Tár
Should we separate the art from the artist? - Life Through Movies #12
Welcome, everyone. Here at Life Through Movies, I mix personal experiences while recommending a piece of cinema that has impacted my life.
Every time I watch a good movie, there's two conversations going on in my head: one is following the plot and the other is trying to get into the director's head. Why did he place the camera there? How did he invent that character? How did he even come up with that situation?
It then goes further: what did he have to live through in order to arrive at this movie? What did he see in his life to be able to represent that image? Why did he even decide to make this movie?
When I watched Tar last year, I already knew the director, Todd Field, had been absent for sixteen years. He used to be an actor in the 90's, then made two very acclaimed movies in 2001 and 2006 and pretty much disappeared. This enigmatic figure intrigued me. What made him stop, and then decide to come out and make this movie sixteen years later?
Then, while watching the movie, I realized one main topic is exploring the perennial question: can you separate an artist's life from the art they make? Is it desirable, healthy or even possible?
The movie deals with Lydia Tár, the chief orchestra conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, and her relationships with her wife, colleagues and students. The interactions are gray and very human, with real and questionable consequences. It goes beyond the easy and simplistic Weinsteins examples and paints a much more nuanced and complicated picture. And as with any great movie, the conclusions are not black and white, leaving you with even more questions to ruminate on.
The movie itself is a masterpiece and I was elated after I finished it. It also left me thirsty to know more about Todd. How the hell do you disappear for so long and come back with this monumental movie? How did he even make a living in the meanwhile?
There’s not a lot of info except for some failed projects. And I wonder, what if in that digging I found a real and verified article of him being abusive of power with family and colleagues. Should my opinion about the movie, and everything he did before, change?
The more immediate answer would be: yes. But what if it’s something more nuanced, like being very egocentric and slightly manipulative. Or what if we put some time in between and say we shouldn’t value Bach as much because he was a misogynist 300 years ago. Or the recent Picasso article about him being abrasive, abusive and fond of young women. Should we take the Guernica down?
There’s no easy answer here, and I would love to hear where you fall on this spectrum.
In my case, I would argue for training to do both sides separately: be able to analyze a piece of art on its own, and also to analyze it while integrating the artist’s life and context. Can’t say I accomplish it myself, since I’m the first to scroll down to the Personal Life section in a director’s Wikipedia article. But also, when I stroll around a museum I try to look at the paintings, form an opinion and then read the artist’s name.
Also important to train the ability to discern and form an opinion on what I’m willing to put up with, below or above his art. I’m permissive when it comes to the artist being self-destructive, a drug addict and fond of consensual fun. Cross a blurry line and my admiration lowers, since congruence is high on my values list.
We as a society are still forming an opinion on what we’re willing to put up with, through conversations detonated by real life examples and thoughtful movies. What do you think?
LOOK OUT FOR:
The layers. Oh, the layers this movie has. I could do an entire series dissecting each topic. I only touched on one of the main ones, but it talks about the related cancel culture, wokism and its effect, the role of sounds in society and one’s life, how power corrupts, mental struggles, obsessions… all with a very nuanced approach.
The dialogue. It's a masterclass on how to treat your audience as intelligent people. Just look at the second scene, an interview. There’s no descriptive lines, only technical and specific music conversations, just like a real interaction with someone like this would be.
Also notice the camera work here, it feels like a circular dance around them that slowly encloses them
Cate Blanchett. Todd wrote the script specifically for her and says he wouldn't have made it if she didn’t accept it. Her acting is superb
The Bach scene in the classroom. It's a pivotal scene where the thesis of the movie is laid out, after the introductions and context are out of the way. Your visceral reaction to it can tell you a lot about your opinion on the topic. The technical prowess of the scene left me in awe: the quality of the acting, the dialogue, how the camera moves around the room, all in one uninterrupted, ~15 minute take. If I ever do something half as good, I can die satisfied
Enjoy!
I've added it to the watchlist, thanks for the rec.
I have always thought that we should separate the artist from his art. I think the same thing about business leaders and political leaders. The truth is that we are all very ugly people on the inside, with some very vulgar thoughts and instincts. We usually don't act upon them, but sometimes we slip. We like to think that we are all selfless and loving and altruistic, but if you look at most of our actions, they are very egocentric. I think most of us just don't have the power or access to act out on our whims.
The fact that an artist can deal with all the agony of being a human and still create something beautiful is a heroic achievement. I think only once you have actually lived through some real shit and then also created something meaningful and celebrated can you afford to criticize someone else who made the wrong decision in a similar circumstance.
I mean, I could do without Picasso lol The conversation around separating the art from the artist is really around making exceptions for particular artists who become popular or create “masterpieces,” not all artists/art. If it’s a nobody artists who is morally bankrupt, people will happily write them off. So why the exceptions?
If someone makes a "masterpiece," I assume they gave themselves fully to their art, and who they are and what they bring with them informs their art. It would be delusional to reject that reality. That being said, multiple things can be true and acknowledged. Sometimes, maybe even often, shitty people make deeply affecting or brilliant things.
Back to Todd Field, I like when artists disappear like that. It’s probably necessary, especially when your medium is film. They require so much of the people making them. It’s so all-consuming, it almost surprises me that more directors don’t disappear even more frequently for longer periods of time. But I wonder, if money wasn't an issue, if that would be the case. Even doing a little newsletter, I’m always like, ok is it time to go away for a while? 😂 Maybe I'll disappear for 16 years too.