|
Post by michael128 on Nov 15, 2022 22:41:42 GMT
Boring
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 15, 2022 23:12:31 GMT
This was pretty lousy. Virtually no story to speak of connecting the individual scenes; it felt like a parody of an "arthouse" film, and got increasingly exasperating as it went along. Blanchett is fine, but it's another in a long line of almost impossibly overrated work from her. She's better in Don't Look Up.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Nov 19, 2022 18:47:47 GMT
Morbidly funny, tense, elliptical in its satire and commentary, I'd call it the most original American film of the last few years (give or take Red Rocket). It’s responsive to the tensions and, yes, the vacuity of its time, pertinent to the here and now as Pac would say. It's unafraid in a real sense. Cate is heaven to watch as this Teutonic Übermensch set loose in modern Berlin, beyond good and evil, making short work of MeToo-er students who can no longer listen to Bach because of his problematic personal life and general insensitivity. The students have, in Lydia’s words, the puny soul of social media (and, she implies, an eagerness to be cultural victims). The view Field has of the young would-be revolutionaries is comically bleak. But it isn’t his aim to “understand” them. They’re in the corners of the film, felt rather than seen, like a spectre in a horror movie. As great as Blanchett may have been in Blue Jasmine, that was always a performance indebted to Vivien Leigh and Blanche DuBois, and forever in their shadow. But there is no precedent for a performance or character like Tár in an American film. What other actress currently working would even understand the personal quest for greatness, the individual idea of genius as embodied by Blanchett here? Blanchett makes the film her own personal quest. Her command of space is total: physical, intellectual. And it takes gusto and a jubilant sense of irony to pull off a Lydia Tár. (As technical an actress as she may be, to reduce this performance to technicalities seems pretty offensive in this case). At first you may find Lydia somewhat desiccated and arch, a German dictator posing as an artist. But this, as many such first impressions, is false and incomplete. Lydia has a Romantic view of herself, a mixture of rigorous discipline and self-destructiveness that is to her the crux of genius. But she knows full well one of these components is no longer compatible with the culture. The new view of the artist is that he must be accommodating and respectful of differences, a model of moral conduct: he must, in short, behave. Tár commits to impeccable public behaviour as if it were a second artform: her one concession to the culture. But Lydia is a revelatory character not only for what she is but for what she omits. Her only defining trait is that she's undefined. Nothing grounds her or her ambition. She’s “mother”, “lover”, “mentor” only in abstract ways that don’t impinge on her. If she were beholden to any such role, she might think of herself as subhuman. If the movie is about a classical Western idea of genius and the contemporary hostility against it, it’s also about the tragicomic worship of “high culture” in the West, a cult that must by necessity be tense and dissociated to extremity. And that’s what Tár inhabits. And yet… in truth, Lydia seems as close to the Austro-German musical pantheon she loves as a modern Egyptian might be to a pharaoh. Between Mahler and the 21st century, an abyss set in. The new impersonal Berlin knows this and communicates it, but Tár doesn’t stop to listen. (The one time she does, it nearly kills her). Maybe because this high culture can feel itself thinning out and dying, it lashes out. Lydia herself has a paralyzing terror of the “lowbrow”, which, one suspects, is tied to her origins. An agonizing neighbor, a woman’s cries in the forest, Olga’s shoddy building frighten her for their mundanity and irrationality. Art can’t make sense of them. When she descends to Olsa’s squalid basement, it’s like we’re taking a peek into her subconscious. It’s a far cry from Wagnerian dreams and mountain ranges.... The final segment of the film, set in Southeast Asia, seems as much an answer to Conrad and Coppola as to the countless narratives about exotic wonders and abominations in the fringes of the world. The exiled Lydia, destroyed by an accusation of sexual abuse and a growing intranquility, abandons Germany. But she is no Col. Kurtz figure, no white deity in the forests of Asia, though she does get some flowers from the “natives”. Lydia Tár, the movie seems to be saying, is herself the exotic element. And she’s as exotic in Asia as she is in the modern West. The West, as is bound to be the case, takes its trash out to the outer rims again. The last dissonant note in this black comedy. Field and Blanchett have made a defining ambiguously tragic portrait for the age. Tár is a ridiculous figure, an artificial construct who lost the connection to beauty and simplicity she so dearly craves (late in the film, she comes to realize this). And yet her very existence is a form of defiance. She is so at odds with the age that she seems heroic, Promethean. If she is flawed, her flaws alone seem to have more dimension and weight than the entire body of her critics....
