Writer-director Todd Field made two acclaimed movies within the early 2000s after which disappeared from the large display screen for 16 years. “Tár,” in regards to the scandalous downfall of a classical music conductor, marks his return. The film burst forth in dramatic style: Its screenplay took him solely three months to jot down.
In this episode of “The Envelope,” Field breaks down how a Górecki composition impressed the interior rhythm of lead character Lydia Tár and discusses what it was like collaborating with star Cate Blanchett, who “always wants to do things that are dangerous.” He additionally explains why he’s delighted by reactions to his movie — even these which can be ferociously dismissive. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.
Mark Olsen: Hello, and welcome to a different episode of “The Envelope.” We’re contemporary into 2023, and our visitor is certain to assist us begin the brand new yr off proper. Today we’re speaking with author and director Todd Field, whose newest movie, “Tár,” has some actually strong Oscar and awards season buzz. It’s an exploration of an artist’s fall from grace.
Yvonne Villarreal: Yeah, the film stars Cate Blanchett as Lydia Tár, this famend musical conductor whose checklist of achievements is dizzying. We watch as Lydia’s profession falls aside when her use and abuse of energy involves mild.
Todd wrote and directed the movie after a 16-year absence from filmmaking. His final film was “Little Children,” which bought three Oscar nominations, and critics say “Tár” is a triumphant return.
But the really gorgeous a part of all of this, Mark, particularly as we face our personal story deadlines as we speak: He wrote “Tár” in three months. Three months! It’s fairly the profession turnaround for Todd, whose begin in Hollywood was as an actor.
Olsen: Yeah, it’s humorous: The type of well-known Quentin Tarantino monologue about “Top Gun” truly is delivered to Todd — like he’s the opposite individual in that scene — which is especially sort of humorous on this, the yr of “Top Gun’s” return. I feel to most individuals, although, Todd as an actor, you consider the piano-playing Nick Nightingale in Stanley Kubrick’s last movie, “Eyes Wide Shut” — a bizarre, marvelous, provocative film. Which, come to think about it, isn’t a nasty technique to describe “Tár.”
Villarreal: Yes, precisely. And I’ve to present honorable point out to his position in “Twister,” which is a private favourite of mine and which we do talk about later within the dialog. But I’ve to say, you understand, he’s as considerate and intentional and coy as you may anticipate when discussing “Tár.”
So let’s get to the dialog.
Villarreal: Todd, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us as we speak.
Todd Field: Well, thanks for having me.
Villarreal: So, Todd, that is the primary movie you’ve written and directed in 16 years, however you had been all the time busy. You spent a lot of these 16 years engaged on tasks that finally didn’t make it to display screen. What was it about “Tár” that was totally different?
Field: Well, uh, that any individual stated sure, you understand. Simply as that, actually. But it was actually Peter Kujawski and Kiska Higgs at Focus principally saying, “Write whatever you like.” That was an enormous accountability to be paid that privilege and respect to jot down no matter you needed. And you understand, I hadn’t written an unique screenplay in years as a result of usually that sort of factor is completed on spec and I’ve by no means had a four-month runway the place I didn’t have a variety of payments to pay. So most of my writing life relies on adaptation. So it was a really totally different alternative, and one which I really feel very, very fortunate to have had.
Villarreal: Yeah, ‘cause what is it like to get a call like that? I know for me as a writer to be told, “You have free rein, do what you want,” it could seem freeing, but I would also feel so much pressure, feel handicapped by that freedom. How is that for you?
Field: Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I remember our eldest child, our daughter, when she went away to the New School in New York City and she had called me up at one point and said that she was thinking of doing something very practical with her life that involved numbers. I went on a sort of polemical, long speech trying to tell her that that was exactly what I wouldn’t pay for and that she needed to attempt to do extra artistic endeavors. I stated, “You can do whatever you want.” And she stated, “Do you understand what kind of pressure you’re putting on me? I don’t want that kind of freedom.”
Field: You know, I felt a little bit of my daughter’s pangs by giving a type of related speech from Peter and Kiska. On the opposite hand, I’ve been very privileged to work with some unimaginable writers over time and I’d loved that rather a lot, however I’ve additionally envied their solitude and their capacity to world construct from floor zero. That’s one thing once you’re adapting materials that you just solely have a type of obscure acquaintance with. So that was extremely thrilling, and it was a really wealthy expertise.
