don't get me wrong: the film is great. that largely is due to the work of maier and the recollections of her employers and the adults who remember her when she took care of them. if maloof had provided the framework and the narration, it would've been a far stronger film. his presence is too light and goofy. neither can be said of maier and her work.
shareI'm over halfway through the film now and have been thinking the same thing. As the discoverer of Maier's work, his contributions to the film are important, but his screen presence leaves a lot to be desired and only manages to be distracting.
shareIn several occurrences, the presence of Maloof in front of the camera is awkward, and sometimes dishonest to the viewer.
Awkward : when Maloof is not in front of the camera, he has some cameo roles in other sequences. I laughed when Maloof is filming his own reflection on some surface (mirror?), he surely love his looking.
Dishonest : when Maloof appears on-screen to give his rant on the Museum of Modern Art (the "letter" sequence), and does not give a contradictory tribune to the MoMA curators.
I agree. It's a tragedy when you think that his screen time could have been better spent showing more of her photographs.
He wanted to tell her story. She made one (known) attempt to sell some of her photos as postcards with a photograper she trusted in her mother's hometown. He,alone, she apparently trusted.
If you want to just look at pictures, go to one of exhibits of her photos or buy one of several books and videos about her and her photographs,
He made a massive effort sifting through 100,000 negatives and either printing them or paying to have them printed.
Was he perfect? No, but no one else lifted a finger except to quibble or bad mouth what her pictures mean.
Screw them and other piss and moan armchair experts.
I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else
Yes, this. Thank you.
I happened to admire Maloof for what he did -- he reminds me of my foster brother who's also a photographer -- and was surprised to see all the complaints about him on this discussion board. How many people would have been willing to go through all that stuff and try to get her work known before the public?
He saw the value in her street scenes and portraits. He is like her in some ways. He could be the son she never had.
Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.
Personally, I had a hard time listening to most of these people. Aside from the French small-towners, almost everyone played the role of basically spreading gossip and assumptions.
Maloof is particularly self-aggrandizing here, somehow making this story about himself. His personality is off-putting.
The former acquaintances of Vivian are irritating dullards who say trite and obvious things. I was particularly annoyed by the recurring suggestion that there was something wrong with or unnatural about Vivian.
This is not a good documentary. You only keep watching because of Vivian and her work.
I disagree. When a few of the "children" got into the nitty gritty, I thought "now we are getting somewhere." The fact that she supposedly had a dark side plays into a lot of her photos, and very much into the mysteries of her life.
🐈 Rachel
Agreed! Less dork time and more photographs would have made for a far better film
shareI disagree. While he obviously wasn't very comfortable on screen, his journey of discovery was as important to the structure of the story as were the things he learned. I liked hearing his story of the investigation as well as learning about vivian. It was great how it unfolded. The fact that he wasn't "slick" on camera made it feel more organic and less of a sleazy journalistic piece, which it easily could have been,.
Movies are IQ tests. The IMDB boards are each person's opportunity to broadcast their score.
I just saw this today and I fully agree with you, kay_rock - the story wasn't just a cold biography of Vivian Maier's life, the story of the movie was one person's journey to uncover the truth of the both the photos and the woman who created them. I thought the way the story unfolded was unique and it would have been a totally different movie if Maloof's side of the puzzle was omitted.
shareTotally agree. The movie should have been about Maeir not Maloof. Putting Maloof in front of a camera is like watching a puddle evaporate.
shareWell for me, part of the intrigue (as someone above said) came from Maloof's journey of randomly discovering these thousands of amazing photographs. That's an interesting story alone. But then we get to continue the discovery with him, as he finds out more and more about Vivan as a person, and then that becomes a fascinating journey...
Basically there are two different stories being told: the story of Vivian's discovery and rise to fame - of which Maloof is an integral part - and the story of her mysterious life. I personally thought they entwined brilliantly, and loved how "Vivian" was gradually revealed through Maloof's own investigating.
A documentary just about Vivian's life and art would still be fascinating, but the circumstances through which she came to prominence are important and unusual, and should not be left out of the story. So no, Maloof should not have stayed off screen.
That is a masterpiece of understatement.
Considering that he had played such a significant part in bringing her to public attention, I had no problem with his presence and the documentary was called Finding Vivian Maier, not just Vivian Maier, such as you would find a documentary titled on American Masters.
There's a spider on your shoulder!
I agree with flaiky that the fascination is compounded by the two intertwining stories--Maier's and Maloof's.
Maloof mentions in the beginning that one of his first steps was going around and gathering up the other boxes of negatives that were sold at the original auction. The other purchasers were in the identical position as Maloof. Were any of them planning to invest the time--salvage, investigate and reveal Maier's art? Apparently not.
Of course a straightforward documentary about Maier would be remarkable all by itself, but I have huge respect and admiration for Maloof's efforts. If he were less of a presence in the film, I'd be asking: How did this happen? Who's responsible for all this?
Exactly cpoet. He is integral to fabric of the set-up: the discovery of a major talent whose work escaped by a hair of being tossed in some landfill. I thought the writing of his script was well done and expertly executed. He's comfortable in front of the camera and microphone and while his tone is upbeat and light compared to his subject and some of her work which is at times dark, downbeat, and mysterious, they both share a common appreciation for the aesthetic. In time he'll be just a footnote in the story and work of Vivian Maier. But right now I celebrate him as a rescuer of something very valuable.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I have no problem with Maloof at all. The whole thing is a story and he's one of the storytellers. It's her work, his discovery.
Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.