Fosse/Verdon and Critiquing Art

[shadowkat]

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.

Comments

[trepkos]

I like to read critiques, whether I love a work of art or fiction or not, but I don't like someone criticising an episode or film while I'm watching it for the first time - that's just irritating!

[shadowkat]

Not sure what you mean?

Are they criticizing it vocally as you watch? Because yes, that is annoying.

[mefisto]

I'm in the "does it hit an emotional truth" camp. My reasoning is that we have math, science, and logic to tell us all the other stuff. But (JMHO) we look to art to reach truths that those disciplines can't tell us. So if Joss Whedon sacrifices plot to get to the emotional core of, say, the B/A relationship, that's fine by me. In fact, I love it. Sure I can see the plot hole in the "gypsy curse", but I don't much care because the story brought me to the emotional conclusion.

[cjlasky7]

Art does not exist in a vacuum. It is meant to be pored over, chewed over, flipped over, contextualized and criticized. To me, if you don't have an opinion about it, it's not worth remembering. Granted, the critique often says more about the critic than the artwork, but that's okay too--it's all part of the dialogue.

Art is meant to provoke thought, feeling, reaction. Even if you painted what you thought was the greatest painting ever and showed it to no one, the painting would still have one critic--you. Maybe that would good enough for a few. But most artists don't want to keep their work to themselves; art is their way of processing the world, engaging with the world, and criticism is part of that process.

Whether they like it or not.

[trepkos]

Yes, my SO tends to criticise anything as it happens, even on the first viewing. I've told him not to, but he has a very poor memory.

[shadowkat]

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.

[shadowkat]

Agreed. As Whedon once stated -- art and stories aren't pets, they are children, they grow up, move away, and talk back to.

This is true. The fun of creating is to see how the world handles the creation, what it does with it. It's why I like fanfic and fanart, because people are playing with the art. And meta and critique -- it explores the art in new and different ways.

I think an argument can be made that if the art isn't worth critiquing or voicing any opinion on -- then it's not art.

[shadowkat]

LOL! Smack him. ;-)

Fun? Laughs? Good Times?

[cjlasky7]

I liked Fosse/Verdon more than you did, but not as much as I thought I would. I was anticipating a miniseries as wildly kinetic and seductive as Fosse's dance routines, and mostly got a depressing relationship drama with occasional jazz hand flourishes. It was a very GOOD depressing relationship drama, but not exactly what I had in mind.

My wife HATED it, couldn't wait for it to end. I get the feeling that as we continued to be sucked into the vortex of Bob and Gwen's toxic symbiosis, she wanted out just as much as Ron did. ("RUN, Ron, run!" she yelled at the screen.)

I wasn't that desperate to escape, but I understood. Nevertheless, I enjoyed a lot of this series. (I do think we got enough of how the sausage got made, so to speak; any more rehearsal detail, IMO, would be like a Fosse version of Full Metal Jacket.) Michelle Williams was easily the best thing about it, capturing Verdon's moods, moves and voice over a 25 year period. I thought Rockwell was great too, but his Fosse didn't have the same range. It was: stare dully into the distance, take pills, quietly humiliate a dancer, screw said dancer, dangle a cigarette from lip. Repeat. Nothing got a rise out of him, and he seemed to be an emotional void on the screen most of the time.

(It did pay off last week, though, when Bob suggested they try "Nowadays" as a duet. Gwen laid into him, full blast, and he just took it, glassy-eyed, cigarette dangling from his lip. What was going through his head? Was he delivering a hearty "fuck you" to Gwen, or did he genuinely think the song would be better as a duet? I couldn't tell, and I liked the ambiguity.)

I liked the non-linear chronology, as it strengthened the emotional beats; I was disappointed that they went to the "life is a musical" trope, because... well, that's "All that Jazz." Fosse did that already. (The only time I enjoyed it was the finale, when they took the whole "life mirrors art" angle to absurd extremes. We had Lin-Manuel Miranda playing Roy Scheider playing Bob Fosse telling Sam Rockwell playing Bob Fosse to do a scene from a movie about Fosse's life within a TV show about Fosse.)

