michaelmccauley123

The portrayal of the young-to-middle-age O'Keeffe is decently acted by Joan Allen. She lacks a certain Midwestern quality, however, despite her pluck in standing up to Stieglitz. As for Jeremy Irons' take on Stieglitz, the photographer himself couldn't have given a better performance.

But back to Allen as O'Keeffe. It's no picnic portraying an icon. And O'Keeffe is an icon -- self-made and fashioned by Stieglitz, with and without her permission. And while Allen's effort is worthy, I say let O'Keeffe's work speak for her. She always dismissed her ability with words, preferring instead to "speak" through her art.

Two quibbles: In the opening credits, an establishment shot of a New York City street scene unaccountably gives away the actual location as Chicago -- the city's distinct flag clearly is visible fluttering above the parked period cars. Later, when O'Keeffe and Stieglitz take up residence in the Shelton Hotel on New York's Lexington Ave, an establishment shot again uses an exterior shot of Chicago -- this time the city's Board of Trade building at the foot of LaSalle Street. Both boo-boos likely are the result of a made-for-TV budget.

I was buzzed about seeing this film. Everyone knows it's been too long since Coppola's previous film. Advance reviews were intriguing. And Tim Roth is such a fine actor. But what happened? The short answer is "too much!" The long answer is "not enough ... editing." Other reviewers here have commented more pointedly and eloquently about this film's shortcomings. Suffice it to say, this film, despite the best of Coppola's intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, is just plain muddleheaded. Oh, and too long by half. Not to be cruel, but stick to the wine biz, Mr. Coppola. You're doing quite well managing the complexities of the grape and terroir. In vino veritas!

I saw "Into Great Silence" the other day. I was frustrated, in no small measure by its length. (DVT is a worrisome byproduct.) OK, to the degree that the film provoked me to think and question and puzzle about my frustration and the silent life of these monks, it succeeded. But, I'm not convinced it's an important contribution to any deeper understanding of the solitude and great silence that is the life force of Grande Chartreuse. And that, I feel, is a failing.

On reflection, solitude is what this "meditation" is attempting to get at. Yes, silence is key to solitude. But the title of the film misleads. And because there is no attempt to explain the Carthusian vocation/way of life, viewers are left to learn this on their own. In the end, the film short-changes viewers … and the monks. It's way too personal to have the impact that the filmmaker apparently intended. Understanding monastic life, especially early in the 21st century, would be a welcome antidote to the barrage of messages, sounds, and images that assault us daily. But this film misses the mark. So, I'm not ungrateful … just disappointed.