Villarreal: Where did the concept for Lydia Tár come from? I do know it’s a personality that’s been percolating in your thoughts for some years. Was there part of the character that exposed itself to you first?
Field: Well, she’s type of been waving at me for about 10 years. You know, I feel this occurs for lots of writers, you understand, and typically these are characters wind up in fiction when you’re a fiction author. But when you’re not, there’s no place to deal with them apart from a pocket book.
There was type of a obscure thought to jot down one thing about classical music that concerned a conductor. That was type of it. Other than that, the studio actually had no thought, nor did they inform me what they needed. So it was an ideal alternative to take this character and simply say, “All right, here we go. It’s time.”
[Clip from “Tár”: LYDIA TÁR: Please please please please. You must watch. It’s got to be like just one person singing their heart out.]
Villarreal: Why did you select the hyper-specific world of classical conducting?
Field: Well, the hierarchy is sort of clear. The strains of energy are very comprehensible. For somebody standing on the entrance of that orchestra, it’s unimaginable. It’s the closest factor to being a god on Mount Olympus, you understand, throwing down thunderbolts at mere mortals. So, that, together with what can be concerned with any sort of cultural, bureaucratic machine — you understand, the nods and winks and the choice making processes that contain different individuals, and them benefiting from energy or not.
Villarreal: How did you determine to additionally take it to a different nation with one other language? That would appear like an added problem.
Field: There’s one thing about Berlin that’s not like wherever else on the Earth. Anyone that’s frolicked in Berlin will let you know that you may’t flip left or proper with out seeing any individual pulling a suitcase down the road. And these individuals are not vacationers. They’re those that reside there and commute to different cities and nations for enterprise for a cause: as a result of they adore it there. So there’s a really explicit sort of crossroads of many arts — positive and in any other case— and there was a convention for that for a very long time.
But for classical music, it’s the very omphalos, all the things’s type of seated, and it’s the hub. Everything type of spokes out from Germany. So that was the primary cause. You know, it’s additionally this concept of, when you’re going to set one thing on this milieu and also you’re going to have this character be an American and also you’re going to have this character wish to climb to the very heights, that’s German-Austro territory. That is the place Leonard Bernstein went and had his type of final hurrah. There’s a cause for that. That’s the place that music comes from.
Villarreal: The factor that I did instantly after exiting the theater, along with type of sitting with my ideas, was needed to take heed to Mahler’s Symphony No. 5 on my approach dwelling. It performs such a central position within the movie. Why did you determine on Mahler?
Field: So, once more, when you’re taking a look at an American, that’s type of like setting their sights on a type of heroic determine for themselves — on this case, this character’s obsessive about Leonard Bernstein — Mahler can be pure. Everything adjustments with Mahler, you understand? I wanted to get beneath that, and I wanted to know that.
I learn the guide “For the Love of Music” by John Mauceri. and John, John had been Leonard Bernstein’s assistant for 15 years. John was allowed to conduct Leonard Bernstein’s personal compositions whereas Bernstein was alive. And he was the person who I used to be privileged to talk to earlier than I began writing.
I had about three and a half weeks with John, and one of many first questions that John requested me was, “What’s your favorite piece of classical music?” And I stated, in a really type of apologist approach, stated, “Well, it’s Mahler’s Fifth.” And he stated, “Well, why are you being so sheepish about that?” And I stated, “Well, you know, everybody knows that.” And he stated, “Yeah, everyone knows it for a good reason, you know. No one that’s serious about concert music would ever be cynical about Mahler’s Fifth Symphony. It’s important, and here’s why.” And so he actually took me by way of that.
And in fact, he was completely proper. I imply the primary piece of conducting we see, the very first downbeat, is Bar 20 of the primary motion of the Fifth Symphony, and that in fact is the Trauermarsch, or the Funeral March. So there’s a variety of foreshadowing for this character. There’s this type of clarion name that she will be able to hear that’s coming from throughout an unlimited panorama, that’s coming for her.
Villarreal: What did that imply for you when it comes to writing? Like, what had been you listening to when you had been growing this undertaking? Or are you somebody that should sit in silence when you’re working?
