james_videbeck1

<p>I saw it last night. Liked it a lot as kind of a history-mystery movie. There was a discussion afterwords and one person, who was actually in the movie, commented that it was the second time he and wife had seen it. It was said the movie was edited since the first showing and more contrasting views and opinions were shown by those who knew her. </p> <p>So far, over one hundred people who knew her have been interviewed. I think some of her popularity has to do with her seeming lack of formal photographic roots. She is kind of an underdog to the art establishment and I think people like that. The directors say she had a photographic awakening in New York in 1951. While she was shy, I would like to know if she took advantage of any of the photgraphic educational opportunities available through the years. Will a photo club member come out of the woodwork to say that she attended meetings but didn't enter competitions?<br /><br /><br> The movie theater was sold out and over a thousand people watched the film. Since 2010, the Chicago PBS station has shown numerous episodes about the Maloof find and unraveling her story. I was happy to note that there was not as much overlap as I expected between what I had seen on TV and what was shown in the movie. There is also a BBC documentary about her that I want to see. </p> <p>While she interests me partly because much of her photography is Chicago based. She shot many rolls in Europe, the Middle East, South America, etc, that she took on trips. Eventually, I hope to see many of those.</p> <p>Go see the movie if you have a chance. There are also gallery showings if you keep an eye out for them.</p> <p> </p>