The Woodmans

Though it is a documentary, The Woodmans is itself a piece of art. Like much art, it asks and suggests more questions than it answers. The first question might be: is this a film about art or a film about human psychology? Or maybe it is about how the two are connected?

The Woodman family had four members, all of whom are/were dedicated to art, not just as an avocation, but as a way of life. The daughter, Francesca, committed suicide at a young age. Much of the film centers of her surviving family's perceptions of her life, her art, and what might have contributed to her suicide.

In the end, each viewer can take what they want from this film.

As a discussion of art, it touches on many common themes, especially the value or curse of art as self-expression. Does it have value simply because it allows the artist to express himself? Does affirmation from others make art more valuable? Does it have a therapeutic value? Francesca's mother says she stopped creating for a period after her suicide. When she resumed creating, was it a resumption of life? Or was the creation the impetus to go on living? She says that "art is about memory." Of course it can be much more than that.

Of course we must ask if art is about introspection, self-examination, self-indulgence, all of these? It can direct one's focus inward or outward. The father comments on the "fragile" and "vulnerable" nature of the artist. Is that due to the artistic temperament? Or the product of seeking affirmation from others?

He also observes that there may be a "psychic risk" of being an artist. This seems to be one of the central themes of the movie.

But perhaps Francesca's art (and her behavior) might have been a clue to what many will see as clinical depression. Are some drawn to her art because of her (flawed) vision, like they might be to Van Gogh's?

Whatever messages or questions one takes from this film, it does ask you to consider the nature of grieving and carrying on. And it might make one consider others in their own lives who have been or might have been victims of their own internal demons.

It also makes a statement about the temporal nature of life and the longevity of art.

Setting aside all of her brilliant and groundbreaking work, I was highly troubled by the detached nature of her parents. They seemed more interested in advancing their own notoriety through their daughter's work. The life of Francesca seemed almost an aside to them.

The film itself was worth watching, but I got something entirely different from what I expected. I was left mourning this young woman and gained an understanding of what had her so troubled by seeing her parents casual, almost forced reactions to her death. Her friends were much more upset.

Perhaps that was the point. Perhaps they are so devastated by her death that detachment was the only way to cope. I wouldn't say I blame them, but its the way they seem to revel in the attention that had me disgusted.

This is a film about a very talented family of artists, with the focus on Francesca Woodman, a young photographer who committed suicide. Her parents, George and Betty, were passed their interests and work ethic on to their children. The areas they focused on were different, however. Betty did ceramics and painting, and achieved a high level of popularity. Son Charles does electronic art, and father George is presented as a mostly unsuccessful painter, which is misleading, because this Harvard grad was a professor at the University of Colorado in addition to his creative work.

The most intense member of the family was young Francesca, who made stunning black and white photos, mostly of her nude self in strange positions, and contrasted with fabrics and textured surfaces. She suffered from what sounds like bipolar disorder (her diagnosis was not mentioned) and committed suicide at age 22. She never got to see how popular and respected her work became. This tragedy is the heart of the movie, and you can see how it impacted her parents--her father in particular seemed to feel it the most, he is often uncomfortable while being interviewed. There are also interviews with interesting friends of the family that fill out the portrait.

I'm surprised at the low score and negative reviewing of this documentary. Perhaps its a pinch too long but i don't think so. It seems peoples gripe is that there's too much of the family and not enough about Francesca? Um, shes dead. All that we can do is hope her family and friends at the time will communicate, all of whom do.

I hadn't heard of Francesca before but somebody recommended it and i thought it was haunting and a beautifully rendered documentary.It is interesting to see the competitiveness within an artistic household, that artists are not above trying to outdo their own family members. It also goes a ways to see why Francesca herself was so obsessively driven for success and recognition. Touching portrait of youth, mostly.

Her parents are absolutely awful people. I was interested in Francesca's life and work and the film focuses mainly on her parents, who are just self-absorbed, truly abhorrent rich people ("artists") with no hearts. Brother is pretty bad, too. They aren't ashamed to express jealousy over the posthumous success of their dead daughter. Her dad even attempts to copy her work and not in a honorable kind of way. The comment the dad made about how he would "hate" his child if they weren't interested in art basically shows you what kind of people they are. "There's a little coffin. I'm afraid some poor child has departed" is one of the last lines of the doc, spoken by George as he sees a casket go by in Asia. What kind of weird comment is that? So flippant. I hate to say this knowing the outcome, but no wonder she suffered so much in life. I would, too, if those people were my caregivers who were supposed to love me and instead viewed me as an object secondary to their sculptures.