tar. A self-appointed court has passed sentence on Lydia Tarr. There is no appeal in such rulings

Private life is not a safe haven, everyone usurps the right to judge our lives, and everyone demands insight into our intimacy.

I leave Mahler aside because he is not important here; The important thing is that for Lydia Tarr, art is more important than people, and everyone around him believes that people should be more important than art to Tarr. In addition, a young woman named Krista commits suicide, and Tár will be blamed for her death, since she not only had an intimate relationship with Krista, but also sent a lot of emails stating that Krista is mentally disturbed, and dangerous. And it is not recommended to work with it. So thoughtless Lydia Tarr may have been, but with her conviction of infallibility, not only broke Christa’s heart, but also hindered her career, thus driving the unstable and desperate girl into the arms of death. But is Tarr’s fault indisputable? For those who do not know anything about Krista, about Lydia and their relationship, Tár’s guilt is indisputable, because today people’s court rulings are passed without reading the case files. One charge is sufficient for the class prosecutor to issue a sentence of disgrace and banishment, as well as a death sentence in effigy, that is, in the image of a convict who has not been physically arrested. Today, the revolutionary summary courts issue death sentences in dummies without leaving the computer.

The big scene is where Tarr talks to a driving student, asking him about his favorite composers, and it turns out that the student doesn’t appreciate Johann Sebastian Bach. Not only does he not want his works to be conducted, but he has no intention of ever listening to Bach. For him Bach – an African-American with a smooth sexual orientation – is unacceptable because of his antipathy to the author of the “Mass in the second degree”, a work striking in its grandeur. Such was Bach’s misogyny that he fathered twenty sons; It is unacceptable for a young conductor to give birth to twenty children, and even a reason not to listen to Bach at all. Tarr then substantively, logically, and humorously crushes and insults the student, and the student leaves, hurling insults at Lydia. But isn’t Tarr right? What is Bach’s sexuality with the enormous power of the “Mass in B minor”? The number of children born to Bach’s penis has an effect on the weight of the masterpieces that his brilliant brain has generated? If Bach had only one child, behaved decently by the standards of the day, but did not write the Mass in B II, the Brandenburg Concertos, the Art of the Fugue, the cantatas and oratorios, would a student consider him a composer worthy of attention? Not to mention that Bach fathered many composers, not as great as his father, but still significant. Had he not been the guardian of Carl Philip Emanuel or Johann Christian, would humanity have been in a better position?

Is Tar a prostitute? Yes, to my taste she is a whore, but she is a wonderful whore, in every way superior to all the sluts that come her way. Does he mistreat him in his apparent love for her help? He treats her horribly, but when watching the movie, we’re not at all sure if Francesca is a talented leader or just ambitious. Is Ter trying to seduce the young cellist Olga? Sure, he’s trying to seduce her, but he’s got a thing for a cellist, not because of the physical appeal of “fresh meat,” as scammers write about this affair, but because she’s amazed at the young Russian’s stunning talent—Tarr beats Olga when she hears she’s performing a cello concerto by Edward Elgar in E minor. As a would-be cellist, whose musical talent has been curbed by a malevolent deity, I fully understand the conductor’s infatuation with the exceptionally gifted master of this fine instrument. Does Tár have an absolute space psyche? If there is something beyond universe and something beyond universe, this is where Lydia Tár’s alter ego, real name Linda, is portrayed, which can be captured in one scene. Is the excuse not that he devotes all his narcissism, all his vanity, all his perfection to art? This is a question for the viewers. The importance of this movie is that it requires the viewer to pay attention and think.

Of course, many viewers will find these demands unacceptable. The viewer does not go to the cinema to focus and think, but rather to enjoy and forget about thinking. However, I encourage you to make an effort and not let anyone get discouraged by long conversations about music with a professional vocabulary. It is really immeasurably more fun than watching a strange porn movie or a movie about superheroes in strange clothes. I sat among the Wisła cinema audience and absorbed these discussions about the nuances of composition and ways of playing individual parts by the orchestra in such ecstasy, as if I were discovering a recipe for immortality. The questions are basic, if indirect, and they are really questions that the viewer of the film must ask himself, and in fact everyone must ask themselves, above all the members of the hood courts, who think that accusation means judgment, and that determines the shadow of doubt The guilt that circumstantial evidence is always sufficient to initiate sentencing, without trial and without counsel being allowed to speak.

Tár falls at the end of the film, and it’s a poignant, poignant fall because Lydia falls with dignity, despite being an insulting artist in the extreme. Her genius suddenly means nothing. A self-declared court issued its verdict, and there is no appeal in such verdicts.