Vivian Maier and the Oscar

[digital&film]

Personally, I wish this Documentary would win because she deserves it posthumously!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...ary_it_was_one_of_the_worst.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

 

[Pioneer]

But can you imagine the confusion. Who accepts the Oscar? John Maloof, Lawyer Deal or Cook County?

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

what else ? fields medal and nobel ? what did she do for that ?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

what else ? fields medal and nobel ? what did she do for that ?

Mustafa, she used a Leica!
And I like her photos and her style.

 

[digital&film]

what else ? fields medal and nobel ? what did she do for that ?

Never stopped Al Gore or Barack Obama in the Nobel Prizes...

 

[cliveh]

Vivian Maier didn't make this movie if that is who you are referring to, so why should it win an Oscar?

 

[ic-racer]

Too bad these negatives did not go into the hands of a great printer like the E.J. Bellocq negatives. Looks like the VM negatives are being scanned for monetary gain.

Also, I find it curious that internet chatter refers to her work as 'unknown.' Does that mean she was schizophrenic and not aware of herself? How about others that know her. Does her obituary not read "Movie critic and photographer extraordinaire."

I think 'discover' in this case refers to the somewhat questionable act of positing scans of her negatives on social media sites and a brief fascination by those that have never seen a B&W photograph taken with a Rolleiflex.

Don't think I am criticizing her work. I think the presentation of her work with a preemptive stamp of greatness is a bit much. No thanks, I'll view the images and make up my own mind, thank you.

 

[cowanw]

ic-racer
"Black and white photographs are available as gelatin silver prints, made from Vivian Maier’s original negatives by Master Printer Steve Rifkin."
from
Dead Link Removed
In any case the Oscar nomination is for the Maloof movie, Finding Vivian Maier. Did you see it?
Cliveh
Last year's documentary winner was about Alice Herz-Sommer. She didn't make that movie either.

 

[John Koehrer]

"Secretive and eccentric" "Movie critic and photographer extraordinare"? Gosharooty folks I think she'd be embarrassed to read her death notice.
Not having read anything except the truth on the web(it has to be true) It doesn't sound like she ever did anything but enjoy her pictures herself.
Anybody notice a lot of pictures of her dressed in mens clothes? That's part of the description by one of the kids. Or ten years out-of-date fashions. Maybe ten year out of date men's fashions. Which is it?
It reads like a really large load of BS.

Currently prints of her negatives shouldn't be available. Cook county claims it owns the copyright and Maloof and others can't legally peddle them,

Remember "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles? Sounds like her life story.

 

[Steve Smith]

It doesn't sound like she ever did anything but enjoy her pictures herself.

Which is exactly what the majority do with their photographs.


Steve.

 

[ic-racer]

ic-racer
"Black and white photographs are available as gelatin silver prints, made from Vivian Maier’s original negatives by Master Printer Steve Rifkin.".

That is really good news, thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Old_Dick]

From Wikipedia,

"The families that employed her described her as very private and reported that she spent her days off walking the streets of Chicago and taking photographs, usually with a Rolleiflex camera"

 

[Pioneer]

I think her death notice was written by some of the children she helped raise as a nanny. I suspect they knew her rather well.

Secretive and unknown were descriptions coined by the media as she was not a celebrity so there was nothing in their files on her.

But she was quite a good photographer IMO.

 

[blansky]

I think her work was absolutely amazing in it's nuance, composition and even humor/wit.

And would have been in her time as well, not just for the nostalgia aspects of it that appeal to us today.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I'm a bit surprised at some of the responses.

Of course, the media will say whatever it wants to. I'm not interested in the adjectives they throw around to make people want to see the film. Much more interested in the complex person she was, and am pleased that the film aimed to tell the full story of her, both the good and the bad, rather than glossing over things and turning her into a hero. I sometimes find photographers more interesting than the pictures they take. I'm not in love with every picture of hers, but there are some that pack a punch and have stuck in my mind.

And I think, too, that I'm grateful for films like this that help draw attention back to film photography, for whatever reason. If it gets more people to buy film, I'm all for it.

 

[digital&film]

Funny thing is, she never saw many of her photos, as a good portion were undeveloped when found.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For my own impression the Oscar nomination isn't exactly about real person in the movie and how significantly the person achievement was. Perhaps, because I have enough movies about Lenin is Soviet time.
So, while people mentioned here Obama and Nobel, I think more absurd was Putin and 2014 person in the Times.

To me the Oscar is how particular movie might be interesting, well done and such.
"Finding Vivian Maier" was the only documentary I was interested to come out and watch in decades. I also find it very well done as documentary. Not just another popular photog documentary.

 

[EdSawyer]

ic-racer nailed it on this one, I think.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

From what I understand a small percentage that are owned by one man are being printed traditionally. The Maloof prints are from scans. I could be wrong. I am more interested in seeing the prints that were made during her life myself.

I saw the documentary and to think that it was nominated is laughable. I think the article linked is right. I don't think it is a documentary at all. It is kind of like "advertorial" content in magazines, designed to sell you something in the guise of information. The fact that Maloof didn't want to be involved in any other documentaries tells you all you need to know.

There are some rocky times ahead for the images. Any prints that were already made (by Maier) can be sold, but new prints infringe on whoever owns the copyright. That is going to be fun to sort out with a bunch of hands in the cookie jar. I am guessing it will be a few years and it might get ugly.

I have been uneasy about Maier's exploitation since it started. I think the best place for the work would be in museums, but I don't think they are really museum worthy since they weren't influential when they were made. They have a style that would be reminiscent of the styles many years before she made the images. That doesn't mean they aren't good, but they are derivative in a way that a person shooting a photo just like Ansel would be derivative. Perhaps cultural institutions should have them.

 

[grahamp]

I actually saw this documentary last night (it is on Showtime at the moment). I am not sure if the documentary warrants much recognition (though the brief visual reference to Michael Moore might be enough!). Then there are the photographs. I certainly have not seen a significant proportion of the 100,000 that are supposed to exist, but to be fair, she had an eye.