro, and the fact that the shift in energy during the finale is quite striking in its abruptness, I think Mahler’s intensified, extreme approach to both formal conventions and creating contrast in his music in general feels like an apt parallel to the way the film seems to be "composed."
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 29, 2022 8:47:36 GMT
Blanchett's great but I kinda think Viced is right: the character isn't as rich as she needs to be. A distaff Daniel Plainview, she is not. I haven't seen Tár yet, but tbh I'm not sure if I'd describe Daniel Plainview as a particularly "rich" character either. Don't get me wrong, I adore DDL's performance, and TWBB is one of my favorite films, but I don't actually think there's all THAT much depth to the character. To me, he's playing an archetype with pretty straightforward motivations and psychology.... what makes it great though is how vividly it's realized. Exactly this^ She's a far richer character imo - like waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay richer - with Lydia Tár her sexuality is a big deal - like a really, really big deal and we see repeatedly how she lives her life daily - her home ife - and balances career, parenting, partner, her domestic life, work, business aspects apart from her artistry, with a kind of latent pathology - but only get fragments of how her sex life fits into her overall life - its a cinematic, purposeful sleight of hand by Field imo. One of her big scenes is the massage scene which is silent - or wordless- just Lydia's reactions - to describe what's happening basically - there is no exposition explaining it - you actually have to work and draw connections and connect it to things she's done (or feels she's done anyway) that you don't see. It is not that it's "not rich" it's that it's not shown to you to keep the character is opaque for the sake of a narrative POV - a full character - just not transparent or easy to read........purposely so.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 30, 2022 1:22:24 GMT
Even though I left the theater feeling underwhelmed, I do have to say that it hasn't left my mind since watching it. I think there's definitely a fair amount to diagnose about what Field is doing here, and the avenues he takes in exploring his protagonist's downfall. I think one of my main complaints is how certain characters are set up as catalysts for Lydia Tár's ruin (Francesca, Olga, Knut to a certain extent), but before things really start ramping up with them, they're just kind of dropped. Also, I really never felt like Nina Hoss's character carried the weight she should have. Their final confrontation just packed such little punch for me. I almost wish that she wasn't even a character in the first place.
I also think it's fascinating that for a woman who is so thoroughly researched to have her own substantial Wikipedia entry, there's not a whole lot of people talking about how it's pretty damn unlikely (impossible?) for Lydia to have ever known Leonard Bernstein personally, yet she talks about him so reverently in that interview with Adam Gopnik. The revelation at the end that she had recorded all of his young orchestra broadcasts and that was her connection -- I just thought it was fascinating that no one tried for a "gotcha!" moment in that respect. (It's not so much a critique on the movie itself for failing to capitalize on it, but it was an intriguing strand that I thought would come up at some point as another dent in her crumbling armor.)
With that said, "Apartment for Sale" should be a co-frontrunner for Original Song.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 30, 2022 1:37:04 GMT
I also think it's fascinating that for a woman who is so thoroughly researched to have her own substantial Wikipedia entry, there's not a whole lot of people talking about how it's pretty damn unlikely (impossible?) for Lydia to have ever known Leonard Bernstein personally, yet she talks about him so reverently in that interview with Adam Gopnik. The revelation at the end that she had recorded all of his young orchestra broadcasts and that was her connection -- I just thought it was fascinating that no one tried for a "gotcha!" moment in that respect. (It's not so much a critique on the movie itself for failing to capitalize on it, but it was an intriguing strand that I thought would come up at some point as another dent in her crumbling armor.) Maybe I misheard, but I thought it said he was her mentor. That is quite possible as Bernstein worked until he died basically, and Blanchett/Lydia would've been college student age at that time. Side Note: If Blanchett wins this year, I think due to Oscar logic it might screw over Bradley Cooper's chances for winning for Maestro next year (regardless of its quality).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 30, 2022 1:40:28 GMT
