[Enthusiast]

And one of the characters is, allegedly, an obvious reference to Marin Alsop; she is not best pleased. The director has denied that Tar is based on anyone.

Only just released here (10 days ago). I think I don't need to see it on the big screen.

I've not seen the film but my understanding is that the conductor's career development mirrors Alsop's but that no attempt was made to base her character on Alsop's. Alsop is one of many who feel that choosing to show a woman as an abusive power freak - when the cases we know of were all men - is anti-feminist. Personally (and without having seen the film) I can buy into the idea that it is power that corrupts rather than testosterone.

 

[Enthusiast]

It's about James Levine...isn't it? Or shall i say inspired by that piece of scum.

My understanding - could be wrong? - is that the evidence against Levine was very strong. The film is deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not Tar was guilty of anything more than being a bit of a dictator. The film, then, might be aimed at people who are delighted to pour bile on anyone rumoured without due process to have done something heinous.

 

[Enthusiast]

The movie was pretty clear that Tar had had a sexual relationship with an aspiring conductor under her supervision, and then when the relationship ended, sabotaged her career by sending negative recommendations to other orchestras - leading to her suicide. She then hired a new musician based on her attractiveness and tried to start a physical relationship with her.

So while these actions are not rape per se, they're pretty classic sexual harassment and "creation of hostile work environment."

I disagree that it was clear about those things. It didn't show so much and it was clear that some scenes were fantasy. It hinted that stuff might have happened. I think that was the point of the film - that we make up our own minds based on our own suspicions - and I think also that was why a woman conductor was chosen as the focus (rather a strange choice otherwise). Viewers might be more willing to keep an open mind about a woman, even a powerful one.

 

[Enthusiast]

My understanding is that the film is not really ambiguous as to what Tar did or the moral judgment on what she did. What it is ambiguous about is the answer to this question: which side is right, Tar and the tradition, institution and worldview she embodies, or the forces that challenged and eventually dethroned her. The film essentially rejects the simplistic way this question is formulated.

Funny how the film inspires so many different interpretations and leaves us unable to demonstrate that what we saw was what was there. Fascinating.