# data[].attributes.body
Although Lydia Tar, a main character in the movie, is seen as an acknowledged conductor, later we observe how her hypocrisy and abuse of power changes her life dramatically. From the scene where she is mocking a student for his critical attitude towards Bach’s music, we lose our sympathy for the main character. The producer of the movie does not reveal the true relationship between Lydia and Krista Taylor. Although Krista does not appear in the movie as a physical person, her actions are the main feature that show us what person Lydia Tar actually is. Krista wanted to reach Lyda by email, but Lydia told her assistant Francesca to delete all the emails Krista was sending to her. Krista commits a suicide, and her parents want to sue Lydia. This scene was confusing to me since Lydia did not seem to be the reason why Krista committed suicide. However with the emergence of Olga, a new violinist in the orchestra,  a desperate action of Krista becomes clearer. Although Lydia was in a relationship with Sharon, she had a particular tension to Olga. The fact that Francesca left Lydia at the moment when Lydia pays particular attention to a new violinist, says a lot. From this, we can assume that Lydia most probably was manipulating girls to be in a relationship with her, for that she gives them an important place in the orchestra. Lydia’s power abuse leads her to sexual harassment, which suits to the main reason of why #metoo movement exists.

From the scene, where she is in East Asia, she needs to pick a woman who will do massage for her. As soon as she saw a woman staring at her she went out and started throwing up. Does it symbolize her being afraid of getting into relationships with women or does it show the moment of her sin atonement?

# data[].attributes.body
The movie is truly beautifully made no matter how slow it can be at times. I think it's almost intentional because the portrayal and delivery of the complexity of Lydia's personality cannot be rushed without leaving audiences incomplete understandings of the main character. I found the German to be confusing since I don't speak the language so I had to look up a few times what she was saying. I found the massage "fishbowl" setup to be extraordinary, because in the hindsight it's confusing as to why Lydia had such a dramatic response. But when I really thought about it, I realized it was because the masseuse were set up in an orchestra formation and number 5 was the only one that made direct eye contact with her, which also happens to be where Olga sits. Another reason why I loved this film was because it did not follow the stereotypical creepy older men trope, instead it showed the audiences that anyone, including females, are capable of such abuse of power. I could be wrong but I am glad the news reported about Krista and people supported, because if that didn't happen, Lydia could have groomed Olga as well. But since there was exposure, Olga seemed to dodge a bullet, hence the importance of #MeToo. This film kind of reminded me the film "Bombshell" which is based on a true story that the president of FoxNews groomed and sexually assaulted multiple young female in exchange for a promise in the news reporting world. And many victims stayed silent because they were all afraid of the power and money the abuser possessed, until someone stepped up and started a #MeToo campaign. I wonder what are the rest of your takes on the ending, the director seemed to have left it open-ended.

# data[].attributes.body
Earnestly, I found this film difficult to follow. I don't necessarily dislike it; there were many really artful moments, especially towards the end. I thought the dynamic between Lydia and Sharon was really interesting, and more nuanced and difficult than most media gives to lesbian partnerships. Cate Blanchett is beyond amazing in this role. If I'd been intentionally misled, I totally could have bought this as a documentary and not a drama.

That said, I think there are some legitimate criticisms here. I remember there was a lot of commotion that Blanchett claimed that "gender is powerless," which I feel is just objectively untrue. It can be, but for the most part it isn't, and I wish that this film has more acutely attempted to grapple with the ways power is gendered. Maybe it did and it was too subtle for me, haha. But, I wonder if that could have - or even should have - happened without breaking what made the film great.

# data[].attributes.body
At moments I found the movie very upsetting since the main character, Lydia Tár had a troubled personality while pursuing her dream to create something “memorable” that will live on. Tár’s goal was almost achieved, since she recorded almost all of the existing Mahler symphonies, except the 5th, which got posponed to after the covid lockdowns.

There are many misconceptions and questions around Mahler’s 5th symphony. According to the movie, some peope interpret it as Mahler’s love letter to his wife, while some peope prefer the “tragedy” interpretation instead. Lydia Tár chose the “love interpretation” and she was dedicated to livestream and record it with the Berlin Philharmonic, and accomplish a full set of Mahler recordings, as a symbol of her life’s work.

She was considered as one of the biggest composers of the history and had many eyes on her and her carreer, which ultimately put a lot of things at risk in her life, especially her privacy regarding her personal life and relationships.

