Georgia O'Keeffe

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.

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.

Have a high appreciation for art, despite never being particularly good at it myself. Of which Georgia O'Keeffe was one of the twentieth century's best and most important female artists. Regardless of any historical liberties, also really like to love a lot of biographical films. And then there is Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons in the lead roles of O'Keeffe and Alfred Stieglitz, regard them highly as actors (especially Irons, who is one of my favourites). So there was a good deal that made me want to see 'Georgia O'Keeffe'.

'Georgia O'Keeffe' was a decent film and does intrigue, with the two leads and their chemistry being the main reason really to see it. At the same time it was a little disappointing and somewhat superficial and under-explored. As far as biographical dramas about artists go, it's not one of the best or most illuminating, enough to recommend it but what could have been a work of art in the right hands doesn't have enough of a flourish and was a slight missed opportunity.

There are good things that are done well in 'Georgia O'Keeffe'. Allen makes a big impression as O'Keeffe, very nuanced with a lot of bold honesty. Irons gives his absolute all as Stieglitz, not as subtle as Allen (the way Stieglitz is written plays a part in this) but the charisma and intensity are there. A very good effort is made making both look like O'Keeffe and Stieglitz and it's a successful one, with some very well-crafted prosthetics/make-up, while Allen and Irons' chemistry is quite magnetic. O'Keeffe and Stieglitz's relationship features prominently here and it is actually very interesting, it's tempestuous but the film allows some more intimate moments to stop it from being over-the-top.

Alongside the depiction of their relationship, what also stands out in the story is the conclusion which is really quite moving, it is in the conclusion too where we most see the too fleeting moments of how O'Keeffe saw human nature. The scenery is stunning and complemented by some nice photography. Tyne Daly and Ed Begley Jr are particularly admirable of the competent if not always remarkable supporting cast in somewhat under-explored roles.

Do think though that despite the central relationship being done very well it could have featured less and there could have much more of how O'Keeffe saw human nature, her as an artist and how she worked. We never properly get to know her properly as a person and there is not enough illuminating about her work, art itself or her as an artist. 'Georgia O'Keeffe' too would have benefitted more from more show and less tell, would loved to have seen more of her work and creative talents shown and less of the film telling us about it.

Especially, like primarily in the voice over, when it doesn't always add much and has too much glossing over. The voice over over-explains, is rather superficial cliff-notes-like and wasn't really necessary when what is said could easily have been shown. O'Keeffe's art is beautiful and so vivid, and should have featured more.

Summing up, decent but could have been better. 6/10

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.

This was essentially a two-person film. Sure, there were other characters that came in and out: Mabel Dodge Stern (Tyne Daly), Dorothy Norman (Jenny Gabrielle), Tony Lujan (Robert Mirabal), and Selma Steiglitz (Christina Koerber), to name four, but it was the passionate, sometimes stormy relationship between the painter, Georgia O'Keeffe (Joan Allen), and internationally known photographer and gallerist (and philanderer), Alfred Steiglitz (Jeremy Irons), that was displayed here. The New Mexican landscape can also be considered a character, as it enveloped her years after their split.

One of the things that may have helped make this more interesting would be some of the back-story in things that happened. Why didn't Steiglitz want children? There was a good reason. His philandering was also down played. The showing on Lifetime may have served to keep this from being all it could be.

There was some great lines throughout the film. When Stieglitz tells O'Keeffe not to return to her teaching job at West Texas State Normal College, he sniffs: "There's nothing normal in Texas." There are many more great lines, and that makes the film entertaining.

Seeing their relationship develop and falter, and watching how he managed to promote her into one of the greatest American painters was reason enough to tune in. When she overtook him in fame, and we saw Allen's passionate portrayal, it was beautiful.