Georgia O'Keeffe

About a year ago, when the cast was announced for this film, much flurry was made about Henry Simmons playing the role of writer Jean Toomer, the third point in the crucial triangle that really led Georgia O'Keeffe to decide to stay away from Stieglitz.

Imagine the unexpected disappointment when in the broadcast film, Simmons as Toomer was stifled to not a single honest line of dialog! He is reduced to mention in an insane and inaccurate tirade by Stieglitz as "the Black Prince of Harlem" many decades before Malcolm X (to whom the epithet rightly belongs) was born. And these lines sound quite unworthy of a writer the caliber of Cristofer.

Not only was Toomer, a man of mixed race, hardly in Harlem, but he spent most of his life fighting against being classified as a "Negro writer." Then, even more surprisingly, scenes between O'Keeffe and Toomer show up on the Lifetime website and comprise the great majority of what was omitted from the final presentation -- scenes that could shed quite a different light on her choices about remaining in New Mexico.

Obviously, some effort was made to make Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons look like their historical subjects. Simmons does not look like Toomer at all. At least in the old American Playhouse version of the story Vernal Bagneris makes a credible representative.

Moreover, the finished quality of the omitted scenes belies a late cut. It would certainly be interesting to learn something more for the production record, even if not to abate the unanimous canning by the critics. Toomer's disappearing act is one of the major reasons the film failed.

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.

This movie requires a big-screen release. Any movie about a painter that does not need a big-screen is a basic failure, and this movie is no failure on any level.

First, we need to consider the lead actors. I have been enamored of Joan Allen's chops since I saw her in THE HEIDI CHRONICLES on stage. She has only gotten better. Jeremy Irons is, of course, a great actor. He has a great ability to portray real people from REVERSAL OF FORTUNE to here. Here he makes Alfred Steiglitz. as written by screenwriter Michael Cristofer vain, pompous, needy, funny, visionary and very, very real.

But the real brilliance here is the cinematography by Paul Elliott who capture's O'Keefe's lights and images in a startling way, from O'Keefe's actual paintings to Joan Allen's hands.

The only failure is its non-release on a big screen. Well, perhaps someday....

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