OsbourneRuddock

Personally I think the other reviewers have been way too hard on this film, and I certainly don't agree that it is "extremely average", "throwaway" or "plain and forgettable". OK - it's not his best by a long shot, but Murnau was such a talented directer/artist that even his weaker films urinate all over the films of most other directors. I thought that the 'film within a film' structure of it worked brilliantly. The cast were all excellent in their acting. The film is pretty great visually too (as one would expect from Murnau) - the 'outer' film is shot in a crisp, modernist style, with adventurous camera angles and no make up, while the central 'film within a film' section was filmed in a more classical, soft-focus style. The film was also quite risky for it's time in its depiction of sexuality, and corruption within the clergy, and several scenes were censored for American audiences.

The central theme of the film is hypocrisy, particularly with those who are overly pious, judgemental and puritanical. This is encapsulated in the words of Tartuffe when he admits: "Who sins in secret - does not sin". Murnau expertly exposes the true roots of fanatically pious behaviour - behind which lies its very opposite. This is very similar to what Freud termed 'reaction formation', whereby a character trait or impulse which one finds unbearable to oneself (the ego) is disguised and repressed by bringing a complete opposite tendency to the facade of ones personality - but this is always noticeable by its exaggeration. The Tartuffe character also indulges in another Freudian defence mechanism called 'projection', whereby one relieves the anxiety caused by an unwelcome trait by projecting it onto others.

It's important to mention that this film also works brilliantly as a satire, and at times I found myself laughing out loud at the grotesque character of Tartuffe. In one scene the obedient Emile is seen rocking Tartuffe as he yawns and lazes in a hammock like a selfish baby. Yet despite the ridiculing, there is always a deep humane concern underlying the film - as there is with all of Murnau's films.

So, like I said: this is not one of his best, but any Murnau film is worth seeing.

I found this a highly disappointing film in that it seems to focus almost entirely on the misogynistic side of Picasso's personality, and his selfish insensitivity towards others. While these aspects of Picasso no doubt existed (his treatment of his children was appalling) the film fails to portray a rounded depiction of the man or what drove him. This very one-dimensional and oblique angled view is no doubt due to the fact that the film is based on the memories of his disillusioned wife, and I am reminded of the book written by Deborah Curtis about her husband the singer Ian Curtis, in which she whines on about the domestic reality of their relationship but offers virtually no insight into his art - which was surely the most interesting thing about him. The problem is that the relationships which these women have with their husbands is based on love and its commitments, and has nothing to do with their art or creativity. The world is full of brutal and misogynistic people, but what makes Picasso interesting is what he created. To make a film about an artist which ignores the inner imagination, psychology, and creative aspect of that person is pointless and uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins offers a fairly convincing performance, but this just isn't enough. For an artist biopic with more depth and substance I recommend Love Is The Devil (about painter Francis Bacon).