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 19, 2022 20:49:44 GMT
I'm against category fraud at the Oscars 99% of the time, but after seeing this film, I reeeeally hope they end up campaigning/nominating Williams in supporting, for 2 reasons:
1. If she's not up against Blanchett, Cate's path to Oscar Numero Tres is a 100% DONE fucking deal!
2. Even if she's up against Blanchett, Cate might still be too undeniable and I reeeeally want Williams to get her beyond overdue Oscar. She should have 2 already! Though, to be fair, Cate should have at least 4 and Tar should be her 5TH!
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 19, 2022 23:17:28 GMT
I'm against category fraud at the Oscars 99% of the time, but after seeing this film, I reeeeally hope they end up campaigning/nominating Williams in supporting, for 2 reasons:
1. If she's not up against Blanchett, Cate's path to Oscar Numero Tres is a 100% DONE fucking deal!
2. Even if she's up against Blanchett, Cate might still be too undeniable and I reeeeally want Williams to get her beyond overdue Oscar. She should have 2 already! Though, to be fair, Cate should have at least 4 and Tar should be her 5TH!I don't know, Blanchett will almost assuredly be my Actress win and probably favorite performance of the year period, but the movie might be too niche and weird for the Academy. It is for a significant chunk of our forum and we're a lot more sophisticated than the average bird. The comparatively early release won't help either, would have been better to do the "limited Christmas release/wide in January" thing for this. Have a sinking feeling it's going to get a nod, not a win for Blanchett and maybe a couple production nods like cinematography and score. It deserves BP/director/screenplay nods (and possibly wins depending on how Babylon and Fablemans turn out) and a sup. actress nod for Merlant but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 19, 2022 23:31:58 GMT
I'm against category fraud at the Oscars 99% of the time, but after seeing this film, I reeeeally hope they end up campaigning/nominating Williams in supporting, for 2 reasons:
1. If she's not up against Blanchett, Cate's path to Oscar Numero Tres is a 100% DONE fucking deal!
2. Even if she's up against Blanchett, Cate might still be too undeniable and I reeeeally want Williams to get her beyond overdue Oscar. She should have 2 already! Though, to be fair, Cate should have at least 4 and Tar should be her 5TH!I don't know, Blanchett will almost assuredly be my Actress win and probably favorite performance of the year period, but the movie might be too niche and weird for the Academy. It is for a significant chunk of our forum and we're a lot more sophisticated than the average bird. The comparatively early release won't help either, would have been better to do the "limited Christmas release/wide in January" thing for this. Have a sinking feeling it's going to get a nod, not a win for Blanchett and maybe a couple production nods like cinematography and score. It deserves BP/director/screenplay nods (and possibly wins depending on how Babylon and Fablemans turn out) and a sup. actress nod for Merlant but we'll see. Completely disagree. Even if they find the movie "too niche", her tour-de-force is undeniable, it's the kind of role & performance women rarely get to portray, and she's respected enough I think they want to give her a 3rd Oscar, as long as it's for a once-in-a-lifetime performance like this. Also, what competition does she seriously have if Williams is campaigned in supporting? Zero.Also disagree about the release date being too early. Early October is far from "too early" for Oscar voters. I can name dozens of examples. Also, it should be noted her last Oscar win was for a film released in mid-August, directed by Woody Allen, and she won after the whole Dylan Farrow bullshit witchhunt had exploded less than 2 months before. And if that wasn't enough, she also had way stronger competition that year than she will this year (again, especially if Williams is campaigned for supporting). On paper, the Blue Jasmine win should have been a lot harder than a Tar win. But she was undeniable then and she's undeniable this year. She's winning.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 20, 2022 0:24:01 GMT
I'm against category fraud at the Oscars 99% of the time, but after seeing this film, I reeeeally hope they end up campaigning/nominating Williams in supporting, for 2 reasons:
