Too Many Problems With This Film

So you're main problem was...wattage?
I laughed out loud but I don't actually think you were joking. It's hard to tell. It's a lifetime movie not an oscar contender cut the bulbs some slack

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff

Interesting comment. I am not in film, but am a "serious" black-and-white photographer and am ALWAYS (in real life and while watching a movie) very aware of the nature and quality of the light. I always pay attention to how movies are lit. (For instance, I loved the lighting in "Girl with a Pearl Earring," which captured the strong directional light of the Dutch master painters (among other things) ).

I didn't have any problem with the lighting here. I think it worked for two reasons:

1. Using warm lighting for that period, although "accurate," has become somewhat of a movie cliche.

2. As a black-and-white photographer, obviously I loved this movie on several levels: The history, the acting, the soundtrack(!!!) But it was a "cool" movie. I won't say airless, but very reserved. I think the lighting worked very well in keeping with that. I thought the way the movie was lit was wonderful in all respects.

So I appreciate your comment, but respectfully disagree for the reasons above.

Paul

Maybe, but poor lighting isn't really the gaffer's fault. He's there to carry out the DP's wishes, not make those decisions himself.

With regard to hewing to period lighting schemes: it's not exactly fair to demand that the filmmakers achieve perfect verisimilitude - what IS fair to demand is that the filmmakers put forth a clearly articulated visual conceit for whatever kind of movie they're trying to make. Therefore one can't seriously ask that a a lighting scheme be "very warm to match the approximate 2500K light bulbs that existed then". Hogwash. Had the film been a balls-out comedy in the 20s and 30s, the lighting might have been brighter and flatter in keeping with a comedic tone. If the filmmakers have overplayed their hand and lit the film in a somber manner that distracts, that was an artistic decision that didn't work. It's not like they're not looking at the monitors before they roll camera, or that the film wasn't color corrected afterward. It looks like that because they decided it should look like that. If they had decided that the film should look as if it had been shot with instruments available in the 20s, then they would have done that. If you want to see a like experiment, check out Soderbergh's "The Good German", which was shot to explicitly mimic the look and feel of 1940s noir films, down to using much of the same equipment.

While this film might take place in the same general time period as "Changeling", this is not that film, nor do the filmmakers necessarily share the sentiments or goals of Clint Eastwood and his team.

If it makes you feel any better, I happened to run into the director, Bob Balaban, just after he finished this film, and he admitted that it had not been the most rewarding experience.

That's a great observation on the lighting. And I wonder if it might have been to show the gaslight of that era.
My dad grew up in the 20s-30s. He described the gaslight as very harsh and cold. He said he never liked it. And I noticed as the movie went on, there were a mix of electric, incandescent table lamps with wall sconces and chandliers still being gas. From being in old houses, I think that mix could have been common. I have pretty old electric lamps from my great-great aunt, but she still had gaslight fixtures on her walls as late as the 60s.
I totally agree that the story didn't focus much on O'Keeffe's accomplishments. I was looking forward to more scenes of her working and ultimate success, including later life. Wasn't there a young assistant who lived with her during her later years? Instead of "Georgia O'Keeffe," perhaps the movie should have been titled, "Steiglitz-O'Keeffe." The focus seemed on him even when he wasn't in the scene. He made her famous. She fretted over his infidelity. He created her illness. In the end, she ultimately wanted most to paint for his approval.
Really? Did that come from her journals? Or the director's mind? I'm truly wondering. I've always had the impression that O'Keeffe was quite independent and a loner once her career got started.

Who really cares? Was the movie any good? Jeez.......