![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Fosse/Verdon and Critiquing Art
1. Finished Fosse/Verdon finally -- and, I've mixed feelings about it. It did set out to do more or less what it intended -- which is depict the cost of putting "art" above all else. While it's tempting to see Fosse and Verdon as narcissistic personalities, I think they were mainly driven artists who put art first, everything else came second. And they were forever in competition with one another, yet at the same time -- when working together, their art was at its best. Unfortunately, I felt the film did a better job of showing how Fosse enabled Verdon's career than vice versa. She aided him, but he seemed to be able to do things without her too. While she seemed to have troubles finding work without him -- this isn't true in actuality. I looked at her Wiki page and she had a lot of television and film character roles, also did quite a bit of musical theater. They were both solo artists in their own right.
The series unfortunately comes across more as a tragic love story than a story about the art. I wanted the art, and less of the tragic love story/biopic.
That said, the narrative structure was interesting in how it wasn't always provided in a linear fashion, and interspersed dance and song within the framework. Also, there's no denying the fact that the principal performances were outstanding. Both Sam Rockwell and Michelle Williams delivered -- but the supporting cast was oddly weak or irrelevant. The casting of the daughter throughout -- was odd. Fosse cast his daughter better in "All That Jazz". Also the actress who played Anne Reinking, and the actor who played Ron, did not work at all. It was hard to understand why Fosse and Verdon were with them, or they were with Fosse and Verdon for that matter.
Anne Reinking is tall with incredibly long legs -- this actress looked nothing like her.
So, mixed on casting. Fosse, Verdon, Paddy Chefesky, Joan Simon and Neil Simon were well cast. Everyone else...not so much. But perhaps that was the point? Lin Min-Manuel Miranda who plays Roy Schroeder in the All That Jazz scene -- looks and acts a lot like Roy Schroeder. I don't think they knew what to do with Ben Vereen's role -- because he barely appears except for Pippin scenes, and the actor doesn't register -- shame because Vereen was a major dancer of Fosse's, Fosse' cast him in Dancin', Pippin, and All that Jazz.
It was oddly focused and done -- very centralized on the Verdon/Fosse relationship and felt at times like a two-person play, which was intriguing and different, if jarring at times.
At any rate -- I think Michelle Williams and Rockwell deserve acknowledgment for what they pulled off, in particular Williams who managed to do a lot more than mimic Verdon, I honestly forgot it was Williams and saw Verdon at times, same with Rockwell. And Williams who isn't a trained dancer or singer -- had a hard job.
I recommend it just for Williams performance alone. But if you are looking for the dance numbers or insight on them? You'd be better off hunting down the Revue of "Fosse" or watching Fosse's film "All that Jazz."
2. Critiquing art is not an easy thing. I was pondering it today. For the most part -- it's highly subjective. I mean -- take for example, Game of Thrones? Or Buffy?
Or Doctor Who? Whether you love or hate it -- is often emotional and personal. You just happened to fall in love with Ayra, so as long as Ayra survived and was happy at the end, you were. End of story. It could do no wrong. Or maybe you just thought it was cool -- and never looked past that. Or maybe in Buffy -- all you cared about was that Spike got redeemed or Willow did? OR maybe all you cared about in Doctor Who was that a woman finally got the role? That's a subjective response to art.
It doesn't look beyoond the emotional reward.
And there is the view that art shouldn't be critiqued at all. It's art. (I don't buy into that, obviously. Mainly because I was trained and taught to be highly critical of art -- and with detailed precision. If I wasn't -- I got a bad grade or smacked upside the head by the professor. I was an Literature and Cultural Anthropology major -- I was taught to critique all art and I went to school with people who did. I have friend who is an art history major -- who can do detailed critiques of paintings and I learned how from her. And there's my brother -- who went to film school and is an artist -- who is equally highly critical. We went to Silence of the Lambs, and on the way home did a detailed critique of everything in the movie, we did the same thing with Titus Adronicus and Twin Peaks.) Heck, I go to a MCU movie with movie buddy -- and afterwards, we rip it apart. My mother and I watch a soap opera or any television show, and enjoy critiquing it -- figuring out what worked and what didn't, and why. Does it track? Do the characters make sense? Why didn't it work? We can discuss this for hours and it's a blast.
But there are people who don't think like that. A lot of my family members don't. A lot of coworkers don't. And a lot of members of my church don't. Why do you think I came online with the Buffy fandom? I wanted to analyze and critique it. I enjoy reading professional film, book and television reviews. Constructive critiques are fun to read.