1. If she's not up against Blanchett, Cate's path to Oscar Numero Tres is a 100% DONE fucking deal!
2. Even if she's up against Blanchett, Cate might still be too undeniable and I reeeeally want Williams to get her beyond overdue Oscar. She should have 2 already! Though, to be fair, Cate should have at least 4 and Tar should be her 5TH!I don't know, Blanchett will almost assuredly be my Actress win and probably favorite performance of the year period, but the movie might be too niche and weird for the Academy. It is for a significant chunk of our forum and we're a lot more sophisticated than the average bird. The comparatively early release won't help either, would have been better to do the "limited Christmas release/wide in January" thing for this. Have a sinking feeling it's going to get a nod, not a win for Blanchett and maybe a couple production nods like cinematography and score. It deserves BP/director/screenplay nods (and possibly wins depending on how Babylon and Fablemans turn out) and a sup. actress nod for Merlant but we'll see. Definitely not Score since it's basically occasional droning background noises which are almost subliminal and that very brief piece that Lydia's trying to compose. I don't think Cinematography will be happening either although it'd be very deserving. I think the movie's best tech bets are Sound and hopefully Editing which I found quite striking.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 20, 2022 0:27:30 GMT
If the movie is about a classical Western idea of genius and the contemporary hostility against it, it’s also about the tragicomic worship of “high culture” in the West, a cult that must by necessity be tense and dissociated to extremity. And that’s what Tár inhabits. And yet… in truth, Lydia seems as close to the Austro-German musical pantheon she loves as a modern Egyptian might be to a pharaoh. Between Mahler and the 21st century, an abyss set in. The new impersonal Berlin knows this and communicates it, but Tár doesn’t stop to listen. (The one time she does, it nearly kills her). Good observation. As much as Lydia tries to present herself as an infallible genius with a divine understanding of a composer’s expressive intent - imagining herself as a conduit for Mahler’s own genius (like Bernstein) - she’s still just another person with a limited perspective..... and who isn’t immune to moral judgment because of her artistry. You sense a similar gulf between her and what she purports to “understand” in the detail in her bio about having a PhD in musicology and having done field work studying indigenous music. On top of cultivating a persona as the embodiment of Western classical music genius, she has also carved out a role of expertise in an area of non-Western music as another piece of intellectual capital that she can “own.” In her hubris, she performs the role of a genius who can understand and interpret any kind of music, even if it’s outside of her own cultural purview.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Nov 27, 2022 22:37:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 27, 2022 23:16:03 GMT
Until he mentions her rage on the stage I was convinced he had gotten mad at the movie and walked out of it before the final 20/30 minutes. I thought one of the best things about the movie was how successfully it avoided taking sides, and listening to the way he rants on in those first few paragraphs just reads to me like someone who made his mind up about the film early on and thereafter skewed everything in his mind the way he wanted it. No mention at all about how she trips up on the steps and sells it as an attack? Nothing on how she's a fucking phony from nowhere whose name isn't even her name? The massage parlor scene? The comedy of the final few images? Christ, even the bit of Merlant mouthing the words along at the beginning (which he does mention in passing) I get that all the scenes going against her are shorter/subtler/less flashy than some of the ones going with her, the beloved one-shot with Max most particularly, but her doctor literally tells her she's crooked. I mean what do people want? I can't speak to his complaints with the artistic construction of the movie as I'm not as versed on orchestras as he seems to be, but I guess I kind of think about his review the same way he thinks of this movie. One-sided negativity posing as cultured critique. It's the kind of small-brained thinking I cannot abide.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 27, 2022 23:25:33 GMT
I can't speak to his complaints with the artistic construction of the movie as I'm not as versed on orchestras as he seems to be, but I guess I kind of think about his review the same way he thinks of this movie. One-sided negativity posing as cultured critique. It's the kind of small-brained thinking I cannot abide.This ^ Richard Brody is a guy who knows a lot about film - as a historian actually - but his reviews are this exactly quite often too - if this board wants to be amused you shoud see his rave for mother! which is an exercise in chasing your own tail that's almost without equal in recent serious film criticism...... Personally I find him less insightful than Armond White tbh - and White is barely a film critic and very much solely a cutural critic these days ......then again I like the writing of that young firebrand named pacinoyes myself
|
|
Barbie
Full Member
Posts: 871
Likes: 537
|
Post by Barbie on Dec 6, 2022 8:08:52 GMT
I saw a clip of that scene where Tar tells off her student who whined about Bach being a white cis male, and now I’m excited to watch this movie 😂. I’m on Tar’s side with that one. I love how that guy is supposed to be “woke”, but he calls her a “fucking bitch” bc she dared to challenge his braindead reductive way of thinking. This is extremely common with social justice types particularly men. When challenged by women, they just default to misogyny
Anyway I can’t wait to see this movie! I might even go to the theater instead of waiting for it to come on streaming
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 7, 2022 14:44:40 GMT
I thought it was somewhat too austere and alienating at the beginning, then it eased into it. Lydia's downward spiral and unravelling was a wonder to behold, and Blanchett did it immaculately. It felt like watching a documentary of a musician's fall from grace. I was completely blown away. Snippets of her vulnerability (namely relationship with her daugther and the scene at her childhood home) in particular definitely humanised her and fleshed her out. Merlant or Hoss didn't really have much to do, though. They were fine, but their characters felt quite under-written, perhaps intentionally.