The movie often implied details from the maestro’s path, memories and dreams that can be seen as examples of her troubled personality and warning signs of her mental exhaustion. From the opening scene, it is very clear that Tár’s life has been followed by many, including one of her ex students, Krista. I found it very interesting how the movie introduced all of the young female characters that ever picked maestro’s interest both professionally and probably personally too, such as Francesca, Olga, and then Krista. Krista committed suicide during strange circumstances, leaving many accusations targeting Tár, that plays an important role in understanding her character and eventually serves as the main cause of her mental collapse.

The movie showcases both the maestro’s career as a conductor and a teacher, as well as painting a picture of her private life as a mother and a partner. As the story follows on, the four roles merged into one, until Tár’s distorted reality leads to her collapse during one of the biggest concerts of her career, which ends up being the last one as a well-known, successful conductor. Tár did not only destroyed her career, she lost everything, including her family. By the end of the movie there are still a lot of questions remaining around her path and ex relationships with her mentorees, but certainly the fact that just the assumptions and accusations had such effect on her proves that she did not feel innocent and most certainly, she was not. The movie finale offers different interpretations of how Lydia psychologically rebuilds her life from the ground up.

# data[].attributes.body
Watch the film!

1. Write your (one-paragraph) reflection on the movie.
2. Problematize the film in relation to #MeToo.
3. Finish your reflection with an interpretive question.
4. Read what your peers have written on the film.
5. Comment on all your peers' posts.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Tár is closer to a documentary than a psychological drama. It seems to be a classic tale of abuse of power in an institution that allows it until it can't stand to anymore -- Krista's suicide, the article about Tar's predatory behavior -- the only difference being that the predator is a woman instead of a man. I found the two most interesting parts to be the relationship between Petra and Tar, and the way the movie ended, with Tar finding a new job in the Philippines. I wonder if the intent behind her relationship with Petra as being "the only non-transactional relationship in her life" was meant to engender compassion or hope for the viewer at the redemption of the character? And I wonder what the Philippines choice added to the film. In terms of problematizing the film against the #metoo movement, I think it's problematic because it is filmed from the point of view of the predator, while films like "She Said," which explore similar themes, is from the point of view of the survivors of such abuse. The film is extremely committed to a noncommittal stance on separating artist from art, and doesn't take a stance on the #metoo movement one way or another. I personally found the film to be dull and hard to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
A complicated woman named Lydia Tár, is explored in the film "Tár" in an engrossing way. Her personal and professional lives become intertwined in a web of lies, manipulation, and the effects of her choices. I find myself thinking about her character and how position, authority, and inner demons can all influence someone's actions and finally bring them to ruin.
I believe Lydia Tár exemplifies the negative aspects of celebrity and prosperity. She is shown as being conceited, self-absorbed, and unconcerned about the results of her actions, despite having tremendous skill and achievements.
Additionally, she degrades a pupil of color, overlooks the musical skill of budding artists in favor of looks, and engages in adulterous affairs despite feeling guilty, all examples of her misuse of authority. Apart from that, her actions expose the hypocrisy of an individual who promotes justice and talent while reinforcing prejudices and acting unethically.
In the end, I believe Lydia Tár's path acts as a warning sign, highlighting the value of honesty, modesty, and genuine relationships. It forces us to consider the real price of desire and the ethical obligations that come with exercising authority. Tár's return to her poor beginnings shows her awareness of the hollowness of her achievements.

A question arises in my mind is that, how can people in positions of authority make sure they keep their dignity, stay responsible for their conduct, and utilize their positions ethically in a society fueled by authority, and the chase of accomplishment or success?

# data[].attributes.body
EDITED AND RE-WRITTEN:
Summary of the film:
The film opens with Lydia, a world-renowned sound artist, composer she is for what i saw has a very closed off personality, she is very professional that she focus more on her carer more than her wife but she valued and loved their daughter Petra that she tried to write her a song or compose her one when all the sudden noises and weird vision started to happen .

As Lydia spends more time on alone after every thing that was happening to her and the cancellation because of what she did , she begins to feel increasingly isolated and alienated. She is the only human on the island, and the sounds of the natural world become her only companions. She starts to have strange visions and hallucinations, and she begins to question her own sanity
Lydia witnesses a young woman being attacked by a dog. She intervenes and saves the woman, but she is bitten in the process. The bite becomes infected, and Lydia falls ill. She is delirious and hallucinating, and she begins to believe that she is being haunted by the ghosts which was really something i really did not understand why it was added to be honest the story could have been the same with or without it being added to it . And as Lydia's condition worsens, Francesca becomes increasingly concerned. She tries to get Lydia to leave the place where she used to live  but Lydia refuses. She is determined to finish her recordings, even if it means sacrificing her own health. at the end of the film Lydia's fate is left ambiguous.  However, it is unclear whether she will ever be able to leave. and to be honest i really did not know why she went to the philppines out of any other country the end made no sense for me to be honest but the film has very interesting turn of events and how she was the best in the game and how she was ruined by one indecent and it represents how lots of artists had lost their fame and went into ruins in the matter of minutes and every thing that they worked for have their whole life become nothing by doing one wrong move.
The Reflection Part:

The film's sound design is one of its strongest aspects. The natural sounds are used to create a sense of immersion and claustrophobia. The sounds of the waves crashing against the shore, the wind howling through the trees, and the birdsong all combine to create a powerful sensory experience. The sound design also serves to isolate Lydia from the outside world. The film's slow pace can be off-putting, but it's necessary to allow us to focus on the film's sensory experience. The film is not interested in telling a traditional story with a beginning, middle, and end. Instead, it is interested in creating a mood and atmosphere. it allows us to become immersed in the film's world and to experience the film's sensory effects. The film's narrative is relatively simple, but it's effective in conveying Lydia's sense of isolation and alienation. Lydia is a world-renowned sound artist, but she is also a deeply troubled woman. She is haunted by her past, and she is struggling to find meaning in her life. it also allows us to see Lydia's inner turmoil unfold. it was not interested in providing easy answers, but it does offer a glimpse into the inner life of a complex and troubled woman.The film's use of silence is also effective. The silences in the film allow the viewer to focus on the natural sounds of the island, but they also allow us to reflect on Lydia's inner turmoil.The film's ending is ambiguous, but it's also open-ended. The ending leaves us to decide what happens to Lydia
I would also like to add that I found the film to be very timely. In a world that is increasingly connected, Tár offers a powerful reminder of the importance of solitude and connection with nature. The film's slow pace and lack of dialogue allow the viewer to slow down and reflect on their own lives. I found this to be a very valuable experience, and I think it is something that everyone should try at least once.
and this film may be something i would not chose to watch voluntarily  because it is not something that i would pick but i would say it was a new experience.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the film was excellently made and very thought provoking. In relation to its subject matter, I think the film portrays Tar as a complex character who is not entirely sympathetic; her ardent passion for musical arts and conducting and the apparent success in her career are contrasted by cold severity, hypocrisy, and unbecoming classism. Specifics about her involvement with the Krista are not revealed, but it is clear that there was an intimate but brief relationship between them, that Tar broke it off suddenly, and that she subsequently professionally condemned Krista such that orchestras would not take her on. Tar also evidently feels some guilt about this, even before the news of Krista's death, but when Francesca becomes gravely concerned, Tar advises her to cut off Krista as well. Francesca complies, presumably in the hopes that she could advance her career by staying near the illustrious Tar. But when Francesca sees how Tar treats Olga, and then is denied the spot of assistant conductor because Tar had to save face after showing such blatant favoritism, Francesca, perhaps fearing that Tar might repeat her pattern with Olga, leaves Tar and supplies the accusation with e-mail evidence which make Tar's situation untenable and causes her to be dropped from the recording session.

By carefully characterizing Tar, and by limiting the focal points of her incident with Krista to its repercussions, I think the film defies a facile reading as apologetics. It depicts guilt, denial, and frustration; it does not cast Tar as a victim, nor does it depict her anger as righteous. It is cause and effect, and all of the unpleasant emotions which come with the consequences of one's actions. As mentioned in the film, patterns of accusation and ostracization are nothing new; the only thing that has changed in the near term is tolerance for sexual misconduct in the workplace, and the willingness to discuss it as a serious issue.

I also think that there's something to the tension between art and artist, and professional and personal; neither distinction is clear-cut. All of our labor is necessarily personal, mediated through relationships. While most labors can be and are alienated from ourselves, artistic pursuits occupy a tenuous place, as its subject matter is intensely personal in both substance and form. A common feature of many so-called civilized societies is a sharp distinction between public and private, professional and personal; points at which intensely personal feelings of attraction become heavily complicated by professional power structures are bound to become tense sites of personal drama. The taboo of broaching the topic of inappropriate workplace relationships perhaps is weakening as a consequence of the fact that the realms of public and private are being blurred as never before by digital information technologies; if the workplace can and will invade our personal lives in its expectations of constant availability, then why should our professional environments expect to remain blind to the abuses of personal power that it tacitly enables?

I'm curious to hear if others read the film the same way, or if my interpretation missed something important.