I also think it's fascinating that for a woman who is so thoroughly researched to have her own substantial Wikipedia entry, there's not a whole lot of people talking about how it's pretty damn unlikely (impossible?) for Lydia to have ever known Leonard Bernstein personally, yet she talks about him so reverently in that interview with Adam Gopnik. The revelation at the end that she had recorded all of his young orchestra broadcasts and that was her connection -- I just thought it was fascinating that no one tried for a "gotcha!" moment in that respect. (It's not so much a critique on the movie itself for failing to capitalize on it, but it was an intriguing strand that I thought would come up at some point as another dent in her crumbling armor.) Maybe I misheard, but I thought it said he was her mentor. That is quite possible as Bernstein worked until he died basically, and Blanchett/Lydia would've been college student age at that time. It's possible, but I feel like the implication of that scene where she returns home (when we see that her name is actually Linda Tarr) is that the idea of Lydia Tár was a carefully cultivated persona, and that she was indeed mentored by Bernstein -- but not personally. She just absorbed everything he taught through his programs. "A certain point of view," as Obi-Wan would say. Plus it'll be a fun little Nightmare Alley reunion to boot.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 30, 2022 1:46:03 GMT
Maybe I misheard, but I thought it said he was her mentor. That is quite possible as Bernstein worked until he died basically, and Blanchett/Lydia would've been college student age at that time. It's possible, but I feel like the implication of that scene where she returns home (when we see that her name is actually Linda Tarr) is that the idea of Lydia Tár was a carefully cultivated persona, and that she was indeed mentored by Bernstein -- but not personally. She just absorbed everything he taught through his programs. "A certain point of view," as Obi-Wan would say. I can see that or even that maybe she like met him once or twice, and it was far from what she claims. Although speaking of her home life did anyone else want more of her brother who basically was Paulie from Rocky?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 30, 2022 1:47:31 GMT
It's possible, but I feel like the implication of that scene where she returns home (when we see that her name is actually Linda Tarr) is that the idea of Lydia Tár was a carefully cultivated persona, and that she was indeed mentored by Bernstein -- but not personally. She just absorbed everything he taught through his programs. "A certain point of view," as Obi-Wan would say. I can see that or even that maybe she like met him once or twice, and it was far from what she claims. Although speaking of her home life did anyone else want more of her brother who basically was Paulie from Rocky? Lydia totally sends Tony a Monster Hunter robot to fuck, doesn't she?
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 30, 2022 4:22:09 GMT
great stuff, ending sequence is a doozy
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 4, 2022 2:23:42 GMT
Got to see this because it finally showed at the usual theater near where I work. Love Blanchett but I wasn't going to ride 45 minutes on the subway for her (now if it was Saoirse Ronan on the other hand.......)
Anyway, wasn't sure what I was going to think of this, the trailer is pretty meh, but I thought it was very good. Not sure what's so divisive about this here outside of the weird last act in SE Asia and the ending. I've criticized movies for "stopping" many times but it just works here. I think it works because it's so cyclical, as pacinoyes noted it begins at the end and the whole thing is the denouncement. Then the rest of it is so good I don't see why it matters if you don't like the ending, it could have ended with her leaving New York and you'd still have a really good movie.
Blanchett is doing close to career best work here and if the Academy wanted to drop the three bomb I think this is absolutely worthy of it. She obviously dominates the movie and naturally overshadows almost everyone but Merlant is very good too and I would have watched a whole movie about that character in the background. The direction is also completely on point, cinematography and color palette could not be better. Terrific cinematic lighting too which is a treat since I'm always complaining about things being overlit for people watching on tablets these days.
This is such an interesting film because unlike 99.9% of things these days there's no exposition and it leaves so much to the imagination. Your whole perception of the film and character revolves around what you interpret her as doing or not doing. The massage scene is very much indicative of that. Is she puking because she did it and is disgusted with herself, because she didn't do it but feels guilty about her own actions earlier, or because she would never do anything like that in which case she's innocent?
And I'll just say it, doing this with a lesbian really freed them up to "go there" a lot more in a way that a significant chunk of the audience would not have accepted had it been a "straight white male". The scene of her browbeating the woke guy at the beginning will be a scene of the year contender (gotta love that he's doing the self conscious male feminist/queer ally routine and then immediately resorts to calling her a bitch) and is so important for the film. It's both literally and figuratively her downfall in the narrative sense that the video leaks and then with her comment that artists don't really have identities because they destroy themselves, which is exactly what happens. Then there's all the little details like him jerking his knee around when he's nervous, and how the relationship gradually shifts from her wanting to give him real advice and his wanting to impress her.
