Georgia O'Keeffe

Let me first state that I am a professor of Art history so my opinion should carry some weight. Having said that, the actual story of O'Keeffe and Stieglitz is told rather faithfully. My complaint stems from the sloppy production. The opening scene sets the tone: New York 1916 is actually Chicago 2009! You can see the flag of Chicago hanging on one of the buildings! Also O'Keeffe was not in New York until 1918. The cars, hats and hemlines are all from the '20s (like we wouldn't notice).

The second time we see "New York " it's the Chicago Board of Trade complete with the Rookery on the left! Lazy, sloppy production. You couldn't find any stock footage of NYC?

I loved this film, mainly because of Joan Allen's brilliance. Jeremy Irons, on the other hand, was overwrought and made the Stieglitz character more of a caricature than the mercurial, talented artist that Stieglitz was in his own right.All of the other characters were incidental, although Ed Begley Jr. acquitted himself admirably.

The New Mexico landscape was wonderful and anything that gave us a glimpse of O'Keefe's talent added to the virtues of the film. Ultimately, though, it was Allen's luminosity that made the film successful; she brought the character alive in a way that no other actress could. She seems to have an uncanny ability, not unlike Meryl Streep, to BECOME any character rather than simply playing a part and following a script. Don't know if she received any awards for the role, but should have.

Don't get me wrong, Allen and Irons are quite good in the film. (Irons seems to be channeling Daniel Plainview) Im just a little disappointed...

I personally would have liked to see her actually painting a bit more...or at least some insight to her thought process. The plot is really about her seemingly symbiotic relationship with Alfred Stiglitz.

There also seems to be a lot of gray areas in her later life that the film just sums up in a monologue, but Its a made for T.V movie...I guess we cant have everything. Something tells me it should (was it meant to be?) have been made into a feature. Its not bad, just could have been better.

a correct story. who could be better. but, in strange manner, it is only a detail. because it is a classic biopic, using the right recipes, giving Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons in decent roles, suggesting the universe and the crisis and the fight of a great artist. and nothing more. and this does the viewer to be the only obvious judge. because it is his verdict. a good introduction to the art of a painter . or disappointed portrait of her. for me, the truth is between this view points. maybe, because it seems be not easy to present the essence and the roots and the shadows of an art who remains so fresh question about yourself. and the sketch of social relations or about the need to create is enough for suggest the right way to discover her world.

I like the basic story; however, I really was disappointed in the director, the DP, and the Gaffer (the person who lights the scenes). The story clearly demonstrated the tumultuous relationship she had with her husband, and control freak, Alfred Steiglitz. That dynamic is very important in explaining who O'Keeffe was. However, I did not like the technical achievements for the NYC shooting (although I hear the whole film was shot in Santa Fe). First of all they used key lights that were too strong and must have had a Kelvin temperature over 7000K--made everybody look (skin tones) extremely cold and blue for all those scenes. This looked weird for something happening in the 1920's-30's. The lighting should have been very warm to match the approximate 2500K light bulbs that existed then. If you want to see a good scene setup, look at Clint Eastwood's "Changeling". Every scene in Changeling was beautiful, and I really felt I was in that time frame. When she went to Taos, NM, the lighting and color pallet looked great. Next I felt that the director tried to accelerate her story, AND I feel the director really messed up after he finally ended the story when she permanently settled in NM and only used "end statements" that stated she's considered 'one of the greatest female painters'. Well YES!!...her greatest work began after the story ended and we see nothing of her fantastic emergence or artistic accomplishments which also included connecting with Ansel Adams(and her former husband was a photographer!!). Her work continued on to 1986 when she finally died, and we see none of this. It was like the point of this film was to only show the tumultuous ordeal with her husband and her eventual breaking away from that poisonous marriage. That was not the title of this film.