Surviving Picasso (1996)

To me, this movie is perfection.

It is a performances centric movie

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

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.

Pablo Picass-, Spanish painter. 1943 in Paris occupied by German troops in the whole world speaks English. How much illiteracy in America be if all movies, regardless of location or origin of the action characters are spoken in English? What are Americans, anyway? A lot of people of all nation, close to everywhere, most of them without school, without education. A brief history of the nation and without anything special. Generations do not know how to write or read, not many know that there is anything outside of America and English. And yet, the rest of humanity is always reported in America. Worryingly decadent. If any director even accidentally sees these lines, he may contact Mel Gibson on his congratulations on his films spoken in a language other than English.

Although not mentioned in the IMDb profile, this film was also based on artist Francoise Gilot's work entitled, "Life with Picasso". In an interview with Charlie Rose, Gilot emphasized that her book's title came from the French "vivre" meaning to live or life in general, rather than the possessive "My Life". In interview, Gilot likened herself to a camera taking in the life around them.Having said this, it must be understood that the screenplay was not written as a documentary on the artistic process, which is why it does not focus on the individual paintings or the techniques of Picasso, Gilot, Matisse or Braque, all of whom are noted masters of twentieth century art. Rather it is an important film for other reasons, as a character study as artist as a whole which a less insightful or sensitive observer might mistake for tedium or sentimentality. But even more significant is the film's revelation of the importance of autonomy and benevolence in the life of an artist.

Two hours long; dull and tedious, and what a shame.Picasso one of the most famous painters of all time yet this movie concentrates on him as an egotist, womanizer and bore.It is mainly about his later life and one tedious affair after another as well as the portrayal of him as totally selfish, whether true or not.This is someone whose paintings can and do sell for 50 or 100 million US dollars, and like or loath, he was a Genius.But no where in the picture does it properly: i) Show us the Secret of his Genius;or,ii) Illustrate fully or sufficiently the artistry of his genius.If one is going to make a movie about an Icon, give us someinspiration please....3/10