I'll go with a 9/10. We have our second great film of the decade after Licorice Pizza and hopefully a couple more to come this year with Fablemans and Babylon. Always relieved whenever something this good drops these days because it seems like it's a giant sea of meh out there sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 4, 2022 5:37:10 GMT
And I'll just say it, doing this with a lesbian really freed them up to "go there" a lot more in a way that a significant chunk of the audience would not have accepted had it been a "straight white male". The scene of her browbeating the woke guy at the beginning will be a scene of the year contender (gotta love that he's doing the self conscious male feminist/queer ally routine and then immediately resorts to calling her a bitch) and is so important for the film. I It's the "peak" scene at the start of the (brilliant) movie - she is unbelievable in that scene because you see everything she will do subsequently and how she does it - you see her as a de facto "parent" to her students, a control freak, her hubris, her position and how she uses it, and her (quite right) rationality - - the first 3 scenes - and I'm including the credits as the 1st scene because they are a cruel joke - it is the end for Lydia right at the start ....the way Blanchett controls the space in that scene is alone the best piece of acting you can imagine - look at where that scene starts - and where it ends and how much space she has covered......intellectual, physical, theoretical and practical. I can't think of a movie that sucker punches you with its "pacing" - or if you dislike it - it's pacing problems (whatever) like Tár does - it doesn't "peak" later with it's big scene - its big scene(s) are at the start...........it really fucks with the audience in a lot of sly ways - how you feel about Lydia? How you feel about Art? Artists? How you feel about films? How you feel about people in general too...............and what you expect from all of those things........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 13:07:05 GMT
Curious if you all think the film would have been improved had it ended with the scene of Lydia (Linda) marveling at the VHS recording of Leonard Bernstein at her family's humble Staten Island home ?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 4, 2022 13:18:49 GMT
Curious if you all think the film would have been improved had it ended with the scene of Lydia (Linda) marveling at the VHS recording of Leonard Bernstein at her family's humble Staten Island home ? I don't think it would've improved the film at all ending it there. The Bernstein young orchestra tapes, which would've been seen by his lofty contemporaries as him "slumming it," were in fact the inciting spark that motivated a great like Lydia/Linda, and immediately seeing her taking the job for the Monster Hunter show is her way of basically doing the same thing that Lenny did. It's not high art, it's not the Berlin Philharmonic, but in that audience there might be a young mind inspired by what she's doing.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 4, 2022 13:33:29 GMT
Curious if you all think the film would have been improved had it ended with the scene of Lydia (Linda) marveling at the VHS recording of Leonard Bernstein at her family's humble Staten Island home ? I don't think the movie could be improved anyway because it's awesome to me - but that ^ would have sabotaged the "destroy her" aspect of the character and the movie is set up to absolutely destroy Lydia - it's on The Conversation level in that way......setting up your lead to tear your lead apart. Also, I believe the scene with Hoss "lecturing" her comes after that ( maybe nott?) - and that's a crucial scene because Lydia is spoken to like a child in that scene - the way she would speak to others - it "feels" like a letdown in a dramatic way but it's quite sad if you think back on it (or the 2nd time you see it in my case).............ALSO: The massage scene is definitely after that - I've already said the massage scene is one of the years best scenes - and with no exposition - you're expected to get why she reacts how she reacts just by reading Blanchett's face........that's a tremendous piece of acting, directing and a minor arc within the broader exposition..........so if you stopped it at the VHS tapes: The character arc is lessened, the audience is let off the hook (the last line implicates the audience a la TWBB - but NOT like TWBB which is focused on Plainview only), and it guts at least 1 of Blanchett's very best scenes..........
