It's not actually clear to me what your frustration is with how perspective is used in the film, to be honest; from my recollection, Tár is the focus of all but a handful of frames, and there are multiple scenes reflecting and illustrating her psychological state long before the last act (though there are more as things progress, appropriately). How would a film that centered her subjective experience of the events to your satisfaction look different than this? Or am I misunderstanding your complaint?therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:33 pmSpoilerShow...I think the biggest problem with the film is that Field is peripherally recognizing that, as you say, "there's nobody to really call her out on her bullshit" but then plays both sides by kinda-calling her out on it and also not really doing much of anything intervention-wise. I think that's what leads her to come up as "a one-dimensional monster" as you put it, though I don't see her as monstrous at all- just as a character I sympathize with in theory but who I feel is being approached by the filmmaker in an obtuse manner when the film demands fuller measures.Drucker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:16 pmSpoilerShowIs her assistant just as bad as her? Putting up with the bullshit until she gets her call to the big leagues? And then once she is passed over seeks her revenge? Is she just as bad as Tar? Or is the ending really everyone in her life extracting their revenge at the same time? If so, what about her wife? Or the neighbors trying to sell their deceased mother's apartment?SpoilerShowI think the film is pretty explicitly refusing to compare "badness" as if on a two-dimensional scale, and Field does do a decent job at detailing how impossible it is to be reductive if we are to be truly objective, even if it (admirably) refuses to take a position on actionable justice's relationship with moral relativity. But that's a good point about the assistant and another semi-strength of the film: in obfuscating intentionality of all other players, since we have no entry way into their minds, Field is placing them on the same playing field as Lydia regarding the question of value in psychological drives (intention, emotional baggage, trauma history, etc.) vs behavioral outcomes that can be measured. The problem comes with his empty gestures after that.. he's kindasorta recognizing that we subjectively assess behavior and that this takes on value, so he's both showing that behavior can be measured by others and also measured differently by ourselves to defend our behavior- but also showing how there's an honesty to our defenses since we only know our own rich histories of trauma, intention, etc. However, Field doesn't seem interested in exploring any of this and it's terrible unclear that he's treating his film as an opportunity to 'show' what he is from a rather myopic position (and, again, not one that emulates Tar's subjectivity, which could work really well- or at least... not until the last act?)
The unraveling of everything towards the end has the potential to function as the perfect narcissistic defense mechanism- an externalization of Tar's psychological erosion in every facet of her environment, and there are plenty of movies that have successfully pulled that off... but Field plays everything so straight and non-delusional while observing delusional behavior, that I just don't think he earns the ability to switch gears from austerity and behaviorist approaches into subjective psychological engulfment. This is a film that wants to have it both ways, and I really want it to work, but it simply doesn't because it refuses to engage too far with any side.
As to Field's supposed lack of interest in exploring how her behavior is evaluated by others and herself, I just disagree with that assertion; he may not be exploring it through your preferred schema or arriving at the conclusions regarding human behavior and its justifications that you prefer, but that's a different issue. In fact, this issue and that of perspective seem pretty inextricably linked: if the motives and goals of Francesca and Olga seem inscrutable and/or menacing, it's because Tár perceives them that way, without consideration on her part of all the other factors you cite. Conveying her paranoia and sense of persecution is Field's primary interest, less so providing a clear indication as to what extent those feelings may or may not be justified. Or maybe I'm misreading you again...