Field: I didn’t develop it. I imply I simply sort of wrote it in 12 weeks and handed it in, and so they stated sure. So, very unusual scenario, very uncommon. But I used to be listening to a variety of music. I imply, one of many items I used to be listening to was a bit of music I’d been listening to for 30 years since I used to be a, my first yr as a fellow on the American Film Institute. That was this piece by Górecki, that the Kronos Quartet recorded that’s only a unbelievable piece of music. It has a sort of propulsion to it that Hildur Guðnadóttir, our composer, she requested me the identical factor, “What were you listening to?” And so we sat down and listened to this. And she stated, “Well, that’s 120 beats per minute — bum bum bum bum — so that must be the internal rhythm of this character.” And I stated, “Yeah, you’re right. That’s exactly why I listened to it.” And she stated, “OK, well now, let’s go through the other characters now.” That was a extremely wealthy and fantastic expertise to have the ability to work like that, you understand, from the within out.
Villarreal: Why do you suppose the writing got here collectively so shortly? How does that examine to your different movies, which had been, you understand, in fact, adaptation?
Field: I feel it went shortly as a result of it was a huge alternative to dive into one other world and escape for a minute, you understand, from what was going by way of on the planet. It was the start of March 2020. It was a lockdown. We had been all attempting to determine if there was going to be something resembling the world that we knew earlier than that.
I’ve talked to different filmmakers who’ve movies out proper now, and I feel all of us had a really related feeling, like, “Who am I? You know, what do I do?”
Villarreal: Right, hmm. One of the issues that makes the music world within the movie so genuine and the character of Lydia Tár appear so lifelike is that you just mix these fictionalized components with references to individuals who actually do exist in historical past, like a number of well-known composers. And in fact you could have Adam Gopnik, the New Yorker author, enjoying himself within the opening scene of the film. Why did you make that alternative?
Field: Um, properly, it’s a quite simple factor. You know, actually, there’s 4 factors of view within the movie, primarily. The first viewpoint is the unknown viewpoint. We’re seeing her asleep on this non-public plane and any individual’s texting snide feedback backwards and forwards, however we don’t know who that somebody is. So there’s that viewpoint. That’s our approach in.
The subsequent viewpoint is pretty goal. We have proximity to her, and that’s seeing her for the very first time going by way of these kinds of rituals, and attempting to organize herself to exit and carry out. That’s what these interviews are. They’re performances. I imply, this can be a efficiency I’m giving to you proper now. I’m attempting to be charming and educated and spectacular and all these items, however there’s a transaction between us.
Villarreal: You’re doing nice.
Field: Yeah. I imply, we’re enjoying roles with each other and we’re in dialogue, however we’re in dialogue for a goal, and he or she’s about prepared to do that with Adam Gopnik. And the New Yorker talks can be precisely the sort of approach to try this and to satisfy this individual and see their capacity to carry out and to see the self-construction at its absolute earlier than we deconstruct it.
So it was essential. It was essential as a result of we’re in a position to see the phoniness behind that too, in a lot as her assistant, Francesca Lentini, performed by Noémie Merlant, once you see her mouthing what Adam’s trotting out when it comes to that biography, you understand precisely how these items work. And it’s enterprise, you understand? But I needed to maintain her at arm’s size and get nearer and nearer and nearer to her in order that by the point she lastly goes dwelling and we see her, you understand, brushing her gums and her enamel like the remainder of us, that it felt like probably the most monumentally thrilling second to have that sort of entry to her. You know, that’s how I really feel as a result of that’s type of the place the movie begins. From that second on, she has toes of clay. She walks amongst mortals. She’s not in these lofty heights, you understand?
Villarreal: Hmm. It’s attention-grabbing ’trigger with that distance, there’s a number of decisions that you just’re type of making that type of complicates our capacity to type of take a stance on Lydia’s culpability. I imply there’s the truth that Lydia’s a girl slightly than a person, that the viewers is type of saved at the hours of darkness in regards to the sexual relationship between Lydia and her victims, and we by no means type of get that shut as much as the ache that Lydia experiences after falling from energy. Talk about these explicit vantage factors.
Field: Well, the foundations of the movie are, once more, we’re allowed type of, 4 factors of view. One of them is all-powerful, which is thru some sorts of system. The different one is extra goal, the place we’re simply together with her and we’re allowed to expertise in actual time what she experiences. The third one can be issues that we’re allowed entry to inside her inside life — creativeness, desires, what have you ever. Those are very sparse, however we do have entry to them. And the fourth are actually the watching of her assistant, Noémie Merlant, after which when she leaves, that’s actually embodied in what can be the guts of our entry, which is thru Sharon Goodnow, her spouse, performed by Nina Hoss. So, these are the foundations.
