Mein Mann Picasso

As far as context goes, I had already known most of the material from biographies in other sources. There were only a couple new aspects to this one. The acting was superb. Anthony Hopkins and Natascha McElhone were passionate and believable. It portrays Picasso's nature as narrated by one of his former lovers. It's NOT a fluff piece, but you shouldn't end up hating him unless you did already.

Anthony Hopkins is a very gifted actor,nobody can deny,but ,he was beginning to do any job going:playing Hannibal,Nixon and Picasso,it's much ,too much !Besides,James Ivory 's majestic talent ("Howards end" "remains of the day" "A room with the view" "Maurice") had inexorably waned."Jefferson in Paris" was already unsatisfying,smug and overblown.Still,it was entertaining."Surviving Picasso' is not.Only five minutes -let's be generous- are given over to the process of creation.The essential revolves around Picasso's relationship with women;this is neither rewarding nor entertaining,being trite,hollow and devoid of emotion , violence or/and tenderness.

Word to the wise:people interested in Picasso's art -which is more interesting than his private life!who cares?- should try to see Henri-Georges Clouzot 's "le mystère Picasso" (1956):Unlike Ivory,Clouzot films the REAL Picasso while he is creating.He paints on a sheet of glass and we can follow every lick of paint.

I saw this film initially in 1996. I remember having to work in the morning and had a few hours to kill in the afternoon. I decided to give it a try, because it starred Anthony Hopkins and I'm a fan. Being a Merchant Ivory film I thought it was going to be boring. It wasn't. It held my interest until the ending credits. I sat amazed when it was finished....just processing what I had just witnessed.

Pablo Picasso has to be one of the most complex of human beings ever. Surviving Picasso chronicles his love affair with Françoise Gilot. He spent from 1944 to 1953 with her, and fathered two of her children, but wouldn't marry her. Gilot is realistically played by Natascha McElhone. We get to see how difficult Picasso was to live with. Anthony Hopkins plays an emotionally weak, yet tyrannical genius. Literally, holding this young woman hostage. He was the father of her children, but never gave her any monetary compensation to raise those kids. She had to depend upon the kindness of her grandmother.

Of all of his women, we start to see that she alone understood his weaknesses. I got the impression that out of all of the women he was involved with, she probably loved him the most. He knew this and used this to hold her his emotional prisoner.

Surviving Picasso is not an easy film to sit through. You begin to hate Picasso for manipulating everyone he comes in contact with. My thought was that he was a spoiled child that never grew up. He relished when his women fought over him, pined over him, and even did desperate things to show him how much they loved him. Yet, he didn't seem to appreciate any of their efforts.

I was totally drawn into this film and think one needs to give it a chance. It's a thinking person's film. The character development is complex, but you begin to have sympathy for the victims of this madman.

The movie is about Francoise Gilot, not about Picasso. It is not intended to tell Picasso's story. Picasso was brilliant, spectacular, the living center of the world of art and a sexual magnet. Women wanted him and, king that he was, Picasso viewed their adoration as no more than his due.

Francoise Gilot, a talented painter in her own right - but no Picasso - lives for ten years a life which for her is absolutely worth the pain. And when the pain is so grave that she will surely be overwhelmed, she stands up and leaves. The pain doesn't go away instantly, but it does go away, in time.

In one memorable scene, Gilot, at home with the baby, questions Picasso's absences, his obvious womanizing. He tells her in no uncertain terms that he will do as he chooses, that his life outside their home is none of her business. She has no right to question him. He doesn't say, "Take it or leave it," but that is the unmistakable message. She takes it, for a few more years, and another child.

It would be interesting to know whether Gilot, who was born in 1921 and is apparently still with us, harbors regret. I cannot imagine that she does. Of course she would have enjoyed that ten years better if Picasso had been able to love, in some recognizable way. But would she trade that life for one less magnificent? For one that would not be a good movie? Hardly.

The acting is of course perfect. Anthony Hopkins becomes the man Picasso. Natascha McElhone, Julianne Moore and Susanna Harker tell us the truth. Well paced, finely directed, this movie tells a riveting story. It is very, very good.

It is perhaps worthy of note that many of the negative reviews of this movie are written by men. Picasso was not just difficult; he was a Difficult Man.

A bio-pic on the life of artist Pablo Picasso focusing on his wilder side – his rampant relationships with his many women, as seen from the perspective and understanding of the mother of many of his children – Françoise Gilot.. We pick up the story where Gilot meets Picasso with the intention of becoming his student.

I was slightly interested in this film as it seemed to have a high quality cast. I must admit that I have little interest in art and have a very limited knowledge of the work and life of Picasso. However I was open to learning and I hoped this film would enlighten me in some way – either in his work or his life. The film's focus is Picasso's private life rather than his work, this was an odd decision not to weave any of his work into the film in a significant way but it didn't put me off. What DID put me off was the fact that the film didn't involve me to the degree I had hoped it would. I'm not a consistent fan of Merchant & Ivory films simply because, unless they get it bang on (Remains of the Day) then they do leave me feeling a bit cold. Here that detached feeling was what I had the whole way through – I never felt for any of the characters or situations and never really got involved in the film, it was simply on in the same room as I was sitting more than me watching it.

It's a shame because the film is beautifully made – for all their faults, Merchant & Ivory films usually get that right. The sets and locations add to the film and are well shot. The cast is the main reason for watching this. Hopkins does very well in the lead and is running free for much of it. It confused me that I couldn't manage to link to his character – maybe I was watching Hopkins act as opposed to seeing the character. It's ironic that his best performance for Merchant & Ivory was the total opposite of this in Remains of the Day (controlled, low key, subtle). McElhone is partly responsible for me not feeling involved in the film. I felt she was too cold, too emotionless and not expressive enough in the lead female role. Good support is given by Moore and others, and Ackland is good as Henri Matisse.

Overall this is not as awful or boring as some would have you believe – Hopkins performance saves it from being that. But it did not involve me at all – I was left quite cold to it even though the passion in Hopkins' performance made me think I was missing something. It's hard to put into words but this film doesn't manage to hold the interest – not because of the subject, but more likely in the way it has been delivered.