Cate Blanchett Delivers A Monumental Performance In Todd Field’s “TAR”

MAJOR SPOILERS FOR TÁR AHEAD!

Whoever accepts the Academy Award for Best Actress this year, be it Michelle Yeoh or Cate Blanchett, will ascend to the stage knowing that while it could just as easily have been the other making that same victory-march, they themselves deserved it no less. If, in a staggeringly unfortunate turn of events, it’s Andrea Riseborough, Michelle Williams, or Ana de Armas whose name is instead read aloud from that life-changing envelope, well, they ought to be wondering how they even made it to the ceremony when one of them only started her controversial Oscar campaign in the last few weeks before the nominations were announced, one is essentially committing category fraud when she could have easily beat the competition for Best Supporting Actress, and one is nominated for an unspeakably exploitative Marilyn Monroe biopic that should never have been made in the first place. But it won’t be one of them. It will be, it should be, and it must be either Yeoh for Everything Everywhere All At Once or Blanchett for TÁR.

Cate Blanchett as Lydia Tar in the film TAR, sitting at her piano and writing notes on a musical score.
Lydia Tar | theplaylist.net

Blanchett’s nomination for TÁR is her fifth in this category, her eighth in total, and her first since 2015’s Carol. And not since she seeped into the cozy fur stoles of Carol‘s enigmatic titular character has Blanchett immersed herself in a role so wholly with only the slightest physical transformation to facilitate her; yet she deliberately holds her cards close to her chest, remaining so curiously plain, unintimidating, and approachable throughout the film’s opening sequence (which takes the shape of a long, deceptively monotonous sit-down interview with The New Yorker‘s Adam Gopnik) that the audience is made to feel embarrassed, even childish, for being at all apprehensive of her quaint sophistication or for detecting a hint of an edge in her voice when the conversation strays in a direction she doesn’t like. She looks like Blanchett, dresses like Blanchett, and perhaps most crucially of all, talks like her, with an eloquence that would probably come across as pretentious if her delivery wasn’t so merry that the listener is left feeling smarter for hearing her speak and eager to hear her again.

It’s only as you inch closer, close enough to discover that her eyes are eerily devoid of any merriness, that it will finally dawn on you, much too late, why Blanchett was cast and why director Todd Field wouldn’t have made the film without her. The very qualities that endear her to her fans, her approachability and mesmerizing manner of speech included, are qualities that continue to be abused by celebrities (and by virtually anyone on or adjacent to the uppermost levels of the hierarchy in their respective industry), and Blanchett demonstrates for us in the first few minutes of TÁR by creating an atmosphere that feels safe, luring an entire audience in within arm’s length of the fictional-yet-familiar monster inhabiting her skin, and waiting until the cameras are no longer recording to drop the act and dig her claws into her prey. From that moment on, Blanchett is gone, subsumed into the character of Lydia Tár.

Tár, a world-renowned conductor and composer preparing to close out a long career throughout which she has accumulated an almost hyperbolic number of prestigious accolades and awards, including the coveted combination of an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony Award collectively dubbed the EGOT, is a character who stands stubbornly with one foot on either side of the boundary between blunt Caricature of a subject, and nuanced Commentary on that selfsame subject – the subject in this case being every celebrity who’s been hearing a lot of stuff about “cancel culture” in the news recently and knows they would hate it if it happened to them, but isn’t online enough to know that it’s a complete and utter fabrication of the far-right: an imaginary war being waged against the authors of badly-written children’s books and offensively unfunny comedians, by some hypothetical mob of angry young people indoctrinated by the left. Lydia Tár probably isn’t the type of person to publicly align herself with the far-right voluntarily (she strikes me as a moderate liberal), but the exaggerated threat of “cancel culture” is too great for her to stand idly by, and in acting frantically to defend herself against an invisible foe she accidentally exposes her own “cancelable” offense – her history of coercing her students into trading sex for job opportunities and blacklisting them when they broke up with her, driving at least one woman named Krista Taylor to suicide.

It should come as no shock to anyone that this was the true purpose of “cancel culture” all along – to make vocal right-wing allies out of those in the arts who would otherwise have kept their mouths shut, and to convince the general public that buying their books, their music, their movies, or tickets to their shows, is tantamount to a victory against the online mobs trying to “restrict free speech” and therefore a moral obligation for the consumer. But what the right-wing doesn’t state out loud is that they pick and choose which “victims” of “cancel culture” to throw a lifeline. And Lydia Tár, a married lesbian and a classical musician, is expendable as far as the right-wing is concerned. Which is how she ultimately finds herself conducting an orchestra at a Monster Hunter game convention in the film’s final scene.

