Christopher F Reidy
Christopher Reidy
  • Home
  • Blog
  • 83 In the Shade
  • Artwork
  • Videos
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Product Information

CFR BLOG PAGE

The thoughts & Musings of Christopher F. Reidy*

NOTE: Apparently this webpage has some glitches. It tends to randomly switch out visual material.  Why?  Don't ask me.  So, if a pic doesn't match the text...it doesn't!  Rest assured I am trying to amend this problem.  When I get around to it.

*(may contain misuse of apostrophes, miss spellings, overabundance of semi-colons,  wrong word usage, etc.
Please pardon our appearance while we create a new blog experience for you!)

​ALSO: 
Please find an in-complete (or if you prefer; "ongoing") index of blog posts on the homepage, for your convenience!

AND YET ANOTHER NOTE:
The visual switcheroos on these blogs have reached a point where there's no way I can correct them all, so I'm just going to leave them be.  If they don't match the text, just think of them as whimsical funsies decorating the text.  I will continue to supply pictures; but I cannot guarantee their context: much like my mind.
Thank you for your patience!

A FURTHER NOTE:
I try to keep this website relatively free of anything truly morally reprehensible or obscene.  However, in the pursuit of honesty; I will be quite frank about sexuality; as I feel one should be.  To  wit: this website is not for children.  It is decidedly "adult"; although not necessarily not "childish."  I do not feel it is suitable, in some instances, for anyone below the age of 17.  Or maybe a very mature 16...or 15 even.  
THIS WEBSITE IS RATED: PG-15

Product Information

Can I Get Those Two Hours and Thirty-Eight Minutes Back?

3/28/2023

0 Comments

 
Notice: Contains spoilers for the movie TAR, starring Cate Blanchett!

