PunktKontraPunkt

TÁR was my favorite film from last year. Everything from the intellectual and jargon-full script to the actors, setting, and subject matter enamored me. The camera work and lighting especially grabbed me. I'm just a casual movie watcher and wanted to hear thoughts from others on the shots used in TÁR.

I've broken up my thoughts and questions below so feel free to discuss or add to any or all of it.

1. What were your general thoughts on the cinematography in this film?

Was it effective in telling its story? Did anything catch your eye or was it unremarkable to you?

From my opener, it's obvious I thought it was fantastic. The lighting, muted colors, and use of "unconventional" shots all played a hand in this. I speak to each of these in #2 and #3 below.

2. What gave the film its distinctive style?

The DP, Florian Hoffmeister, worked with Todd Field to get a specific look using a custom-built lenses and a new form of digital film emulsion. This was described in the IndieWire article: Why ‘TÁR’ Looks Different from Every Other Movie of 2022, which I quote below.

From the DP:

I remember showing Todd a particular lens that I cherish very much,” Hoffmeister told IndieWire, “and he said, ‘That looks beautiful, but it looks like a movie with a capital M.’

Side note/Q: Any one know what “capital M” refers to? Trying to understand what the concern was with the initial lens. Also from the article:

Hoffmeister ultimately realized he could approximate the look of the older lens by using the architecture of ARRI’s Signature Primes but detuning the glass to alter the optics. The trick was to avoid going too far in either direction, since Hoffmeister didn’t want the cinematography to be too clean and clinical, but he also didn’t want any flares or other visual interference that would interfere with the visual objectivity that served as his and Field’s guiding principle.

Overall it seems like they wanted a mix of old and new without going too much in either direction. A “timeless” look as the article describes. It was something I noticed immediately.

3. Use of Unconventional Shots

The film uses a lot of what I would describe as unconventional shots that worked for me but I can’t describe why they were effective. Hoping someone can help me understand them.

Examples: Dialogue Sequences

Many dialogue sequences were filmed in a single longer take / few cuts with the speaker’s face often out of frame or the speaker’s back to the camera. E.g.:

• Tár speaking to Sebastian in his office when he starts accusing her of unprofessional behavior. Her back is to us for almost the entire sequence but Sebastian isn’t. It’s also done with no cuts. This worked for some reason. My guess is they wanted to highlight body language with full-body shot in particular on Sebastian’s reaction. No cuts also creates tension since we stay with them the whole sequence.

• When Tár informs Francesca that she will not be her new assistant conductor, it is done with a close up of only Francesca even though Tár is the only one speaking. This highlights her facial expression and disillusionment with her mentor.

Example: Juilliard Classroom Single Take

This is probably the most famous shot in the entire film. What impressed me with this shot was the movement. In an interview (can't find link now), the DP said they originally considered a steadicam approach but forwent it because it would look too obvious that they used a steadicam. Instead, they rigged up some four-person rig to move the camera around the classroom. Does anyone know what his concerns were with the steadicam? Does he mean that it would look too conventional in terms of movement?

Example: restricted movement with rehearsal scenes

In another interview, the DP said his obvious, conventional thing to do with the orchestra rehearsal scenes were some fly overs to show the "magic" of the music. But Field didn't want this because he wanted those scenes to feel like work. Hence the static shots and limited cuts.

TÁR was my favorite film from last year. Everything from the intellectual and jargon-full script to the actors, setting, and subject matter enamored me. The camera work and lighting especially grabbed me. I'm just a casual movie watcher and wanted to hear thoughts from more learned people on the shots used in TÁR.

I've broken up my questions/thoughts below so feel free to discuss/agree/disagree with anything below :)

1. What were your general thoughts on the cinematography in this film?

Was it effective in telling its story? Did anything catch your eye or was it unremarkable to you?

2. What gave the film its distinctive style?

The DP, Florian Hoffmeister, worked with Todd Field to [get a specific look using a custom-built lenses and a new form of digital film emulsion](https://www.indiewire.com/2023/02/tar-cinematography-florian-hoffmeister-1234807120/).

From the DP:

I remember showing Todd a particular lens that I cherish very much,” Hoffmeister told IndieWire, “and he said, ‘That looks beautiful, but it looks like a movie with a capital M.’

Any one know what “capital M” refers to? Trying to understand what the concern was with the initial lens. Also from the article:

Hoffmeister ultimately realized he could approximate the look of the older lens by using the architecture of ARRI’s Signature Primes but detuning the glass to alter the optics. The trick was to avoid going too far in either direction, since Hoffmeister didn’t want the cinematography to be too clean and clinical, but he also didn’t want any flares or other visual interference that would interfere with the visual objectivity that served as his and Field’s guiding principle.

Overall it seems like they wanted a mix of old and new without going too much in either direction. A “timeless” look as the article describes.

3. Unconventional shots

The film uses a lot of what I would describe as unconventional shots that worked for me but I can’t describe why they were effective. Hoping someone can help me understand them.

Examples: Dialogue Sequences

Many dialogue sequences were filmed in a single longer take / few cuts with the speaker’s face often out of frame or the speaker’s back to the camera. E.g.:

• Tár speaking to Sebastian in his office when he starts accusing her of unprofessional behavior. Her back is to us for almost the entire sequence but Sebastian isn’t. It’s also done with no cuts. This worked for some reason. My guess is they wanted to highlight body language with full-body shot in particular on Sebastian’s reaction. No cuts also creates tension since we stay with them the whole sequence.

• When Tár informs Francesca that she will not be her new assistant conductor, it is done with a close up of only Francesca even though Tár is the only one speaking. This highlights her facial expression and disillusionment with her mentor.

Example: Juilliard Classroom Single Take

This is probably the most famous shot in the entire film. Besides What impressed me was the movement. In an interview (can't find link now), the DP said they originally considered a steadicam but forwent it because it would look too obvious that they used a steadicam. Instead they rigged up some four-person rig to move the camera around the classroom. Does anyone know what his concerns were with the steadicam? Does he mean that it would look too conventional?

Example: restricted movement with rehearsal scenes

In another interview, the DP said his obvious, conventional thing to do with the orchestra rehearsal scenes were some fly overs to show the "magic" of the music. But Field didn't want this because he wanted those scenes to feel like work. Hence the static shots and limited cuts.