Nina Hoss as Sharon Goodnow and Cate Blanchett as Lydia Tar in TAR, hugging each other in a room with pink lighting.
Sharon Goodnow and Lydia Tar | news.sky.com

This stunning moment can be variously interpreted as the first of many humiliating low-points in Tár’s career following her fall from grace or the first necessary step in her scrabble back up the social ladder – and then, of course, there’s the distinct possibility that it is Tár herself who has contrived this bizarre, self-flagellating sequence to cap off the fictional narrative she’s been constructing in her head throughout the film, one in which she’s the victim of vaguely supernatural powers out to get her. It occurred to me that Tár is so desperate for a taste of “cancel culture” that it’s possible she’s been fantasizing about Krista’s accusations jeopardizing her career all along. In fact, prior to the outrageous third act, who else besides Tár’s personal assistant Francesca (Noémie Merlant) even knows the details of her inappropriate relationship with the conductor? Francesca, who disappears without a trace – almost like a specter herself – after being passed over for the job of assistant conductor, perhaps causing the increasingly paranoid Tár to retroactively invent reasons to fear her?

As Tár spirals out of control with dizzying speed, whether literally or all in her imagination, she gradually becomes aware that she has fallen out of the carefully-curated biopic she had hoped TÁR would be, and into a grotesquely claustrophobic dark comedy from which there is no escape. Everywhere she turns, she is confronted by demons mundane from one angle, nightmarish from another under Florian Hoffmeister’s lens – the neighbor in the upstairs apartment who won’t stop banging on her door pleading for assistance with her elderly mother; the monstrous black dog that watches her stagger down dimly-lit underground corridors in panicked pursuit of Olga (Sophie Kauer), the mysterious Russian cellist she begins wooing midway through the film; household objects vanishing and turning up in places they don’t belong, like the work of a poltergeist. This string of events culminates in an incident where Tár storms onstage during the live performance of Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 5 and physically assaults the conductor standing in for her, eliciting gasps. It’s simply too ridiculous to really be happening…right?

There is only one character besides Tár herself who can escape being ushered to the back row or ejected from Lydia Tár’s self-serving autobiography entirely until the final third, and that is Sharon Goodnow (Nina Hoss), Tár’s indispensable wife, whom the composer dejectedly returns home to after Krista abandons her and Olga leaves to party with her own friends, not for any lingering love but for a potent reminder that she controls Sharon (at least in part by deliberately mismanaging her wife’s medications and then feigning concern over her “absent-mindedness”). Her own sense of security, necessary for surviving in an insular world, starts to rely on her wife remaining gaslighted into believing she’d be hopeless on her own, that she needs Tár to keep her safe from herself. But when details of Tár’s infidelity come out, Sharon finally breaks the fraying thread tethering her to the woman she loved once and escapes with the couple’s young daughter.

And in so doing, Sharon deals a fatal blow to Tár’s confidence – not only depriving her of the precious pair of good-luck charms that the conductor would have happily carried around with her from place-to-place until retirement, but forcing her to confront the dark alone for the first time in her life. Like most predatory people, Lydia Tár doesn’t know how to function without someone “weaker” alongside her to reassure her that she’s the strongest person in any room, and she doesn’t enjoy the sensation of being on equal footing with anyone (personally or professionally), yet she also becomes sick to her stomach when she is bluntly offered her choice of sex-workers in a Southeast Asian country toward the end of the film. She runs away, offended at the suggestion that what she’s been doing all her life is anything like that.

Cate Blanchett as Lydia Tar in TAR, standing in a concert hall at the conductor's podium.
Lydia Tar | thetimes.co.uk

But ultimately it doesn’t matter, because in that final scene where Tár once again takes the stage to conduct an orchestra for an enraptured audience, Field forces you to sit with the uncomfortable realization that whether or not this is all really happening, even in Tár’s worst nightmares she is still working. It may not be work she relishes, and she’s probably wincing inside as she hears her distinctive sound swallowed up by Monster Hunter‘s electronic score, but she’s still onstage, bathing in the spotlight, and conducting. Even she must surely recognize then and there that “cancel culture” was and will always be a myth as long as the “canceled” still have a platform from which to complain about it.