And I feel once you’re speaking about what she could or could haven’t carried out, we’re allowed entry to what she’s doing in actual time. What got here earlier than is none of our enterprise. We will not be allowed to have that entry. We’re dropping in at a really explicit second for her and spending three weeks of her life together with her. It’s actually simply following this character, in this time period with three weeks, after which a really quick denouement. And that’s type of it. The cause for that’s: Any strains which can be drawn or conclusions which can be drawn, similar to in life, are left to us. So that’s type of the train, which is: What do you make of her primarily based on the time that you just spend together with her? And no matter that’s, is sort of the purpose of the movie.
Villarreal: Well, and it’s prompted a variety of dialog and evaluation and theories. I imply, there was an article lately over on Slate that argued that the movie’s last act may simply be occurring inside Lydia’s head. Like, what do you consider that studying?
Field: I feel all these readings are extremely thrilling and legitimate insomuch as that they’re articulated by people in a extremely particular method. And they really feel satisfied of their opinions. And once more, that was the intent behind making this movie in order that there can be potential for that to occur. So it’s thrilling, you understand, to listen to individuals’s totally different readings. Even readings which can be very strongly political or unfavourable or dismissive — however ferociously dismissive, you understand? As lengthy as individuals are engaged, I imply, that’s type of the purpose.
Villarreal: So are you conscious of what individuals are saying? Are you somebody that reads the evaluations or reads the evaluation that comes after it?
Field: I’ve had individuals ship me just a few issues. I don’t learn all the things, um, however I’ve learn sufficient to be delighted. There’s a broad spectrum of reactions for the movie.
Villarreal: I do know you wish to type of let the movie communicate for itself, however do you could have an opinion on whether or not Lydia is a villain or a sufferer of cancel tradition?
Field: I’m not inquisitive about any of these phrases. I don’t see individuals as heroes or victims. Um, sure, there’s a scandal component on this. But that scandal component might be in “The Scarlet Letter.” It might be in Shakespeare. I imply, the supply system of that scandal and the best way that that’s communicated is what it’s as a result of these are the occasions we reside in. And these are the occasions we reside in as a result of we’ve been in a patriarchy for hundreds of years, of a variety of dangerous habits of those that maintain the thunderbolts that do wield the ability. And that energy, you understand, to make use of a drained phrase, corrupts. Corrupts completely. So that’s extra what I used to be inquisitive about, is what does energy do? How does energy profit? And who’s complicit? And who advantages and who doesn’t? Because no person has energy with out complicity. No one.
Villarreal: Well, how has engaged on the movie made you rethink the ability that you just wield as a director and filmmaker?
Field: That’s a good query. I don’t really feel very highly effective. Um, I really feel actually drained.
It’s not a glamorous job. It’s a bodily intensive job, and it’s additionally, it’s a job the place you are worried about all the things continuously. The wolf on the door is that you just’re going to overlook one thing. That you’re going to overlook a possibility that you just shouldn’t have missed, and then you definitely’ll have this factor on the market and also you’ll remorse it eternally. So it’s a really masochistic self-discipline. But I suppose, yeah, I imply, there are well-known examples of very dictatorial, very menacing administrators, however I haven’t encountered any of them.
Villarreal: And you don’t think about your self that.
Field: Well, I imply, I actually can’t communicate to that. I’m positive others would disagree.
Villarreal: Now, Todd, let’s speak about what it was wish to work with Cate Blanchett. You stated earlier than that you just wrote the character Lydia Tár for her. I’m curious: How did seeing Cate carry out that position, seeing her deliver your writing to life, change the best way you considered the character?
Field: You know, Stanley Kubrick used to say, you understand, “I write a script and I think, ‘Wow. Really talented screenwriter.’ And then I direct the script and I say, ‘That screenwriter was an idiot, but the director’s really smart.’ You know, and then I go into editing and I say, ‘God, that director’s a total hack,’ you know.”
