Georgia O'Keeffe (2009) watch online HD

I have followed Stieglitz for 40 years via catalogs, books, videos, and exhibitions. I branched out to adore O'Keefe for her work, and, increasingly for her individuality and spunk.

This portrayal of the woman fills a much needed gap in her biography and that of Alfred. The harmonies played by the character weave a phenomenal presentation of these lives.

For anyone who has read biographies, autobiographies, or other papers on these two lives will easily fill the gaps in this abbreviated portrayal. If I get the chance this program will become a part of my own collection of these artists lives - It's a keeper.

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.

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.

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....

Georgia O'Keefe, perhaps America's best woman painter, is the subject of this movie made for television. Her tormented relationship with Alfred Stieglitz, a master photographer, on his own right, takes center stage. Not having know much about the life of these two American icons, we decided to take a chance, lured mainly by all the talented people involved in the production. It paid off for us, as it tells an unique story that perhaps not too many know.

Georgia O'Keefe arrived in the New York art scene in the 1930s, at the height of the Great Depression. It does not take too long before she meets Alfred Stieglitz, who is showing some of her paintings done on paper. He recognized the greatness in this plain woman from Texas that was devoid of pretensions. It was Alfred who introduced her to the art crowds that recognized in her a new force in the unique and feminine way she brought into anything she did.

Alfred Stieglitz came from a well off family, but he struggled all his life to make ends meet. He was married when he started his affair with Georgia. The passion between them turned sour because he could just not stay true to their relationship. When Georgia meets Mabel Dodge Stern, a wealthy woman, she invited the artist to come to New Mexico to get away from seeing Alfred cheating on her with Dorothy Norman, a society lady that fell for Stieglitz. That was a turning point for Ms. O'Keefe as she found a paradise where she was able to spend most of her life.

Michael Christopher wrote the screenplay and Bob Balaban directed. The film explores the lives and the times these famous characters live and the legacy they left behind. Of course, one can imagine the creators must have taken liberties in presenting the story. Joan Allen, one of the best actresses working today, shows a flair in her interpretation of Georgia O'Keefe, the woman who loved intensely. Jeremy Irons is seen as Alfred Stieglitz, a man who would not hesitate to get involved with another woman, knowing how it hurt Georgia. Tyne Daly is seen as Mabel Dodge Stern. Linda Emond is Beck Strand, Georgia's true friend. Ed Begley Jr., Kathleen Chalfant, and the rest of the supporting cast do a nice job for Mr. Balaban.

Georgia O'Keefe's work is shown in all its splendor. The opportunity to watch her paintings is a treat for all her fans.

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.

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.

Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons should really be remembered next year at Emmy time for their remarkable performances in this biography of painter Georgia O'Keefe.

It is basically the story of 2 people who loved each other so dearly that they could not stay with each other.

The story is quite empty on all accounts. They argue, she paints, he basically lives off of her and they part years before Stieglitz's demise.

Too bad that actress Tyne Daly appears only in 1 scene as an outlandish patron of the arts. Loud, but coming to the point, Daly had a lot to offer in a role which should have been made meatier to suit her excellent talents.

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.

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?

Before seeing this movie, whenever I thought of Georgia O'Keefe I pictured this older woman in a studio in Santa Fe painting flowers and stunning landscapes. This movie finally got to my stereotypical image but it filled in details of O'Keefe's rich, varied, long life along the way.

O'Keefe's work had attracted the attention of famed photographer and art dealer Alfred Stieglitz who exhibited some of her work in New York in 1916. A couple of years later O'Keefe moved to New York and the professional relationship with Stieglitz, who was over twenty years older than her, ultimately turned into a personal one resulting in marriage in 1924.

I always have some reservations about how truthful a biographical picture is, particularly in a case like this where, at the time the screenplay was written, O'Keefe had been dead for over twenty years and most of the people in her life had been dead for upward of fifty years. For example, what are we to take away from the scene about the argument that O'Keefe had with Stieglitz regarding her wanting a child and his blunt refusal? Is that pure speculation? Giving it the benefit of the doubt, I assume the general sweep of her life as presented is accurate, and indeed reading the Wikipedia entry for O'Keefe seems to bear this out. For movies based on a true story I often ask myself why not just read the appropriate Wikipedia entry and skip the movie. But, if properly done, it is easier to get involved in a movie and come away with more lasting impressions. It is often the case that a good movie based on a true story, as this one, will prompt me to do some independent research. There is no lack of O'Keefe biographies, video, and art books out there.

In looking at some of the images of O'Keefe, Stieglitz, and Mabel Dodge, the actors playing those parts (Joan Allen, Jeremy Irons, and Tyne Daly) are well cast as to physical appearance and all do good work.

I wish more of O'Keefe's paintings had been tightly woven into the story.

I am not sure what I expected when I inserted this film in the player, maybe something fun about Georgia O'Keeffe's work, or maybe a neat coming of age story or an unknown facet. What I found was that Georgia O'Keeffe literally was about as dynamic as a old dish rag left to linger in the yesterday's dishwater. And what about that creep Stieglitz!? Seriously, the film should have been called "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for sun-bleached color".