I would have enjoyed Bob and Gwen finally putting aside their issues to protect their creation (Sweet Charity) if it wasn't intercut with scenes of their actual, biological child plunging into drug and alcohol addiction without either of them noticing.

BTW, you're right: Gwen did have a pretty good second career as a TV actress once Bob died and the dancing stopped. I still remember her from Magnum P.I.

[mefisto]

I don't disagree with most of what you said. I guess I'd say that I'm pretty forgiving of plot holes. If someone were to say that I watch uncritically (at least the first time), that's probably fair. But though I'm forgiving, there are limits. I completely agree about Willow's "redemption" arc, and while I had no problem with her turn to the dark side, I absolutely hated the way they did it. Basically, she had been my favorite character in the first 5 seasons and didn't work for me much at all in 6-7.

So it is a matter of degree, but the emotional hit is very important to me.

[yourlibrarian]

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.

I saw this a little differently. I mean, yes, it was more about these two than the work, though given who they were one couldn't possibly talk about them without it. They both put it before anything else.

I also didn't see them as particularly tragic given that, to a lesser extreme, their story was a fairly common one. What was not common was their level of partnership. While I do wish that the show had done more with this, it did at least address the difference in their careers.

Fosse became known as a choreographer/director. But he always wanted to be in the spotlight himself. Verdon was and missed it when it was over, but her career was necessarily shorter and declined over time because, given its physicality she simply couldn't keep up after a certain point, and then secondarily because the lead roles were simply not there anymore. So it was to a great degree a gender issue, in that Gwen was always going to have fewer opportunities than Bob going forward, but also that had she tried moving behind the scenes as he did, chances are she would never be given the same opportunities either, particularly since her influence to date hadn't been recognized.

[shadowkat]

I think we probably agree more than either of us realizes. ;-)

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.

[mefisto]

The one good thing about my dislike for the way Willow's story played out is that it forced me to focus instead on my then-second favorite character, Buffy. When I later re-watched with that focus, I felt I got a lot more out of the show.

Re: Fun? Laughs? Good Times?

[shadowkat]

For the most part I agree, I think I fall closer to you than your wife. I enjoyed it, although there were bits in there that I found difficult to watch. And neither was all that likable.

For a while, I thought they were narcissists, but I started to change my mind somewhere during the last two episodes and thought -- no, just very driven artists who cared more about their artistic creations and work than just about anything else. And to be successful in that business - you almost have to be that driven -- which was the theme, according to what I'd read about the series previously.

I also agree with...

The only time I enjoyed it was the finale, when they took the whole "life mirrors art" angle to absurd extremes. We had Lin-Manuel Miranda playing Roy Scheider playing Bob Fosse telling Sam Rockwell playing Bob Fosse to do a scene from a movie about Fosse's life within a TV show about Fosse.

The scenes with his daughter and Anne Reinking for All that Jazz were fascinating...and painful.

The intercut scenes with their daughter -- I think were emphasizing the theme that they gave up everything for their art. And how their daughter eventually gave up the art -- and became a happily married woman with three sons, and no other issues.

[cjlasky7]

Now that I think about it, the series undercut virtually every triumphant moment. Bob wins Oscars, Emmys and Tonys? He's miserable and headed for a breakdown. Gwen gets her "Chicago" tour? Bye, Ron. Bob and Gwen team up to save Sweet Charity? Thats nice, but who's watching Nicole? "Charity" debuts in Washington, cementing Bob and Gwen's legacy? Oops, time for Bob to die. I know there's a cost to produce great art, but this was borderline sadistic...

[shadowkat]

Yeah, that was my difficulty with it -- I thought it was a bit too on the nose?

