Frida

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful sight.
Review: Julie Taymor's portrayal of the life of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo breaks away from conventional biopics and occasionally enters what seems to be the inside of the artist's surreal mind. Still, the film doesn't seem much different from most biopics.

Salma Hayek is fine as the famed painter, but she fails to play such a complex character on more than one level. However, she does capture Kahlo's beauty, and does well when her character is acting passionately. Alfred Molina is also adequate as the repeatedly unfaithful husband - you almost believe him when he says that "[sex] doesn't mean anything!". The film is also peppered with rather small supporting roles, all performed well enough: Ashley Judd as Italian expatriate Tina Modotti, Antonio Banderas as rival Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros, Geoffrey Rush as the Russian exile Leon Trotsky, Edward Norton as greasy bourgeios American Nelson Rockefeller, and the exceptional Valeria Golino as Lupe Marin, Rivera's ex-wife.

Elliot Goldenthal's intriguing musical score plays over the absolutely gorgeous Art Direction and Set Direction by Bernardo Trujillo and Hannia Robledo, respectively. The film is a visual and audial cinematic triumph.

However, Taymor's direction straddles between avant-garde moviemaking and conventional melodrama. The screenplay, by a collaboration of writers, fails really to delve into the characters' inner-feelings, especially of the title character, despite the frequent, lively trips inside her mind. In short, we see in this film all that happened to Frida Kahlo in her life, and it's beautiful along the way, but most of us are still left knowing little about her true character other than her conventional descriptions as communist, lover, and painter.

Rating:
Summary: Another amazing movie from Julie Taymor
Review: If you liked "Titus", be sure to see this film too. A wonderful film about art, music, politics and love.

Rating:
Summary: Incredible biopic
Review: First things first: This is about Frida the woman, not about her art. Almost none of Kahlo's imagery appear in this movie, except incidentally. That suited me just fine - although I wanted to know more about her artwork, a video isn't necessarily the best way to present static images.

Knowing nothing about her life, everything was a surprise - surprises that I'll mostly leave for you to discover on your own. Kahlo's determination was not a surpise, though. After the accident that shaped the rest of her life, that was the driving force that pulled the rest of the movie forward. It got her up and moving, in the most literal way. It was the only source of her skill as a artist - if she had any formal training, the movie glossed over it. It got Diego Rivera's attention (after an unfortunate, prior introduction). It even kept Rivera's attention, as much as it could be kept.

A few surreal interludes punctuated the movie. A hospital scene, in particular, had an eerie, macabre look. That certainly captured the pained, drug-addled semiconsciousness that must have come and gone during recovery. It also involved imagery that was distinctly Mexican, suggesting the 'Day of the Dead' icons.

Only a few points rang false in this movie. First, the body cast was too all-enveloping. Attending to sanitary needs would not have been possible for someone wrapped up that completely. Second, Kahlo's gait was remarkably strong and straight after the movie's first few scenes. I would have thought that Kahlo's defining accident would surely leave more than superficial scars.

On the whole, this was a very enjoyable view of Kahlo as an artist, but mostly as a political activist. Looking just at her paintings, it's hard to remember just how many chances she took with her political involvements. I suppose, though, that anyone so close to Rivera was already accustomed to a little danger and unpredictability.

Hayek presented Kahlo as a physcially diminutive woman. I would like to believe that was an accurate portrayal. It just means that all of Kahlo's strength and energy was wound up even tighter, to fit in such a small package. On the whole, it was a very strong portrayal of a very strong woman. Brava, Frida!

Rating:
Summary: Fine entertainment, inaccurate about Frida , Diego, Trotsky
Review: The film Frida and the accompanying background material here is a visual entertainment that seems to be oriented to the current fascination with her art as an expression of inwardly turned, self-referential, and pyscholoigcal concerns. The acting, direction, and production design here are all masterful.

Yet, there seems to be a simplification to enable glorification. Frida emerges as a saint, a heroine, but not a real person. In fact, she seems unrecognizable compared with the versions of her life that were told and people who knew her before she became worthy of the same treatment as The Lion King. While lip service is paid to her disability and pain, one never sees the real pyschological expression of that pain that everyone who knew her talks about marking her personality. But then, this film seems to be faithful to current hipster's glib
reducation of Freida Kalho to a highly "collectable" stereotype.