So this circles back to the principal question -- to what extent can it be critiqued? When I love something -- I don't want it critiqued. I hate it when people critique it -- although I am known to critique things I love, and often ruthlessly, including my own works. And if I had a hand in creating it or giving birth to it -- I really don't want it to be critiqued. It's akin to having something cut into me or tear off skin. It's painful. Also, there's another question -- should the artist be held to a certain level of responsibility for their work? Are they responsible for delivering a product? Or are they not responsible at all for it -- is it just an expression and is all the responsibility in the viewer or reader? OR is it a little of both?
I think artists are responsible for what they put out there, just as parents are responsible for the children they give birth to and put out into the world or the pets they decide to adopt. But more so for what we create or have a hand in creating. We have a responsibility to that -- and we have a responsibility for how it is perceived.
I used to think we didn't, but I've changed my mind over time. I do think those viewing the work or reading it -- also have a responsibility to it. What they do with it, how they perceive it, how they critique or love it. Do they love a work that is misogynistic and racist -- blindly? Or should they look at that work through a far more critical if balanced lense?
And to what degree do we as viewers or artists have a responsibility to each other?
To look beyond the work or beyond ourselves, and see how that work reflects the world around us, and what it says about us as a society, and what if anything we should do about it?
Granted to a degree, art is just escapism. Fun. But isn't also something else -- regardless of the subject matter or source? Should we treat a work that is determined to be literary differently than one that is say popular or pulp? Can nothing be learned from pulp? Sometimes I think more can be ascertained from a work of pulp fiction than the greatest work of literature. I certainly saw The Watchman and the X-men comics as a greater indictment of our culture than anything written by James Joyce -- even if James Joyce was the better writer from a purely technical standpoint.
I don't know. It's late and this is just something I've been pondering.
The series unfortunately comes across more as a tragic love story than a story about the art. I wanted the art, and less of the tragic love story/biopic.
That said, the narrative structure was interesting in how it wasn't always provided in a linear fashion, and interspersed dance and song within the framework. Also, there's no denying the fact that the principal performances were outstanding. Both Sam Rockwell and Michelle Williams delivered -- but the supporting cast was oddly weak or irrelevant. The casting of the daughter throughout -- was odd. Fosse cast his daughter better in "All That Jazz". Also the actress who played Anne Reinking, and the actor who played Ron, did not work at all. It was hard to understand why Fosse and Verdon were with them, or they were with Fosse and Verdon for that matter.
Anne Reinking is tall with incredibly long legs -- this actress looked nothing like her.
So, mixed on casting. Fosse, Verdon, Paddy Chefesky, Joan Simon and Neil Simon were well cast. Everyone else...not so much. But perhaps that was the point? Lin Min-Manuel Miranda who plays Roy Schroeder in the All That Jazz scene -- looks and acts a lot like Roy Schroeder. I don't think they knew what to do with Ben Vereen's role -- because he barely appears except for Pippin scenes, and the actor doesn't register -- shame because Vereen was a major dancer of Fosse's, Fosse' cast him in Dancin', Pippin, and All that Jazz.
It was oddly focused and done -- very centralized on the Verdon/Fosse relationship and felt at times like a two-person play, which was intriguing and different, if jarring at times.
At any rate -- I think Michelle Williams and Rockwell deserve acknowledgment for what they pulled off, in particular Williams who managed to do a lot more than mimic Verdon, I honestly forgot it was Williams and saw Verdon at times, same with Rockwell. And Williams who isn't a trained dancer or singer -- had a hard job.
I recommend it just for Williams performance alone. But if you are looking for the dance numbers or insight on them? You'd be better off hunting down the Revue of "Fosse" or watching Fosse's film "All that Jazz."
2. Critiquing art is not an easy thing. I was pondering it today. For the most part -- it's highly subjective. I mean -- take for example, Game of Thrones? Or Buffy?
Or Doctor Who? Whether you love or hate it -- is often emotional and personal. You just happened to fall in love with Ayra, so as long as Ayra survived and was happy at the end, you were. End of story. It could do no wrong. Or maybe you just thought it was cool -- and never looked past that. Or maybe in Buffy -- all you cared about was that Spike got redeemed or Willow did? OR maybe all you cared about in Doctor Who was that a woman finally got the role? That's a subjective response to art.
It doesn't look beyoond the emotional reward.
And there is the view that art shouldn't be critiqued at all. It's art. (I don't buy into that, obviously. Mainly because I was trained and taught to be highly critical of art -- and with detailed precision. If I wasn't -- I got a bad grade or smacked upside the head by the professor. I was an Literature and Cultural Anthropology major -- I was taught to critique all art and I went to school with people who did. I have friend who is an art history major -- who can do detailed critiques of paintings and I learned how from her. And there's my brother -- who went to film school and is an artist -- who is equally highly critical. We went to Silence of the Lambs, and on the way home did a detailed critique of everything in the movie, we did the same thing with Titus Adronicus and Twin Peaks.) Heck, I go to a MCU movie with movie buddy -- and afterwards, we rip it apart. My mother and I watch a soap opera or any television show, and enjoy critiquing it -- figuring out what worked and what didn't, and why. Does it track? Do the characters make sense? Why didn't it work? We can discuss this for hours and it's a blast.