Film Rating: 8.9/10

“Cruella” Is The Pseudo-Anarchistic 101 Dalmatians Origin Story We Needed

Spring 2021 is the season of the heist genre, and there’s a little something for everyone depending on your taste. Craving magical crimes with a fantastical setting? Shadow And Bone will scratch that itch. Looking for gritty, action-packed heists with gory violence? Army Of The Dead will suit you well. Desiring something fun` and more than a tad bit campy, with fashion-forward antiheroes who come this close to openly embodying the queer anarchist rallying cry of “be gay, do crimes” without ever being explicitly queer because Disney is only feeling so generous with its rainbow capitalism on the eve of Pride Month? Yep, Cruella sounds like the movie for you.

Cruella
Cruella De Vil | nbcnews.com

Cruella is indeed a heist movie – as well as many other things – and that alone probably shouldn’t be surprising, given that the satanic style icon was stealing Dalmatian puppies all the way back in 1961. What is surprising is that Disney actually allows their protagonist to commit crimes unapologetically and often without provocation, even contemplating murder at one point. But for every police barricade Cruella De Vil (Emma Stone) jumps or barrels down in her automobile, there’s more set up further down the road that she won’t – literally can’t – cross. They’re the invisible but omnipresent barriers set up by Disney’s in-studio censors…a strict gridlock of moral guidelines that keep Cruella’s chaotic escapades from ever getting fully out of hand, i.e. beyond Disney’s ability to justify, excuse, or deem “family-friendly”.

Ironically, that means the one thing Cruella never does in this 101 Dalmatians origin story is skin puppies and make fabulous coats of their fur, which is…kind of her whole deal in the original movie. But there, she was a villain, so it really didn’t matter how many horrible things she did because her fate was determined from the outset by the Hays Code: she would be punished, and her crimes would all be undone. Sixty years later, the reverse is true – Cruella is a Disney protagonist now, so she can dabble in darkness but ultimately she will choose the morally “good” alternative to whatever evil deed seems easiest. She can contemplate murder now, which is progress, but she’ll resort to nonviolence in the end. She can joke about killing dogs, and the film can find a clever way to incorporate her inhumane fashion sensibilities into the story, but she’ll never actually do it.

And it’s a damn shame, because the screenwriters clearly want to push the limits of what they can do in a Disney movie. Cruella is a thief, a masterful one at that, and she keeps what she takes for herself – a stark contrast to Disney’s Aladdin. She vandalizes public property with glee. She outmaneuvers the police on a regular basis, and looks good doing it. There’s no reason why this version of the character, as distant as she may be from the iconic animated villain voiced by Betty Lou Gerson, couldn’t be legendary on her own. She could be another Kaz Brekker, to be honest: an ambitious antiheroine who manipulates the system that created her (in this case, the patriarchy) to get what she wants, while remaining fiercely protective of her found family.

There is of course the question of whether or not this needed to be a Cruella De Vil story at all, given how far it diverges from the source material, and the film…never really answers that question. It certainly does very little to offer any insight into Cruella as we remember her from 101 Dalmatians, so it’s not particularly effective as a prequel (despite the mid-credits sequel-bait scene that sets up the latter film’s events). But Cruella takes big liberties with the character, and isn’t afraid to pursue the consequences of those canon alterations. That’s how we end up spending a large part of the movie watching a glamorous, high-stakes battle of innovative fashion masterminds play out against the backdrop of late 70’s London: none of it has anything to do with Dalmatians, except tangentially, and every moment of it is glorious.

Cruella
The Baroness | cosmopolitan.com

Cruella herself is a loud and proud punk rock fashion icon whom Emma Stone plays as if she just swaggered off the set of a Ryan Murphy Netflix show – and fans of those intoxicatingly campy and melodramatic shows, including Ratched and most recently Halston, will find much to love in Stone’s performance as well as many of her character’s story beats, from her sassy witticisms to the elegance she brings to all of her most outlandish costumes, whether riding in the back of a dump-truck with her train billowing out behind her in the street or staging a rock concert in a wealthy neighborhood and fleeing from the cops. Adding to the Murphyness of it all, Cruella finds Emma Thompson transforming into a narcissistic criminal mastermind named the Baroness Von Hellman, who owns a trio of attack dogs, a remote mansion equipped with cliffs off of which to push her rivals, and the undivided attention of the London tabloids.