All in all, 9/10. Definitely amongst Blanchett's very best performances, if not the best. I will have no problem with her winning her 3rd with this film.
|
|
|
Post by cinemagirl16 on Dec 8, 2022 19:22:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Dec 9, 2022 0:00:28 GMT
That's a fascinating article for a truly fascinating film. I'll admit that scene in the abandoned building has puzzled me (in a good way) since I first saw Tár, and I love Kois' interpretation of it, even if I don't totally agree with it - but again, Kois says it's not about "knowing" or 'piecing it all together', as the film is more complicated than that. The second half of the film does indeed feel so different to the first, in a way that beautifully mirrors the themes of the film and Lydia Tár's character arc. The first half is full of lengthy scenes of dense dialogue, largely from Tár, where her egotistical self-assurance seems to extend even to the steadiness of the camera-work. The second half, by contrast, is populated by shorter, more off-kilter and largely silent moments of uncertainty as she unravels at an increasingly fast rate. Scenes that lesser films would have turned into overwrought drama, such as Tár facing the board or having her child be taken away from her outside the schoolgates, last less than a minute long, very much feeling like a string of painful, punishing visions that Tár knows are coming to her, and cannot bring herself to confront. The ending indeed can be read as Tár's worst nightmare, worlds away from the high-art pretensions and officiality she has worked so hard to cultivate as part of her own image and identity. Ultimately, I think I'd read it less as a dream/fantasy from the abandoned house scene onwards, and more of Tár's sense of self being irrevocably shattered by increased guilt and awareness of the abusive pattern she knows she is trying to repeat with Olga, which Todd Field brilliantly echoes in his filmmaking. Re-watching Tár yesterday confirmed it to me as one of the best films of the last few years, and certainly one of the most rich and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 9, 2022 1:29:40 GMT
That's a fascinating article for a truly fascinating film. I'll admit that scene in the abandoned building has puzzled me (in a good way) since I first saw Tár, and I love Kois' interpretation of it, even if I don't totally agree with it - but again, Kois says it's not about "knowing" or 'piecing it all together', as the film is more complicated than that. The second half of the film does indeed feel so different to the first, in a way that beautifully mirrors the themes of the film and Lydia Tár's character arc. The first half is full of lengthy scenes of dense dialogue, largely from Tár, where her egotistical self-assurance seems to extend even to the steadiness of the camera-work. The second half, by contrast, is populated by shorter, more off-kilter and largely silent moments of uncertainty as she unravels at an increasingly fast rate. Scenes that lesser films would have turned into overwrought drama, such as Tár facing the board or having her child be taken away from her outside the schoolgates, last less than a minute long, very much feeling like a string of painful, punishing visions that Tár knows are coming to her, and cannot bring herself to confront. The ending indeed can be read as Tár's worst nightmare, worlds away from the high-art pretensions and officiality she has worked so hard to cultivate as part of her own image and identity. Ultimately, I think I'd read it less as a dream/fantasy from the abandoned house scene onwards, and more of Tár's sense of self being irrevocably shattered by increased guilt and awareness of the abusive pattern she knows she is trying to repeat with Olga, which Todd Field brilliantly echoes in his filmmaking. Re-watching Tár yesterday confirmed it to me as one of the best films of the last few years, and certainly one of the most rich and interesting. That is one interpretation, but I like the more "optimistic" one where she's inspired to go to SE Asia after watching the Bernstein video because she wants to work with beginners and turn new people onto classical music like he did. It's a rebirth for her in a sense, although I think the shot of her smiling at (and possibly touching her hand, I don't remember) the young musician in the orchestra also shows her maybe getting back to her old ways. In real life I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have been able to pull down a job with a less prestigious orchestra in America like in Kansas City or something, even after all that happened, or in Eastern Europe. Seemed like going to SE Asia had to be a choice. In a lot of movies all of this would have been spelled out for you with exposition, though, as I said before love how subtle this was and how well the iceberg principle was utilized.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 9, 2022 4:46:33 GMT