People I knew who knew her 1938-1942 and the biographies that were written about her before she began to be taken up by the New York hipsters, tended to talk about how the pain and difficulty of her life were expressed in a personality that was not exactly the sweet, sunny, firm clear, fair and always just character portrayed in the movie. The condition created by the Frida Fad of the past 10 years has made her into such a non-person, such a glorified abstraction, that otherwise serious grownups who have no real knowledge other than she is now popular and "collectable" wince when you tell them people world wide for their warmth, judgement, and trust who saw her every day for years could say that Frida was not always fun to be around. No less than the Diego depicted in her film, Kahlo did not really understand the consequences her own personal picadillos and adventures could have on people who had more conventional views of life and love, and who needed stability in life.

The movie is either false or ignorant about why Trotsky moved out of the Blue House. He did not move out because of Natalia Sedova's anger over the affair. [ The affair really break Natalia's heart and almost caused a split among the Trotskys, although that split was healed. Trotsky is almost rapsodic in his diary when he realizes his love for Natalya is there emotionally and physically and they are still together.] Trotsky and the Riveras split due to a deep and public political disagreement over elections in Mexico. Diego was making public statements that gave people the impression that Trotsky was backing a right-wing candidate for President of Mexico that Trotsky stridently opposed. Moroever, Diego's actions gave the false impression that Trotsky was publically intervening in Mexican politics, something Trotsky resolutely refused to do. Both Trotsky and the Mexican section of the Fourth International, the world organization Trotsky founded, had to disassociate themselves from Deigo at this point.

This movie uses Kahlo's association with Trotsky to give a gloss to her and Rivera. Unlike the Mexican movie made about her entitled Freida (this is the name Kahlo was born with, not Frida), this film does not tell the view that in the late 1940s, Rivera and Kahlo became ultra-Stalinists. They revived their friendship with David Alfred Siqueros who had attempted to murder Trotsky. Frida Kahlo issued public statements denouncing herself for having had sex with Trotsky and pledged her eternal devotion to Stalin. Of course, this aspect of her life doesn't fit into the kind of marketable hagiagraphy that has less concern with the reality of a person and of politics than it does with a marketable image. It is true you do see a picture of Stalin on a canvas toward the end, but it is not clear to anyone who isn't already familiar with the story.

I also was disappointed in the actor they had playing Diego. He played his part extremely well, but he was just not the right person for anyone to think to be Diego. The person was an English actor, apparently of Italian or Spanish origin.

Diego was mostly if not entirely Indian, whereas Frida was actually half German Jewish. Diego actually did the rough outlines and instructions of his murals and then got very indigenous Indians to paint in the colors with their rough brush strokes.

This attempt to identify with the non-European art and culture and political identity of Mexico was a big part of what Diego and Frida were about, but it gets no play or reference in the movie. Frida adopted the regional dress of one of the most indigenous areas of Mexico,rather than follow the Europe-centered fashions of Mexico's intelligensia. Mexico is a nation where the the vast majority, the scores of millions of people of mixed and all Indian blood have traditionally struggled against an elite which emphasizes its "Spanish" ancestry. Diego's proclamation of his Indianness and his sucess in Mexico as a mostly Indian cultural figure, and Frida's decision to identify with this was central to their lives and impact on their times.

To me what is rather unfortunate is that while Kahlo's art was interesting and beautiful, and great in some ways, Diego is simply lost in all of this. He was one of the great artists of the 20th Century, far more significant than Kahlo in his impact on Mexican, Latin American, and world culture. Moreover, particularly for Mexicans and other Latin Americans, the cultural ideas about reclaiming the Indian identity and linking with the popular masses and the pre-Columbian cultures that he advanced were very important, not just for artists, but in political and literary circles as well. Diego played an important role fighting with his friend Andre Breton in charting an independent and radical artistic and intellectual response to Stalinist theory of "socialist realist" art. Pathfinder Press has just come out with a brand new updated and better noted and glosseried edition of Breton's What is Surrealism which contains the declaration on Art and Artists in the 20th Century that Deigo, Trotsky, and Breton wrote together.

Of course, all of Deigo's work dealt with the political struggle of Mexico and the world's working people to fight against imperialism and capitalism. This isn't very marketable among the upper middle class fadists at whom this film seems to aimed. They prefer a Frida and a Diego whose personal concerns about romance, sex, and personal fame are at the center of their lives, not two fighters for a socialist world!

