Not that my mentioning it would have been the reason anyone watched the Lifetime TV movie about Georgia O’Keeffe, but since I did mention it, I feel like I should at least make a comment or two.
It is an interesting movie, especially the scenes at the Ghost Ranch and her paintings as realistic props in some scenes, but I found it sad and wished for more about her art and less about her love life. My friend Hellen, who knows more than I do about O’Keeffe, found some discrepancies in some of the information, like the fact that Georgia knew how to drive when she moved to New Mexico, not after, and Hellen had never heard or read anything about a nervous breakdown. The business about the normal school in Texas seemed off, as she did not part from the school on good terms, nor exactly as mentioned in the movie. And I could blather on but it would just be our word against the screenwriters, and they are supposed to have had access to letters exchanged by O’Keeffe and Stieglitz, so what do we know?
Well, we know that Georgia O’Keeffe was an independent, strong, totally focused, artistically committed, complex woman who was comfortable in her own skin and willing to sacrifice for her art, which completely overshadowed Stieglitz’s work. In the beginning of their relationship, Stieglitz was the expert; in the end, he was riding her coattails. which is brought out in the movie. And if he really was like he was protrayed in the movie, I think he was a major league cad. How dare he have a tirade about her behavior as a married woman cavorting in New Mexico while he was carrying on with other women! Husband, indeed.
Enjoy the movie as a movie; it is worth watching, even with the inconsistencies mentioned. But if Georgia O’Keeffe is of interest to you, her life and body of work deserve more study.
So that’s my review. I don’t think Ebert and Roeper need to worry about their jobs, but I’d be willing to give it a try.