That's a fascinating article for a truly fascinating film. I'll admit that scene in the abandoned building has puzzled me (in a good way) since I first saw Tár, and I love Kois' interpretation of it, even if I don't totally agree with it - but again, Kois says it's not about "knowing" or 'piecing it all together', as the film is more complicated than that. The second half of the film does indeed feel so different to the first, in a way that beautifully mirrors the themes of the film and Lydia Tár's character arc. The first half is full of lengthy scenes of dense dialogue, largely from Tár, where her egotistical self-assurance seems to extend even to the steadiness of the camera-work. The second half, by contrast, is populated by shorter, more off-kilter and largely silent moments of uncertainty as she unravels at an increasingly fast rate. Scenes that lesser films would have turned into overwrought drama, such as Tár facing the board or having her child be taken away from her outside the schoolgates, last less than a minute long, very much feeling like a string of painful, punishing visions that Tár knows are coming to her, and cannot bring herself to confront. The ending indeed can be read as Tár's worst nightmare, worlds away from the high-art pretensions and officiality she has worked so hard to cultivate as part of her own image and identity. Ultimately, I think I'd read it less as a dream/fantasy from the abandoned house scene onwards, and more of Tár's sense of self being irrevocably shattered by increased guilt and awareness of the abusive pattern she knows she is trying to repeat with Olga, which Todd Field brilliantly echoes in his filmmaking. Re-watching Tár yesterday confirmed it to me as one of the best films of the last few years, and certainly one of the most rich and interesting. That is one interpretation, but I like the more "optimistic" one where she's inspired to go to SE Asia after watching the Bernstein video because she wants to work with beginners and turn new people onto classical music like he did. It's a rebirth for her in a sense, although I think the shot of her smiling at (and possibly touching her hand, I don't remember) the young musician in the orchestra also shows her maybe getting back to her old ways. In real life I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have been able to pull down a job with a less prestigious orchestra in America like in Kansas City or something, even after all that happened, or in Eastern Europe. Seemed like going to SE Asia had to be a choice. I got the vibe that she was returning to SE Asia because that’s where she had done her dissertation work (iirc, she asks for some musical scores when she first arrives, but is told that they aren’t kept in the library anymore, which suggests that she’s been there before). To me it’s less to do with her wanting to turn young people onto classical music, and maybe more about her returning to what inspired her as a musicologist, rediscovering what she was once passionate about, reflecting on the particular path that she chose for her career. The Bernstein videos might have inspired her when she was younger, but what she’s doing with the orchestra in SE Asia is far removed from Bernstein’s Young People’s concerts and is more “lowbrow” – as mentioned earlier in the thread, she’s wearing headphones and conducting video game music to a click track, robbed of agency as an artist and has become a “puppet” of sorts. So I personally struggle to buy an “optimistic” reading of the film’s ending.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 9, 2022 9:13:48 GMT
That's a fascinating article for a truly fascinating film. I'll admit that scene in the abandoned building has puzzled me (in a good way) since I first saw Tár, and I love Kois' interpretation of it, even if I don't totally agree with it - but again, Kois says it's not about "knowing" or 'piecing it all together', as the film is more complicated than that. The second half of the film does indeed feel so different to the first, in a way that beautifully mirrors the themes of the film and Lydia Tár's character arc. The first half is full of lengthy scenes of dense dialogue, largely from Tár, where her egotistical self-assurance seems to extend even to the steadiness of the camera-work. The second half, by contrast, is populated by shorter, more off-kilter and largely silent moments of uncertainty as she unravels at an increasingly fast rate. Scenes that lesser films would have turned into overwrought drama, such as Tár facing the board or having her child be taken away from her outside the schoolgates, last less than a minute long, very much feeling like a string of painful, punishing visions that Tár knows are coming to her, and cannot bring herself to confront. The ending indeed can be read as Tár's worst nightmare, worlds away from the high-art pretensions and officiality she has worked so hard to cultivate as part of her own image and identity. Ultimately, I think I'd read it less as a dream/fantasy from the abandoned house scene onwards, and more of Tár's sense of self being irrevocably shattered by increased guilt and awareness of the abusive pattern she knows she is trying to repeat with Olga, which Todd Field brilliantly echoes in his filmmaking. Re-watching Tár yesterday confirmed it