Surviving Picasso

It's a pity that many of the user comments on this movie are simply a vehicle for people's dislike of Picasso, and that they treat the film as though it were a documentary. Picasso may have been as sex-mad, egocentric, paranoid and capricious as any Hollywood star (think Chaplin); but first and foremost he was a prodigious artist, who transformed our view of visual art, and dealt with some of the great themes of western culture. And presumably it was those latter qualities which drew women to him, in the same way that women have been drawn to successful, powerful men of dubious character since the dawn of time.

The movie and Hopkins' performance are certainly successful in displaying Picasso's human weaknesses; but there is a failure to adequately convey Picasso's enormous creative power, a weakness compounded by the fact that the makers were not allowed to use much of his work in the film. I see the film as a well made, excellently acted, but partial (in both senses of the word) portrait of the artist. Its real focus is the women in his life, especially Francoise Gilot, and on the two-way exploitative nature of the relationship between a man of this kind and his mistresses/wives.

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.

The first time I watched this, I didn't really get what was going on. All the plots about Picasso's various wives seemed mixed up and uninvolving.

However, now that I am studying Picasso and his women for an AS art module, I can watch the film and feel very satisfied because it breathes a lot of life into the subject. For this reason it is worth having some fore-knowledge or a framework of Picasso's life prior to viewing it, which I guess restrains the target audience somewhat.

Hopkins was superb and became Picasso completely in behaviour and physique - even to the extent of shaving his head and wearing brown contact lenses. His accent took a while to take hold though, which I thought was odd, as the early scenes felt very cold and welsh simply because he hadn't quite shaken off his normal speech. This didn't matter after a while though, because his entire manner was actually very well done and really brought out the macho and possessive ego of this wild artist.

One major flaw however: Nazi stormtroopers would never march as sloppily as portrayed in this picture.

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.

Pablo Picasso portrayed by the only woman to have survived his narcissistic, manipulative, patronizing and womanizing tendencies and come out of the minotaur's labyrinth, his studio, before he shatters her. A great performance of the master painter and sculptor genius by Anthony Hopkins who is a master actor himself adequately next to his young co-stars. I am a great admirer of Picasso myself and I really appreciated all the research to fit every detail in its place to make this kind of biographical film. I'm very fond of the relationship Picasso had with Henry Matisse despite their differences and the competitiveness between them.