But there are people who don't think like that. A lot of my family members don't. A lot of coworkers don't. And a lot of members of my church don't. Why do you think I came online with the Buffy fandom? I wanted to analyze and critique it. I enjoy reading professional film, book and television reviews. Constructive critiques are fun to read.
So this circles back to the principal question -- to what extent can it be critiqued? When I love something -- I don't want it critiqued. I hate it when people critique it -- although I am known to critique things I love, and often ruthlessly, including my own works. And if I had a hand in creating it or giving birth to it -- I really don't want it to be critiqued. It's akin to having something cut into me or tear off skin. It's painful. Also, there's another question -- should the artist be held to a certain level of responsibility for their work? Are they responsible for delivering a product? Or are they not responsible at all for it -- is it just an expression and is all the responsibility in the viewer or reader? OR is it a little of both?
I think artists are responsible for what they put out there, just as parents are responsible for the children they give birth to and put out into the world or the pets they decide to adopt. But more so for what we create or have a hand in creating. We have a responsibility to that -- and we have a responsibility for how it is perceived.
I used to think we didn't, but I've changed my mind over time. I do think those viewing the work or reading it -- also have a responsibility to it. What they do with it, how they perceive it, how they critique or love it. Do they love a work that is misogynistic and racist -- blindly? Or should they look at that work through a far more critical if balanced lense?
And to what degree do we as viewers or artists have a responsibility to each other?
To look beyond the work or beyond ourselves, and see how that work reflects the world around us, and what it says about us as a society, and what if anything we should do about it?
Granted to a degree, art is just escapism. Fun. But isn't also something else -- regardless of the subject matter or source? Should we treat a work that is determined to be literary differently than one that is say popular or pulp? Can nothing be learned from pulp? Sometimes I think more can be ascertained from a work of pulp fiction than the greatest work of literature. I certainly saw The Watchman and the X-men comics as a greater indictment of our culture than anything written by James Joyce -- even if James Joyce was the better writer from a purely technical standpoint.
I don't know. It's late and this is just something I've been pondering.
no subject
The emotional truth -- is a highly subjective thing though? I mean, I do remember how much various fans hated Willow's arc in S6 and didn't feel her turn to the dark side was earned. (I disagreed, it worked completely for me and in fact I knew she was going to flip long before that, what did not work for me was her redemption story -- it felt rushed, and told, not shown, so I didn't care what happened to her after a certain point -- and she'd been a favorite.) Another example? Jamie's character arc is one of the major reasons I stuck with the books and watched the television series -- although there were lots of other reasons. And it went off the rails in S8. It made no sense. I could see him knighting Brienne, but everything after that? Jarred me, and it jarred the actor playing him. Same with Tyrion -- another favorite character, who does things post S6 that make little sense. And then there is Ayra who all of a sudden drops her vengeance scheme after a nice warm chat with the Hound? Really? Made no sense. And don't get me started on Dany and the dragons. I stopped caring, emotions disengaged, no emotional truth to be had, bored now. But hey pretty pictures.
See -- emotion is often linked to believability of the characters actions. If you personally don't buy that Willow upon Tara's death will become Dark Willow and skin a man alive or that Willow after a few months in England and wandering about Sunnydale, will figure out her powers --- then you've disengaged from the story. Or if you don't buy that Spike without a soul would go get one after he attacked Buffy -- then you are thrown out of the story. Or if you don't buy that Dany would suddenly choose to torch Kings Landing in a mad fit...then the story won't work. Or if you don't buy that a character has say three brain tumors and survived -- then your emotions will never be engaged.
no subject
So it is a matter of degree, but the emotional hit is very important to me.
no subject
The emotion is important to me as well -- if the characters don't grab at my emotions I'm gone. And if I feel they are out of character -- or don't work, gone. I'm far more character oriented than plot oriented, and I don't care all that much about the world or the rule book. I can hand-wave plot holes. (OR I wouldn't be a fan of Marvel comics and daytime serials -- which well defy logic and tend to be all about the characters emotional arcs.)
And I agree with you on Willow -- I didn't like how it was done in S6 and S7 at all. I also think the writers screwed up with Xander, Giles, and Dawn. Anya and Spike fared the best -- for some reason, as did Buffy for the most part.
For me, it's always about the characters and emotion -- plot should come organically from them, and the world-building enhance it. If it doesn't? I get annoyed.
no subject
no subject
no subject