So, we watched TAR last night (sorry, don't know how to get that accent above the "A").  If I can say anything about the film, it would be that it was an "experience."  I'm not sure what I experienced...but let's look at the "teaser" trailer for the movie (which I saw several times in the cinema: we watched, TAR, however, via Netflix (a CD no less!).
Okay, my first question here is: what's happening?  Is she vaping?  Is she a smoker?  Well, as she does neither in the movie, I have to assume that she's just blowing smoke.  Whether or not it's up my ass is another question.  However, you can't know that she doesn't smoke or vape until you see the movie.  Which I now have.  Looking retroactively at the trailer, I have to wonder the filmmaker's intention: literally: "Is she just blowing hot air here?"
Okay, so let's take "TAR" one step at a time.  Here are some of the questions this clearly, deliberately obfuscating film raised for me.
1. Is this supposed to be a character study of a narcissist?
2. What is a U-Haul lesbian? (Okay, I just looked that up and now I know).
3. Exactly, just what does a conductor do with the orchestra; because I've never really known and will this movie make      it clear?​ E.g.: where do they get their batons?  Mail-order?  Batons-R-Us?
4. What, exactly, has Lydia done that gets her "cancelled?"
5. Is she really that pretentious?
6. Why does the Russian cello girl apparently live in an abandoned warehouse?
7. Why doesn't Ms. Tar have the slightest sense of humor?  Even Towering Geniuses like her don't get far in life                  without some charm.
8. Is Ms. Tar mentally ill?  Why is she hearing beeping sounds at night and then staring into the refrigerator?
9. Is Ms. Tar being stalked?  If she isn't, who is leaving cryptic drawings and fucking around with her metronome at            night?
10. Why does this story require two hours and thirty-eight minutes to be told?
So, in examining that trailer closer, I can't tell if Ms. Blanchett is actually expelling an actual cloud of smoke from her mouth or if it's CGI; or perhaps both.  There seem to be figures coalescing in the smoke: a skull perhaps?  What are we to make of the uber-serious, portentous narration over the image?  What does "...the bee fertilizes the flower it robs..." mean?  What is all this talk of gods?  Why does true power require camouflage?  Why in order to have true power, does one have to "obliterate" themselves in front of the public and God?  These comments seem to be sending out mixed messages.  Who wrote this narrative voice-over?  I'm guessing it was the writer/director of the movie, Mr. Todd Field.  I'm guessing Mr. Field is a pretty intelligent person.  Ergo, there is no way he wouldn't know the level of pomposity, pretentiousness and pontification of this trailer.  So, if he knows...what does that mean?  Is it satire?  Is he mocking the self-importance of the Art Film itself?  He must be!  For nothing could explain the absurd number of accolades regarding Ms. Tar that we hear coming from the moderator from The New Yorker that I'm assuming is taking place in Carnegie Hall.  How could it be anywhere less?  Yes, we know Mr. Field is intelligent (although there must've been a blip when he chose to purchase this hat):
Picture
Let's watch this other trailer that gives us more of an idea of the tone of TAR and features several moments of the opening "interview."
As the moderator's obsequious list of Ms. Tar's achievements went on for what became a comical amount of time; after the second "...and if that wasn't enough..."  I imagined him saying things like:
"...and not only that, she can play the trombone...with her feet!"
"...in the early aughts, she dedicated herself to her one woman string quartet..."
"...her Concerto for Accordion in B-flat is considered the finest piece of accordion music in the history of accordions!"
"...music critic Paul Griffiths wrote, and I quote: 'Her mastery of the kazoo has left the music world racing to catch up; and audiences transported to places beyond the space/time continuum.  To wit: Lydia Tar IS the kazoo.' Unquote."
Yes, I jest.  But it really is so ridiculously imperious (everything, the tone, the dialogue, Lydia's demeanor, Cate Blanchett's acting, the directing...) that you can't help but ask yourself: "Is this a put on?"
I've seen Mr. Field's other directorial efforts.  In the Bedroom and Little Children.  All I remember from Little Children was, I think, Kate Winslet getting banged on top of a washing machine(?) by a hunky actor who looks exactly like two other hunky actors.  My husband and I call In the Bedroom "the smokingist movie ever." Just thinking about it makes me want a cigarette.  There was something to do with lobsters...
Both those movies, though, were pretty straight forward.  TAR is decidedly NOT straight forward.  It's not even straight!
What was the choice in making her a lesbian?  I think it would've been more interesting, from the "cancel culture" perspective, that she had a string of boy toys.  But that's just me.  She refers to herself as a "U-Haul" lesbian: that is, one who stereotypically "shacks up" with a girlfriend by the second date.  But she wasn't a U-Haul lesbian, clearly, if she's carrying on a string of dalliances with young women who it seems willingly throw themselves at her.  How, exactly, does this make her a "predator,"? the word being used in much of the language around this movie?  We never see her "preying" on anyone. We see her favoring the young Russian cellist.  But is it for sexual reasons or is it simply the politics of her workplace.  If she'd seduced the girl with the promise of the position, that would be one thing.  But she doesn't.  She's actually quite kind to the girl. And it's so unclear about anything about her relationship with the woman from the past who committed suicide, that it's impossible to form an opinion (as a viewer), as to her behavior.  At least in that regard.  We do see her threaten a child with implied violence; but again, it's ambiguous.  Are we supposed to see this as dangerously psychotic or merely as "Mama Bear" protective mode?
You know, I wanted to not like this movie; simply because it so full of itself in every way.  But I keep thinking about it; and for me, that's a sign that I've watched something with some depth.  That run time was punishing though.  It just wasn't necessary.  I think it will keep a lot of people away from seeing it, let alone re-watching it.
So, let me answer the questions I raised in the beginning.