I feel that anyone that writes their very own materials, there’s all the time that factor since you’re all the time stunned by what occurs. However, it’s not till the opposite artists, the opposite filmmakers, present up, the place you actually know what the factor is. The approach that they method materials, the best way they method a personality, the best way they transfer or their intent or the sound of their voice is completely indescribably thrilling. Or horrifying, you understand.
For somebody like Cate, you understand, Cate Blanchett is a generational artist. There’s just one Cate Blanchett, and he or she approaches her materials like a filmmaker. You know, she actually walks across the factor and talks in regards to the factor and tries to determine what it’s, above and past what the character is that she’s going to be inhabiting. That in itself may be very wealthy and makes you take a look at your personal materials very in a different way.
Villarreal: How does that type of inform your method together with her? How a lot of your job is guiding her efficiency versus simply letting her unfastened?
Field: Well, um, that’s query. Cate, she all the time desires to do issues which can be harmful. That’s a giant phrase for her, “danger.” She by no means desires to take the straightforward route. She desires you to make it more durable for her. And I bear in mind her telling me, you understand, “If I’m terrible, if I’m too loud or something, just say, ‘Stop it.’” And I assumed, “What an odd thing. Of course I’m not going to do that.” You know, however she actually compelled me to push her other ways.
Because we began together with her conducting — that’s the way it labored out — she had in some ways grow to be this character as a result of she’d already skilled in a really actual, visceral approach what it’s wish to conduct an orchestra. She understood the place inherently. And I feel that basically knowledgeable her efficiency deal.
But when it comes to what that collaboration is like, that’s actually — you understand, at that time, you’ve carried out sufficient work collectively earlier than you arrive. You’ve talked by way of what the character’s journey is. You’ve spoken about their relationships. You’ve talked about potentialities. You’ve carried out all this different work.
Typically, I might attempt to rehearse for a number of weeks with a solid. In this case, it was good that Cate and I had a variety of time collectively earlier than beginning the image as a result of, by necessity, a variety of that rehearsal was dedicated to music and the preparation of music and all the things that she and Nina Hoss and Sophie Kauer had needed to do. We solely had about half that period of time to truly undergo and do scene work collectively.
Villarreal: There’s a pivotal early scene within the movie that unfolds in a single take, and it’s a BIPOC, pan-gender pupil type of expressing discomfort enjoying music written by straight white males. And it turns into this, you understand, extremely charged generational face-off. And Cate’s efficiency is riveting. And like, what route did you give her earlier than that scene?
Field: “Direction” is a humorous phrase. I imply, we discuss, you understand. That’s what you actually do once you make stuff with individuals: You discuss. And that dialog has parity, and hopefully, you’re ending one another’s sentences otherwise you’re pushing one another. I imply, on the floor, the issues that you just level out are there, however what’s beneath this scene actually is, for me, is one thing else. That’s the primary scene that I wrote. And the impetus for that scene was actually simply the age-old query: If your middle-aged self might return and discuss to your 24-year-old self and impart some knowledge, what would you say, you understand?
So there’s a few issues happening. On the one hand, when she was Max’s age, the coed, she would’ve been Max. She would’ve been pushing each attainable boundary she might. She would’ve been ignoring canonical work. She wouldn’t have cared about useless white man music. She would’ve been breaking each glass ceiling. She would’ve been engaged on atonal music. And we all know from her biography that she was taking place and attempting to get on the root of what she thought was the purity of creating noise, which is, on this case, was these icaros within the jap Amazon.
That’s who she was. That child sitting in that classroom, that’s who she was. So, why has she turned her again on that? Because when she did that at 24, that’s about shedding your ego. That’s about dropping your id. And the place we meet her proper now, she’s definitely not there. She has a brilliant ego, proper? And she’s embraced this music that’s very patriarchal. And that she’s following within the footsteps of patriarchal icons like Bernstein or Von Karajan or Abbado, and many others.
So the place does that scene begin? It begins with us listening to the sound. And that sound is “Ró.” It’s an unimaginable piece of music by Anna Thorvaldsdottir, this Icelandic composer, who’s heralded and sung and well-known in lots of circles. And the very first thing she does is she makes enjoyable of it. Now, why does she try this? Well, you understand, in that scene, what does she say about Anna Thorvaldsdottir? She’s not supplying you with any interpretation. She’s principally indicating that she’s misplaced, which, Lydia Tár herself is having this second the place she’s misplaced. But she is also speaking a few feminine composer who has a profile that she would most likely wish to have and, as she describes her herself, is younger and exquisite. So that to me was you understand, what was essential about this, which is that she’s taking a look at legacy. She’s wanting within the rearview mirror and saying, “How am I being perceived? Are there any mountains to climb? And if there are, will I actually reach them?”