There's a scene in the previous episode (?) which I found really hard to watch. G/F are discussing or rather arguing about Chicago during their daughter's dance recital. Annoying everyone around them. Another instance of their work undercutting everything in their life.

They even put their art above their own health and each other.

In some respects, while deeply flawed, I thought Fosse did a better job of saying the same thing with "All That Jazz", although it didn't have Verdon. I can't help but wonder if the writers were trying to redo All That Jazz -- but add Verdon to the story and show how she was in many ways, just as destructive as he was when it came to her art? Although clearly not that destructive -- she took better care of herself, lived longer, and had a better relationship with their daughter.

[shadowkat]

Well, I guess it depends on how you define tragic?

The theme was pretty much -- the price of putting your work above and beyond all else. This is sort of emphasized with the scenes about the daughter, who fell into an endless cycle of drugs and addictions, until she gave up dance altogether, got married, moved out to the country and raised three kids on a farm and lived happily ever after.

I think you are wrong about Verdon's declining career. I looked her up on Wiki and she had a lot of roles in television and film that lasted well past her sixities. She was on Magnum PI. And had established herself as a good character actress. She also did a revival of Sweet Charity in her fifties, and was the artistic director behind the Fosse Revue.

And it's not true that her influence wasn't recognized, I went online afterwards -- and Chita Rivera recognizes her in a review of various roles, even going so far as to summon her ghost in one number. And she's on a lot of talk shows being recognized. Anne Reinking based her choreography of the Chicago Revival heavily on Gwen Verdon, not just Fosse.

But, I do agree that Fosse was jealous of Gwen and wanted to be in the spotlight himself and not behind the sceenes.

[shadowkat]

If I just focused on Spike? I was fine. LOL!

[mefisto]

LOL

[cjlasky7]

I agree that this series was difficult to watch sometimes. After the first three episodes wallowed in Bob's dickery, the producers must have been giggling, "Wait, you haven't seen anything yet." Gwen's behavior, especially in some of the hospital scenes, bordered on ghoulish. She was metaphorically one step away from dragging Bob's corpse out of the coffin and shoving it in the director's chair.

[shadowkat]

My mother -- who I discussed this with on the phone and watched it --- could not get over the fact that Fosse had sex with Anne Reinking in his hospital bed shortly after having a heart attack. Apparently you are supposed to wait a certain period of time?

But, yeah, Gwen's obsession with Chicago -- to the exclusion of all else, including Fosse and her own health... He literally tells her -- if you don't get the surgery, I'll just fire you and you'll lose the role anyhow.

I thought during it..okay, the daughter, their daughter is an executive producer and consultant on this? It was sponsored by their estate? Wow. Because it is not a series that depicts either in the best of lights. Nor, as my mother pointed out, the daughter for that matter.

Ron and Annie and Paddy Chefesky sort of come out pretty well. As do the Simons for the most part. But Verdon, Fosse, and Nicole -- not so much.

But then Fosse probably would have loved that -- I saw All That Jazz -- he was kinder to Gwen though in that, than their daughter and the biographer are.

[cjlasky7]

Yeah, Nicole does not spare her parents at all. But there's a weird, schizoid feel to her memories here:

"My parents neglected me so badly that there were times when I thought I wouldn't see the light of day again." Then, without any sign of contradiction: "Wasn't my childhood magical? I love you, mom and dad!"

[shadowkat]

Yep. I was discussing it with my mother -- and she said, "The daughter doesn't come across well either -- she's rather weak and sort of wanders about unheard from and a shadowy presence in the background."

She is barely present, almost like a ghost. And I love how they go out of their way to show from a distance the daughter's idyllic home and family, underscored by how her mother came to live with her the last few months before she died.

We don't see it up close. I did see a video online of the daughter discussing the mini-series and how the intent was to show how much her mother infulenced her father's work and do a homage to her mother as well.

I thought..has she watched this?