Surviving Picasso

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.

Period drama masters Merchant Ivory tackle one of Spain's most iconic artists, or rather, his love life. Francoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone) becomes eloped with the eccentric painter (Anthony Hopkins) during WW2, and the film follows the highs and lows of said relationship as she goes from wide eyed girl to lover to mother of the hot blooded artist's kids.

James Ivory's biopic of Picasso's premiere mistress does have good performances, even if the usually great Hopkins, disappointingly, never fully transforms into the legendary painter and so instead, the film ends up being carried by McElhone as a sympathetic yet ultimately frustrated and abused woman. There are also some welcome moments of humour, usually via Picasso's rather upfront comments & observations about others, and even some inventive flashback sequences that take on Picasso-esque aesthetics with very Cubist rooms and characters.

However, the screenplay never really explores why Gilot or the other women are drawn to and stay with Picasso, despite his duplicitous nature and often angry temperament. The film paints him (hah) as a genius, but also as kind of shameless and a bit of a manbaby, but the why, fame aside, is never looked at in any meaningful way. It's very much the token 'well, it happened in real life, so it's here' card of lazy biopics. Hopkins being given a two-dimensional Picasso doesn't help.

Furthermore, Picasso's art never gets much attention nor examination, missing a great opportunity for parallels and psychological exploration of our leads. This is an unbelievable blunder if you're going to even bother making a film on the man in the first place, as there's a lot of rich subtext to mine and would've helped with defining more of Picasso and his appeal.

Unless you're a Merchant ivory completionist, stick with Remains of The Day.

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.

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.

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.