But really, I could have found some fun in watching the paint dry on a real O'Keeffe painting, as opposed to watching the entirety of this film. I pulled it out and relayed it to the two star category, because at its very least some New Mexican film crew had to labor their talent through what can only be imagined as some of the most dullest sides ever handed out to a film crew. I can't blame 'Lifetime: Television for women' entirely, because "Lizzie Borden Took an Ax" with Kristina Ricci was incredible for its modern take on an old tale, with some pretty fun soundtracks, and some pretty chic costumes.

Meanwhile, "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for color" was tiresome in the first five minutes. I must admit, I love Jeremy Irons. Scar; Simon Gruber; Aramis, these are roles worthy of his talent. But wow, Irons must have been like, "'I can't' with this film, so I'll make Stieglitz the foremost Spencer Pratt of the O'Keeffe age." Which is why I warn, that this is a film about Stieglitz, who is portrayed as the quintessential Male chauvinist. And who knows, maybe he was, absolutely; but after viewing this film you are left without any doubt that he wasn't anything else.

O'Keeffe on the other hand, as portrayed in this film, lives up to the notion that the Art is what speaks, and that it is okay to relegate the artist to the background of humans making folly in their personal lives. And its best to ignore all their failings, because as I said Joan Allen's portrayal didn't leave you much room to imagine anything else. You end up incredibly disliking Joan Allen's O'Keeffe, not because what can be surmised as O'Keeffe's super subordinate life in the shadow of Stieglitz, 'male ego premier!', but because Allen brought absolutely nothing to portray O'Keeffe as anything but a means to an end to Stieglitz's career.

This film was less than disappointing, it was less than a borefest, it was something worthy of being pulled from the player barely 20 minutes into the show; it didn't even make for good background noise. Spare yourself the change in renting this film, and just go out and buy a copy of O'Keeffe's work, or better yet, buy an original, you'll learn far more in its presence than in this Lifetime: television for women rehashing of why 'heterosexual men are bad.'

The correct spelling, Stieglitz, is perpetually ignored by IMDb with the exception of a few comments that reveal some knowledge about German pronunciation. I would like to think that a correction will be made rather than compounding ignorance. The website Wikipedia has a very good bio on Stieglitz, and surprisingly supports the story line of the movie. Iron's appearance is strikingly close to Stieglitz's own face. So often film writers use "poetic license" to bend a real story to one they feel has greater interest. It is interesting that strong willed women gravitate to New Mexico. Millicent Rogers, a well known patron of the arts, left a large imprint on the Santa Fe/Taos axis. Rogers deserves a bio herself.

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.

The portrayal of the young-to-middle-age O'Keeffe is decently acted by Joan Allen. She lacks a certain Midwestern quality, however, despite her pluck in standing up to Stieglitz. As for Jeremy Irons' take on Stieglitz, the photographer himself couldn't have given a better performance.

But back to Allen as O'Keeffe. It's no picnic portraying an icon. And O'Keeffe is an icon -- self-made and fashioned by Stieglitz, with and without her permission. And while Allen's effort is worthy, I say let O'Keeffe's work speak for her. She always dismissed her ability with words, preferring instead to "speak" through her art.

Two quibbles: In the opening credits, an establishment shot of a New York City street scene unaccountably gives away the actual location as Chicago -- the city's distinct flag clearly is visible fluttering above the parked period cars. Later, when O'Keeffe and Stieglitz take up residence in the Shelton Hotel on New York's Lexington Ave, an establishment shot again uses an exterior shot of Chicago -- this time the city's Board of Trade building at the foot of LaSalle Street. Both boo-boos likely are the result of a made-for-TV budget.

Skin of a biography. Nothing spectacular. Invitation for knowledge, few pieces from a way to discover and define the world. Good cast and good story. But the final taste is not impressive. It is not a picture of Georgia's life but it has this ambition. It is not suggestion of ingredients of art but must be. It is not a poetry about lost beauties but the desire to be exist. It is a film about the fight of a woman. About the desert of days and fear to be only part of another existence. About limits of every Pygmalion work. And the nuances of love as song of deep refuges. May be an emotional step for public. Or a nice story. Or beginning of exploration in the universe of a great artist. For me - fragments of a ticket to lost adventure.

I really wanted to enjoy another film about exceptional artists but this one left me cold. Jeremy Irons made love to an ironing board for two hours. The art was never depicted well. She was not shown painting or covered with paint or discovering new worlds of shaping her artistic destiny.

I'm not really sure what this movie was about. It didn't succeed as a love story or an artists' biography, but where it did succeed was in offering a commentary on the mores and morals of the time. The characters were flat, Joan Allen (I'm sorry wonderful actress that you are) sleepwalked through the performance leaving poor Mr. Irons to provide at least enough heat to make yogurt.