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 4, 2022 22:33:24 GMT
Curious if you all think the film would have been improved had it ended with the scene of Lydia (Linda) marveling at the VHS recording of Leonard Bernstein at her family's humble Staten Island home ? Well like I said I think it's still a good movie even if you omit the last act, but I personally liked all the SE Asia stuff so I would have to say no. I think it might be a little less divisive with mainstream audiences if it stopped there since that feels like more of an "ending" and the SE act is when it starts to "lose" the normies I think.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 4, 2022 22:39:53 GMT
And I'll just say it, doing this with a lesbian really freed them up to "go there" a lot more in a way that a significant chunk of the audience would not have accepted had it been a "straight white male". The scene of her browbeating the woke guy at the beginning will be a scene of the year contender (gotta love that he's doing the self conscious male feminist/queer ally routine and then immediately resorts to calling her a bitch) and is so important for the film. I It's the "peak" scene at the start of the (brilliant) movie - she is unbelievable in that scene because you see everything she will do subsequently and how she does it - you see her as a de facto "parent" to her students, a control freak, her hubris, her position and how she uses it, and her (quite right) rationality - - the first 3 scenes - and I'm including the credits as the 1st scene because they are a cruel joke - it is the end for Lydia right at the start ....the way Blanchett controls the space in that scene is alone the best piece of acting you can imagine - look at where that scene starts - and where it ends and how much space she has covered......intellectual, physical, theoretical and practical. Another great thing about the direction is the compositions, the use of space through the whole thing and just that scene is almost as good as it gets. I also think the kid in that scene does a really good job. I know you've talked about "recessive" acting before that's purely about supporting another performance and I think that's a really successful example of that. You almost always see it with women, and especially not an actor opposite an actress so it was a unique thing to see and I think he and Blanchett were good on screen together, especially in how things like their movements and body language interacted with each other. Merlant is like that with Blanchett too in this although she obviously has more to do on her own too.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 9, 2022 23:17:45 GMT
Condolences to those who were bored by this because I was hooked from start to finish. Blanchett is mesmerizingly great, and instantly so from the very first scenes. During the Gopnik interview, you really do feel like you're watching a real interview with an actual figure in the classical music world - she totally nails the persona of a self-important academic type who loves to hear herself talk, enamored by her own ability to finesse her intellectual sermons with platitudes about music that pander to her audiences and what she thinks they want to hear. Lydia is calculating and precise, controlling, shaping, and “conducting” every aspect of her life and public image just as she shapes and controls the performance of the orchestra. Her demeanor in that early interview scene feels like a performance, but as you continue watching past that scene, you realize that Lydia is always “performing.” I love the way the film uses her performativity to find little ways of exposing her hypocrisy – like when the Julian Glover character talks about Schopenhauer, and Lydia brings up his personal life to discredit him, essentially assuming the position of the anti-Bach student during the Juilliard lecture scene (a marvelously gray scene in how it’s written). She holds certain positions when it’s convenient to do so, all in order to maintain power and control over her environment. The film itself offers a remarkably nuanced perspective on cancel culture. I’ve seen some people describe the film as an indictment of it, but I think it’s smartly more messy than that. While the film is definitely critical of the ways in which cancel culture operates, I don’t think it ever argues that Lydia isn’t deserving of her fate. But even if the film views Lydia’s downfall as necessary, I think it still sees her artistry as an unfortunate loss to the music world that is worth mourning. In that sense, I think the film is partly questioning how we grapple with the work and fraught legacy of great artists in the midst of a changing culture. During the Gopnik interview, Lydia talks about how her hand controls time. She can stop and start musical time, but she can’t control actual time in real life – it’s an unstoppable force. She fears that her art may become less important as time passes, and she fears erasure and irrelevancy. The old neighbor that Lydia helps is a living representation of how time obliterates us all. Lydia’s time is coming to an end now that the culture is changing, and what was once “normal” is no longer accepted. She’s become replaceable with a new generation of artists available to take her place, and she’s become the embodiment of the old guard in a way. Lydia has, after all, modeled herself after Leonard Bernstein and the ideal male artistic Genius that comprises and upholds the canon (she might as well be a man herself). The film really has its finger on the pulse of the current classical music world, and the push to demythologize the canon and look beyond it. But, as Lydia herself says, we still have to confront the canon rather than completely throw it away. As far as how the film presents the music of Mahler, I was intrigued by how Lydia’s choice to interpret the Fifth Symphony plays into her character. She interprets the music from a more optimistic standpoint within Mahler’s biography (his love for Alma) rather than lean into a more tragic reading (the demise of the relationship). The way the Fifth Symphony affords either an emotionally mixed reception or even opposite readings regarding the complicated Gustav/Alma Mahler relationship mirrors what becomes Lydia’s own complicated relationship