I guess we have to talk about this scene from the movie Tár:
https://twitter.com/JoelWBerry/status/1593279643045564416?s=20&t=YEJ_LFkAo5ZK8k1YdWtnRA
The line that really stands out is this:
“If Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality and so on, then so can yours”
I haven't seen the film, but perhaps we can discuss just this scene? I have the idea that Cate Blanchett's character might be a villain, but again maybe we can just take this scene for itself.
Comments?
There is no point in discussing it. This is an ideological struggle that will be ultimately resolved through blood.
ReplyDeleteIt will not end up well for us…. The winter is coming
———
From introduction
EMPIRES OF THE SILK ROAD
A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present
CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH
——————————
“….According to the Modernist imperative, the old must always, unceasingly, be replaced by the new, thus producing permanent revolution. The Postmodernist point of view, the logical development of Modernism, rejects what it calls the positivist, essentially non-Modern practice of evaluating and judging problems or objects according to specific agreed criteria. Instead, Postmodernists consider all judgments to be relative. “In our post-modern age, we can no longer take recourse to [sic] the myth of ‘objectivity,’ ” it is claimed. “Suspicions are legitimately aroused due to the considerable differences in the opinions of the foremost authorities in this area.” History is only opinion. Therefore, no valid judgments can be made. We cannot know what happened or why, but can only guess at the modern motivations for the modern “construction of identity” of a nation, the nationalistic polemics of anti-intellectuals and nonscholars, and so on. All manuscripts are equally valuable, so it is a waste of time to edit them—or worse, they are said to be important mainly for the information they reveal about their scribes and their cultural milieux, so producing critical editions of them eliminates this valuable information. Besides, we cannot know what any author really intended to say anyway, so there is no point in even trying to find out what he or she actually wrote. Art is whatever anyone claims to be art. No ranking of it is possible. There is no good art or bad art; all is only opinion. Therefore it is impossible, formally, to improve art; one can only change it. Unfortunately, obligatory constant change, and the elimination of all criteria, necessarily equals or produces stasis: no real change. The same applies to politics, in which the Modern “democratic” system allows only superficial change and thus produces stasis. Because no valid judgments can be made by humans — all human judgments are opinions only — all data must be equal. (As a consequence, Postmodernists’ judgment about the invalidity of judgments must also be invalid, but the idea of criticizing Postmodernist dogma does not seem to be popular among them.) In accordance with the Postmodernist view, there is only a choice between religious belief in whatever one is told (i.e., suspension of disbelief) or total skepticism (suspension of both belief and disbelief). In both cases, the result, if followed resolutely to the logical extreme, is cessation of thought, or at least elimination of even the possibility of critical thought. If the vast majority of people, who are capable only of the former choice (total belief), are joined by intellectuals and artists, all agreeing to abandon reason, the result will be an age of credulity, repression, and terror that will put all earlier ones to shame. I do not think this is ‘good’. I think it is ‘bad’. I reject Modernism and its hyper-Modern mutation, Postmodernism. They are anti-intellectual movements that have wreaked great damage in practically all fields of human endeavor. I hope that a future generation of young people might be inspired to attack these movements and reject them so that one day a new age of fine arts (at least) will dawn…”
The quoted line is very stupid. No doubt the particulars of his content (the religious texts, the harmonic language, the instruments intended, etc) were inherited through his particular historical setting country. But NOBODY's talent (or lack thereof) "can be reduced to his gender, birth religion, sexuality and so on..." Bach was among the best of a few others also of his time and place who had the same such attributes. No doubt the vast majority of men in Bach's time and place who also had the same quoted attributes were absolute musical duds.
ReplyDeleteYep.
ReplyDeleteFirst, many thanks, Mr. Townsend, for this blog. I never fail to find the postings intelligent, thought-provoking, and a lot of fun to read. I’ve learned much from reading it.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with--and empathized with--Mr. Wilkin’s insightful comments that accompanied "An art national in form and socialist in content.” Would that his appreciation of the benefits of capitalism--with all its flaws--verses socialism be more widely shared. I am, however, kind of nonplused by his remark concerning the “stupidity” of the line about Bach from the film Tár. I can only assume that Mr. Wilkin has not yet seen the movie, otherwise he would know that the line in question which Cate Blanchett’s character delivers is to a young recalcitrant music student who cannot, will not, “identify” with the dead, white J. S. Bach. The line is meant as a warning to the student that he himself might one day be “cancelled” by those who share his ignorant worldview. The reaction of the student to this take-down is to angrily dismiss the Blanchett character as a “bitch” as he collects his belongings and exits the room.
Recommending films is fraught with risk, but my hope is that Tár receives a wider audience than it probably will. Just my 2-cents, of course, but I left the movie theater thinking that the film is courageous and extraordinary on several levels, beginning with Blanchett’s performance.
Thanks, Jim, and welcome to the Music Salon. I'm glad you are enjoying it. Re the comment by Will, I think that what he meant was that it would be stupid to think that Bach's (or anyone's for that matter) talent could be reduced to his gender, birth country, sexuality and so on. If other words, I think you are actually in agreement.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bryan, for your welcoming reply, and for the clarification concerning Mr Wilkin's--having not had an actual exchange with the good fellow, it would seem presumptuous of me to refer to him using his first name--comment. The point I failed to articulate in my original post is that Tar is being utterly factious when she delivers the line in question to her closed-minded student, intending it as a warning to the young man that he himself could become a victim of the illiberal ideology he embraces (if indeed such thinking can be called an ideology).
ReplyDeleteI really need to see this film to see how this fits into the overall context of the characters. I'm afraid of being captured by one good thing that an otherwise questionable character said.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I think we are very much dealing with ideologies here.
Curious to know how you mean “questionable.” For sure, Lydia Tar is flawed. In what ways exactly and how deeply would, I think, depend on one’s worldview. I very much look forward to your thoughts after you’ve had an opportunity to see the movie. Ethical, ideological considerations aside, I found the film brilliant and courageous both artistically and politically—though in no way is it a polemic. (I’m a firm believer that agitprop is not art).
ReplyDeleteIn my last missive I typed “factious” when I meant “facetious.” Bad habit not proofreading before pressing the “send” key.