1. I would say yes.  And no.  I mean, she's totally full of herself but I didn't see her doing any of the typical things narcissists do.  Like, she never gaslights anyone.  She's pretty up front about her behavior.  She puts her money where her mouth is.  If she's achieved all of the things the movie tells me she has, then I think she has the right to be a little big headed.
2.Answered.
3. I learned the conductor keeps time with their right hand and "shapes" with the left.  Other than that, no.  I did not learn anything else about conducting.  Why did we not see her conduct her own composition she was working on?  Take us through that?  Seems like the movie should have.  And it's a flop.  And that's what takes her down.
​4.Apparently she had an affair with a red-headed woman who ended up committing suicide.  Lydia advised an orchestra that this woman was unstable and shouldn't hire her.  This woman stalked Lydia then killed herself...so, yeah, clearly she was unstable.  A video was cobbled together and edited to make her seem like a bigot and a grabber of knees.  Clearly this was all out of context; anyone could see that.  So, I would say no.  She didn't do anything that should of lost her her job. Well, then again, she did try and delete all those emails...so, yeah...I suppose that's a dismissible offense. And who made the video?  It seemed to come from numerous sources that it couldn't have.  In reality, that is.
5. Yes.
6.The girl couldn't have lived there, as it is presented.  Which led me to believe that the girl didn't actually exist and that the movie was really about a woman having a mental come apart.  Which brings us to the bear...and the dog...(which I will get to later).
7. It seems to me that Lydia, in what we come to discover later in the movie, has created her persona from whole cloth (which would explain the scene in the tailor shop!).  In her mind, a "great Maestro" would be super-serious...so, nothing so low brow as humor.
8. It seems as though Ms. Tar is having some kind of mental breakdown; which, let's face it, is kind of a cliche.  Yet another crazy woman of The Cinema: Marnie, Black Swan, Repulsion, Fatal Attraction...the list goes on).  Why are all these crazy lady movies generally written and directed by men?  Gee, I wonder.  I guess a woman going off the rails is sexier.  But TAR refuses to come out and tell us.  Is she crazy or isn't she?  Who attacked her?  A large black dog, or some strange man, which is what she tells everyone is what happened.  Or, was she imagining the whole thing and simply tripped and banged her face?  Did the dog and the stuffed bear toy exist?  The black dog is a traditional symbol of a demon; so is Lydia being stalked by her demons, which are catching up to her?  
"In folklore worldwide, Bear sits in a position of judgment, often representing morality. They offer lessons in both what to do and what not to do in order to maintain the high ground. They grant rewards to the righteous and punish those who are immoral."  So is Lydia being punished for her immoral behavior.  For her "predatory" behavior.  I'm gonna say, yes.
9. Ms. Tar, I think, is being literally ghosted by the dead girl with the red hair.  It is this "ghost" that is leaving cryptic messages and so forth.  At least, that's how it should be taken in the world of this movie.  I think there's also a possibility that Lydia's wife is doing it.  She's the one gaslighting the narcissist.  I mean, she doesn't seem to like Lydia very much and later on withholds their daughter from Lydia, which, I'm sorry, you can't just do that.
10.  It doesn't.  A good forty minutes could've been shaved off, making the movie tighter and thus, better.  I mean, why did we have to see her jogging a dozen times?  Why did her conversations with everyone drag on for twice as long as they should have?
Picture
Hmmmm...I just noticed the word "FAG" can be seen in the graffiti in the reverse shot.  Coincidence?  I don't know.  Everything in this movie seems very deliberate.
Some more questions.  What is the meaning of the accordion?  Why is Ms. Tar's foundation for young, aspiring female musicians called The Accordion Project, or whatever it was.  And later, Ms. Tar "plays" an accordion in her second apartment.  Why the hell would high falutin' Lydia Tar have an accordion, the one musical instrument that is so low brow it is a literal punchline?  Is this a sly joke?  That Lydia is not quite as high falutin' as she thinks?
I must say, I loved the scene where Lydia tackled her replacement during Mahler's 5th symphony. I didn't see that coming!  Actually, I wished they had gone further with the scene.  Like, it would've been AWESOME to see a De Palmaesque slo-mo scene of Lydia, like, trashing musical instruments like a rock star.  She picks up a cello and bashes it over her rivals head.  She shoots him with a bow from a violin, using the violin like an archer.  Oh!  And then, pandemonium breaks out and the other musicians go nuts and start fighting with their instruments, in their formal clothes, all while Stravinsky's Rite of Spring plays over the scene.
Picture
So, I'm gonna wrap this up now.  I'm not even going to get into the massage parlor scene and its possible meanings.
I will say though, the ending, where Lydia is conducting an orchestra for what appears to be a Furry convention, although amusing, didn't really work for me.  I don't think Lydia would've taken a demeaning job like that.  I mean, why?  She didn't appear to need money.  In fact, she seemed quite wealthy.  Someone like her would just bide their time until the "problem" blew over, I think. And slowly start working back.  You know, like scoring a TV show. 
So, those are my thoughts about TAR.
I recommend it.  But you'll want a lot of things around to make those nearly three hours go by faster.  Do some bills.  Do your nails.  Organize your record collection.  Practice your batoning.  Blow some smoke.  Whatever.

CFR  4/13/23
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    June 2020
    August 2015

    AUTHOR
    Christopher Reidy is from the Boston area.  He attended Boston University where he studied TV and film which eventually led him to Los Angeles.  There he did the Hollywood thing (which he wasn’t particularly good at) and eventually met his partner Joseph.  He was one of the co-founders of the short lived Off Hollywood Theatre Company which staged several of his original plays.  83 In the Shade is his first novel.  He also dabbles in screenplays, toys with short stories, and flirts with poetry.  Life brought him to bucolic Southwest Virginia where he now resides and is very active in community theatre. It may interest you to know Chris is officially an Irish citizen as well as an American. He also enjoys drawing and painting and looking after a passel of 
    ​
    housecats and two turtles.