Villarreal: Well, please enable me to be annoying, Todd. Like, at this stage in your life and profession, what would you inform your youthful self?
Field: Oh boy. What would I inform my youthful self? Wow, that is going to get very confessional. You know what I might do? I might inform my youthful self, and I might inform my youngsters this too: Put 10 cents of each greenback away within the financial institution and don’t contact it.
Field: If solely I had listened.
Villarreal: Seriously. Oh my gosh.
Villarreal: Beyond “Tár,” you made a variety of makes an attempt at bold diversifications of novels since your final movie, “Little Children,” however they finally didn’t make it to display screen. Can you speak about what that felt like? Was there ever a second the place you thought-about, “Is this telling me something? Do I need to take my career in a different direction?” Like, what had been you feeling in these moments?
Field: It takes an act of religion for anybody to sit down down and work on materials. You need to imagine that this one is essential sufficient to me, and it will likely be essential sufficient to another person and it’ll occur. I feel it might be protected to say anybody who does this type of work feels that approach. They need to really feel that approach. And the query is: Are you inbuilt such a way that you may shake it off when any individual says the kid is ugly or they don’t wish to take a look at it? You need to preserve hope alive and never get discouraged. And I feel that’s the toughest half.
But it took me a very long time to get my first movie on. It took me 5 years after movie college to get my first movie on and 5 years after my first movie to get my second movie on. So it’s taken me thrice that lengthy to get this movie.
So, yeah, I imply, I haven’t been sitting round crying in my soup or something. But it has been a very long time, after which truly being on set for the primary time and, and turning over and watching — on this case, the very first scene that we shot was with you understand, Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss and Noémie Merlant. I imply, speak about simply feeling just like the luckiest individual on Earth to have the ability to watch these three actors. You know, that’s fairly a privilege, and it’s not one thing that I might ever take without any consideration. And if I’m by no means allowed to do it once more, then I’m one of many luckiest individuals on the planet that I ever bought the prospect in any respect.
Villarreal: OK, I’m simply going to do that, Todd. Before I allow you to go, my “Twister”-obsessed youthful self has a query. It was lately introduced that Lee Isaac Chung is in talks to direct the sequel of the 1996 movie, which you had a job in. If Lee known as you up and stated, “Hey, we need Beltzer to drive the van again,” is that one thing you’d ever think about? Todd, please suppose very fastidiously on this.
Field: I don’t know. You know, I used to be very fortunate that Jan de Bont requested me to try this. I truly had been up for Phil Hoffman’s half.
Villarreal: Oh wow.
Field: Then when Phil bought in, Jan had provided me this different half, Beltzer, and I used to be slightly chapped about it ’trigger I actually needed the Dusty half. But after I noticed that I bought to sing “Oklahoma,” you understand, I stated, “OK, I’ll do it. You know, I’ll do it.” And after we had been taking pictures, it was a really, very powerful, difficult shoot. And I bear in mind Jan was speaking about dropping that.
And I bought very upset, let’s put it that approach, and we ended up taking pictures it. So I really feel utterly glad. I had my “Twister” second, and it was a beautiful solid. I’ve very, very pleased reminiscences of that shoot.
Villarreal: Well, I didn’t even know there was talks of a sequel after which it bought me, like, realizing that I used to be doing this interview with you, I used to be like, what would a “Twister” sequel written and directed by Todd Field seem like?
Field: As lengthy because it might star Cate Blanchett, I’d be positive. You know, I’d like to get, yeah. Cate Blanchett, Nina Hoss, Noémie Merlant. “Twister.” Yeah. Very attention-grabbing. It’s a world staff of storm chasers.
Villarreal: And then you definitely do have to return in as Beltzer, although, in that case.
Field: In that case, I might do it. Yeah. For positive.
Villarreal: OK. Good, I like that. Well, Todd, it’s been such a pleasure talking with you. Thank you a lot for taking the time.
Field: Sure. Well, thanks. I actually admire it, Yvonne.