After all the hype surrounding this film (and the Oscar nomination), I thought there might be a reason for it. But unfortunately, I didn't get it. I didn't see much that impressed me about the subject, the filmmaker (who was way too present) or the so-called "mystery" of why we really need to have a history of every aspect of Vivian's life.
So what if she was a Nanny? Big deal. So what if she never had a showing during her lifetime? So do most artists who die penniless. I think there is so much emphasis on how brilliant she was, that it was difficult to see what the pictures are all about: they are simple depictions of the world as seen through one woman's eyes. So therefore, it didn't matter one bit that she was not a recognized artist during her lifetime.
The constant interruption of the images by the filmmaker emoting in front of the camera is grating, and the repeated shots of him developing and printing, is annoying to say the least. All of it went way too far in making him seem like he was some kind of a savior who gave the world a gift -- and ignores the fact that Vivian was the kind of artist who only wanted to practice her art without all the hoopla and celebrity that follows most of the pretentious egocentric photographers like Annie Leibowitz or Cindy Sherman -- where the personality of the photographer becomes more important than the images themselves. At least Vivian didn't proclaim how brilliant she was, and expect everyone to reward her.
In all honesty, I failed to see any real innovation in terms of photography. Almost every image was almost like a direct analogy to Diane Arbus, who frankly did it better. Vivian was a good photographer, no question. But what bothers me is the ludicrous hype that has now grown up around the images -- and it all seems unwarranted. There is nothing about this documentary that suggests it should be nominated for an Oscar, and was, in my opinion, a waste of time.
So what if she was a Nanny? Big deal. So what if she never had a showing during her lifetime? So do most artists who die penniless. I think there is so much emphasis on how brilliant she was, that it was difficult to see what the pictures are all about: they are simple depictions of the world as seen through one woman's eyes. So therefore, it didn't matter one bit that she was not a recognized artist during her lifetime.
The constant interruption of the images by the filmmaker emoting in front of the camera is grating, and the repeated shots of him developing and printing, is annoying to say the least. All of it went way too far in making him seem like he was some kind of a savior who gave the world a gift -- and ignores the fact that Vivian was the kind of artist who only wanted to practice her art without all the hoopla and celebrity that follows most of the pretentious egocentric photographers like Annie Leibowitz or Cindy Sherman -- where the personality of the photographer becomes more important than the images themselves. At least Vivian didn't proclaim how brilliant she was, and expect everyone to reward her.
In all honesty, I failed to see any real innovation in terms of photography. Almost every image was almost like a direct analogy to Diane Arbus, who frankly did it better. Vivian was a good photographer, no question. But what bothers me is the ludicrous hype that has now grown up around the images -- and it all seems unwarranted. There is nothing about this documentary that suggests it should be nominated for an Oscar, and was, in my opinion, a waste of time.