On O'Keeffe: A Lifetime Movie.

Dan and I do not have cable, so we don't get the girly station of "Lifetime." Though someone on the e-list told me about this film yesterday, which I got to watch last night. You can watch it here online for free.

The film stars Jeremy Irons as Alfred Stieglitz and Joan Allen as O'Keeffe. I would never think of Joan Allen looking anything like O'Keeffe, but she sort of does. But real acting kudos goes to Jeremy Irons. He played the role of Humbert in the remake of Lolita, and I don't think there is a role the man can't do.

Anyway, this isn't a great film or anything, but it's a good and watchable made for tv movie. It could have been a lot worse, considering the anal hemorrhages that pass for films about artists, shit like The Hours. It is clear, at least made indicated by the film, that Stieglitz respected Georgia as an artist, but not as a wife. In one scene when she says she wants to have a kid, he shouts, "You were put on this earth to paint, not to breed."

That, and add the fact that he was cheating on her with this young skank, as men are known to do.

Joan Allen as O'Keeffe:

Anyway, another interesting point the film makes is that Georgia got her initial fame via her famous photographer boyfriend/hubby pinning nude shots of her for all to see. Then after all the sycophantic artist wannabes saw them, they were suddenly interested in her paintings.

Stieglitz notes that had it not been for him, she would have been an unknown, probably for most of her life. Granted, her talent was enough to earn her eventual recognition, but it was the luck of meeting the famous photographer that enabled her to get people interested in her work, thus allowing her to be able to make a living off it throughout her life. Quality, however, is irrelevant in the short term.

Wouldn't it be nice to be married to a famous photographer who takes naked pictures of you and makes you famous, thus enabling you to be taken "seriously" as an artist. Just goes to show that even back then, fame/sales/association were all people cared about. At least one can't claim human nature isn't consistent when it comes to greed, stupidity and shallow values.

Lolita.

In light of having just read and reviewed the Nabokov classic Lolita, I decided to watch the film version. In my review I make the argument that Lolita is a very good book but not a great one, and that's one of those books that critics have overpraised throughout the years, all the while just repeating from one another.

Although we own both the 1962 Kubrick version, as well as the 1997 film by Adrian Lyne, both films have their merits. On one hand, it is hard to top Peter Sellers as Quilty. Yet, I think Jeremy Irons makes a perfect Humbert, and Dominique Swain makes for a good, bratty Lolita. The 1997 film is more sensual than the Kubrick film, and even the die-hard Kubrick fans (such as myself) view Lolita as a good film, but one of his lesser works by comparison.

It's been a while since I've watched the Kubrick version, but I plan to watch it again in the near future. For one, the 1997 Lolita bears a lot more skin, throws her legs around more, and she is physically wet a lot of the time. The 1962 Lolita has her in more conservative attire--something more appropriate for its time.

Here is the scene when Humbert first sees 1997 Lolita:



And to contrast, here is where Humbert sees 1962 Lolita:



Still a bit risky for it's day, but the later film is much more sexualized.