But one thing this movie lacks entirely is explicit queer representation, a crucial ingredient in Murphy’s formula. Don’t get me wrong, the Hollywood trades made all the usual pre-release uproar about Disney’s nineteenth “first openly gay character” being a friend of Cruella’s named Artie (John McCrea), but this assumption seems to have been based on Artie wearing colorful, boldly patterned clothing…in the 1970’s. In one scene, he saves the life of Cruella’s henchman Horace (Paul Walter Hauser), and it’s deliberately vague enough that you can read as much or as little into that gesture as you want. Sure, I low-key ship it, but neither character is canonically gay – and it’s particularly disappointing given how easily this story could be viewed through a queer lens.

Among the supporting cast, there are several characters whose roles would presumably increase in a sequel, if one happens, although they’re currently rather underwritten. Kirby Howell-Baptiste’s Anita, in between being pressured to help one white woman’s rise to fame or threatened by another white woman to expose her rival’s secret identity, makes a strong argument for why she should lead the inevitable 101 Dalmatians remake. Kayvan Novak doesn’t leave quite as strong an impression as the hopelessly disorganized Roger, but he’s charming enough. There’s also a clever nod to the unnamed woman with the large shaggy dog who walks past Roger’s apartment in the opening scene of 101 Dalmatians, context which will no doubt prove vital when she appears in the remake.

Cruella
Cruella | tomandlorenzo.com

To the film’s credit, it knows its core premise is an absurd attempt to exhume a decades-old franchise, and it absolutely revels in that knowledge – because why not? It’s about time Disney’s live-action remakes started having fun with the rich source material: enough of the halfhearted meandering (Beauty & The Beast), the low-quality photocopies (The Lion King), and the bland, uninspiring war-epic (Mulan); in with the ornate, outlandish, camp masterpiece. Not that it will satisfy some people, who have already taken a key scene from the first act and distributed it online as evidence that the film is an atrocity, as if that scene was not very clearly intended to be shockingly bizarre. If anything, people should be upset that the film doesn’t go far enough! But to quote Artie, “‘Normal’ is the cruelest insult of them all, and at least I don’t get that”.

Rating: 8/10

“1917” First Trailer!

It’s shaping up to be a good year for World War I dramas – between this grim, harrowing account of two men racing against time to prevent a massacre on the battlefield, to The King’s Man, which seems to present a more romanticized view of British spies and assassins weaving through early 20th Century politics, pretty much all your bases are covered. So let’s talk about the first trailer for Sam Mendes’ 1917, which has just dropped today.

First up, the fact that it’s a joint Universal Studios/DreamWorks Pictures release stunned me right off the bat – I’m just not used to seeing the DreamWorks logo before a trailer filled with mustard gas, military chaos and the horrors of war: but here we are, and that’s what we’ve got. The trailer is masterfully edited to reflect the claustrophobia of the trenches on the front lines: it opens with a man running across an open field, being peppered with bullets and bombs, but the camera frame shrinks tighter and tighter around him, quickly becoming the second 1 in 1917, while the man himself is lost in a cloud of smoke. That’s quickly followed by darkly-lit shots of soldiers creeping through an abandoned building, guns at the ready – the shadows encroach around them oppressively before being abruptly shredded by a bomb exploding in their midst. As the air rings around the survivors, their voices are muffled and distant, their figures merely dark silhouettes in a fog. There are haunting shots of men wading through rivers clogged with dead bodies, or staring into the ever more rapidly shrinking title cards as if they’re caught in the enemy’s crosshairs, while the music beats in time to their gunfire.

And then, of course, there’s Benedict Cumberbatch: no decent British historical fiction would feel right without him. The cast also includes Colin Firth, Mark Strong and Richard Madden – as of right now, the film looks very (as in, entirely) male-driven: there’s only a single female character credited on IMDb, and since she doesn’t have a name except for “Mother”, I’ll bet she’s very unimportant to the story. That’s not necessarily a mark against the film, but plenty of war dramas can and do find enough time for at least one named female character to appear: though they’re typically little more than plot devices who inspire the soldiers to invoke their name as they charge into battle, or who can cry over said soldiers when their dead bodies are returned home for burial.

All in all, though, the film looks very good: with the market currently wanting more war dramas, I hope 1917 has enough appeal to win out over bigger, more mainstream releases like Roland Emmerich’s Midway, or The King’s Man.

Trailer Rating: 5/10