with the classical music world. It’s a world that she loves, but it is also a world that ultimately, tragically rejects her. On top of being a terrific film in general, it’s also a field day for classical music nerds. I love how inside baseball a lot of the dialogue is, and how Field doesn’t seem to give a shit about possibly alienating casuals with extended conversations and references about niche musical topics and the classical music scene more broadly. Some really funny music jokes too, like Blanchett mimicking Glenn Gould, both his posture and his style of playing Bach with very little pedal. And lmao at Julian Glover’s character telling Lydia that in one piece Beethoven uses the same sequence of interval content as Mozart in another piece – that feels like such a specific dig at retro, old-guard musicology/music theory practices (especially with Blanchett’s reaction) that Field, with his music background, must have spent time around the academic music scene to write that exchange in such a knowingly ribbing manner. In more ways than one, this movie feels like it was made for me. Brb gonna go listen to Mahler 5 for the millionth time.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 10, 2022 9:34:52 GMT
I've already said the massage scene is one of the years best scenes - and with no exposition - you're expected to get why she reacts how she reacts just by reading Blanchett's face........that's a tremendous piece of acting, directing and a minor arc within the broader exposition I also like the added layer of the number “5” being emotionally triggering for her in that scene - symbolizing the Mahler symphony, the number should have represented her coronation, but now it’s inextricably linked to her downfall. The way the movie builds to the symphony performance is great because it ends up being an inversion of the typical dramatic trajectory of a classical musician’s character arc being intertwined with the preparation of the final performance, and the performance itself at the end of the film representing the emotional climax for the character, the apotheosis of the character’s personal journey. Here, instead we get a deliberate anticlimax, an unfulfilled goal where the journey is cut off, and we’re left with an absence at the film’s actual climax. As an audience, we’re thirsty for music that doesn’t happen, or at least not in the way that we expect or “want.”
I don't remember the last line, but in what way do you think it implicates the audience?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 10, 2022 10:22:17 GMT
I've already said the massage scene is one of the years best scenes - and with no exposition - you're expected to get why she reacts how she reacts just by reading Blanchett's face........that's a tremendous piece of acting, directing and a minor arc within the broader exposition I also like the added layer of the number “5” being emotionally triggering for her in that scene - symbolizing the Mahler symphony, the number should have represented her coronation, but now it’s inextricably linked to her downfall. The way the movie builds to the symphony performance is great because it ends up being an inversion of the typical dramatic trajectory of a classical musician’s character arc being intertwined with the preparation of the final performance, and the performance itself at the end of the film representing the emotional climax for the character, the apotheosis of the character’s personal journey. Here, instead we get a deliberate anticlimax, an unfulfilled goal where the journey is cut off, and we’re left with an absence at the film’s actual climax. As an audience, we’re thirsty for music that doesn’t happen, or at least not in the way that we expect or “want.”
I don't remember the last line, but in what way do you think it implicates the audience? Iirc it's the Plainviewesque voiceover line "We won't judge you" - though I guess something could be said after that - which of course "we" have been constantly doing - at several points we (the movie audience) act as Lydia's audience - in the interview, as students in her class etc. ...........It's a winking joke that is the payoff of the movie starting with those credits which itself is a sneaky joke....... I'm not sure but isn't she passed headphones at the end - so she isn't (maybe?) even "really conducting" at all but merely as a human metronome - or a puppet.........to give a cue ......her hands be damned ........
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 15, 2022 16:51:20 GMT
Everyone's being so eloquent and thorough in this thread, I love it. It's like the movie's so good that it pushes people to express themselves in a special way I'll be more of a gopnik though and just very briefly say that I absolutely loved it, from the surprise of the opening credits to the sharp, peculiarly funny finale. A masterful picture. And Blanchett is simply astonishing. It's one of the few times when I can say that a performance didn't surprise me with the meaning of a total compliment - I thought she was gonna be brilliant and I got precisely what I expected. There's nobody quite as magnificent as her at portraying characters who create very specific personas for themselves, only for those facades (as tough as they may be) to start showing cracks along the way. I marvel at her ability to inhabit those personas and the real people behind them. In fact, I bow to her.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Nov 15, 2022 20:56:08 GMT
Oh honeys, I loved it! Blanchett is sublime. Her genius is playing the subtext whereas so many other actresses focus on the external, literal presentation. Lydia is a complex character but never really truly authentic or likeable and Blanchett pitches it perfectly with occasional glimpses of the mask that's being worn.
It's a complex movie with an almost documentary feel to it. At the end you are left to assemble what you've seen. I don't think it would have worked without an actress as watchable as Blanchett. She has such superb command on the screen. I'd give her, her third Oscar now.
I almost feel like sitting through it again! I know I will watch it again soon despite it being close to three hours. It will definitely be a cult movie if not a future classic: I can see this being up there with Haneke's Caché.
|
|