to me as one of the best films of the last few years, and certainly one of the most rich and interesting. That is one interpretation, but I like the more "optimistic" one where she's inspired to go to SE Asia after watching the Bernstein video because she wants to work with beginners and turn new people onto classical music like he did. It's a rebirth for her in a sense, although I think the shot of her smiling at (and possibly touching her hand, I don't remember) the young musician in the orchestra also shows her maybe getting back to her old ways. In real life I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have been able to pull down a job with a less prestigious orchestra in America like in Kansas City or something, even after all that happened, or in Eastern Europe. Seemed like going to SE Asia had to be a choice. In a lot of movies all of this would have been spelled out for you with exposition, though, as I said before love how subtle this was and how well the iceberg principle was utilized. I definitely don't buy the optimistic interpretation. At the final concert, she was given earphones that would block sounds from the musicians, which was the exact opposite of what she described as catalyst in conducting during the interview at the beginning. It was humiliation of the highest order for Lydia Tar.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 9, 2022 10:40:13 GMT
I posted this on page 1 (below) but am not sure - but I took it as a cruel joke ........anyway this is the curse of our time os people have to "read" the film which is designed at the very least to to leave you in many ways baffled......film audiences are always trying to unravel EVERY movie.......that is why the "Taxi Driver" is a dream at the end theory causes so many arguments - it is possible to genuinely love Taxi Driver and believe either thing happens.......it is possible to love " Mulholland Drive" - and get it - and yet not fully "get" every detail......those videos that are on Youtube that say " _______ ending explained!" are both useful ........and also the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world........ever ******************* 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 ........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2023 20:26:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 3, 2023 20:42:53 GMT
So bone dry and bitchily funny it's nearly MsMovieStar level ......I particularly liked this pithy one liner: 3. Tár played competitive field hockey in her youth.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 5, 2023 16:59:23 GMT
Scorsese on Tar: www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/1/b49hvphee7zluh1ak0suckhn0u0n70 “For so long now, so many of us see films that pretty much let us know where they’re going. I mean, they take us by the hand, and even if it’s disturbing at times, sort of comfort us along the way that it will be all OK by the end […] Now this is insidious, as one can get lulled into this, and ultimately get used to it. Leading those of us who’ve experienced cinema in the past — as much more than that— to become despairing of the future of the art form, especially for younger generations.”
“But that’s on dark days. The clouds lifted when I experienced Todd’s film, ‘TÁR.’ What you’ve done, Todd, is that the very fabric of the movie you created doesn’t allow this. All the aspects of cinema and the film that you’ve used, attest to this. The shift in locations, for example, the shift in locations alone do what cinema does best, which is to reduce space and time to what they are, which is nothing.
“You make it so that we exist in her head. We experience only through her perception. The world is her. Time, chronology and space, become the music that she lives by. And we don’t know where the film’s going. We just follow the character on her strange, upsetting road to her even stranger final destination. Now, what you’ve done, Todd, it’s a real high-wire act, as all of this is conveyed through a masterful mise-en-scène, as controlled, precise, dangerous, precipitous angles, and edges geometrically kind of chiseled into a wonderful 2:3:5 aspect ratio of frame compositions.”
Finally, Scorsese said, “The limits of the frame itself, and the provocation of measured long takes all reflecting the brutal architecture of her soul — ‘TÁR’’s soul.”
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 9, 2023 19:50:35 GMT
She speaks.....!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2023 20:29:36 GMT
I totally relate to Tár in that I too am acutely aware of/sensitive to sound... I had never seen this played in film before! WFH saved my life, honestly. My office mate generated more miscellaneous noise than any other creature I've ever encountered.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 10, 2023 22:44:37 GMT
I totally relate to Tár in that I too am acutely aware of/sensitive to sound... I had never seen this played in film before! WFH saved my life, honestly. My office mate generated more miscellaneous noise than any other creature I've ever encountered. Never the best way to start a sentence.
|
|