Rating:
Summary: exceptional vision and value
Review: a wondrous escapade of sound and vision...not to mention value (with the additional disc of extensive content). This film is a masterfully acted and well-produced embodiment of the life of an artist.

Hayek is convincing and gorgeous. The talent of acting by those around her empowers her to flesh out the story with great richness and life.

Rating:
Summary: A basic introduction to an incredible woman...
Review: Mmmmm, how to review this film.
I watched this film with a friend who knew nothing of Frida, and he thought the film to be stunning and interesting. I know a bit more about Frida than he, and whilst I found the film to be beautifully shot, very stylish and well acted, it was a very basic introduction into a very complex character, who lived her life in incredible pain (not really shown here) and whose relationship was continuously tested by many, many infidelities by both parties. Also not dealt with, were her attempted suicides, which I think may perhaps have portrayed her as a weak person if they were simply glossed over, which she wasn't.
Definitely a beautiful and impressive film, and one I would recommend. Frida was an incredible woman, and if the film inspires you to learn more about her, then read the biography on which this film was based by Hayden Herrera (also sold on amazon).

Rating:
Summary: flawless...
Review: There isn't a slow moment in this film, or a bad moment for that matter. The cast, camera, and script are just superb throughout. Every frame has the brilliant color and composition of a painting.

Of course the real Frida was not nearly as gorgeous and appealing as Salma Hayek makes her out to be, but the spirit of the artist is faithfully rendered: this was one beautifully ballsy woman who lived life by her own rules and heart, who gave all the oppressive and conformist social/gender conventions of her society a big bold middle finger, who lived as she painted: passionately, torturously, and triumphantly. (The last adjective is a historical embellishment, however---the real Frida did not die a happy person.)

All in all it's a brilliant and fascinating film, worth repeated viewings, every scene and character perfectly fleshed out. Not your typical artist-bio film like "La Belle Noiseux" but more like the equally gorgeous "Basquiat"---it's a celebration of a life lived as art, and the art in life.

Rating:
Summary: Visually interesting, hagiagraphy, inaccurate,
Review: The film Frida and the accompanying background material here is a visual entertainment that seems to be oriented with the current fascination with her art as an expression of inwardly turned, self-referential, and pyscholoigcal concerns that seem to pass as social concern these days. The acting, direction, and production design here are all masterful. Yet, there seems to be a simplification to enable glorification. Frida emerges as a saint, a heroine, but not a real person.

People I knew who knew her 1938-1942 and the biographies that were written about her before she began to be taken up by the New York hipsters, tended to talk about how the pain and difficulty of her life were expressed in a personality that was not exactly the sweet, sunny, firm clear, fair and always just character portrayed in the movie. The condition created by the Frida Fad of the past 10 years has made her into such a non-person, such a glorified abstraction, that otherwise serious grownups who have no real knowledge other than she is now popular and "collectable" wince when you tell them people world wide for their warmth, judgement, and trust who saw her every day for years could say that Frida was not always fun to be around. No less than the Diego depicted in her film, Kahlo did not really understand the consequences her own personal picadillos and adventures could have on people who had more conventional views of life and love, and who needed stability in life.

The movie and the accompanying DVD background material were either false or ignorant about why Trotsky moved out of the Blue House. He did not move out because of Natalia Sedova's anger over the affair. [ The affair really break Natalia's heart and almost caused a split among the Trotskys, although that split was healed. Trotsky is almost rapsodic in his diary when he realizes his love for Natalya is there emotionally and physically and they are still together.] Trotsky and the Riveras split due to a deep and public political disagreement over elections in Mexico. Diego was making public statements that gave people the impression that Trotsky was backing a right-wing candidate for President of Mexico that Trotsky stridently opposed. Moroever, Diego's actions gave the false impression that Trotsky was publically intervening in Mexican politics, something Trotsky resolutely refused to do. Both Trotsky and the Mexican section of the Fourth International, the world organization Trotsky founded, had to disassociate themselves from Deigo at this point.

This movie uses Kahlo's association with Trotsky to give a gloss to her and Rivera. Unlike the Mexican movie made about her entitled Freida (this is the name Kahlo was born with, not Frida), this film does not tell the view that in the late 1940s, Rivera and Kahlo became ultra-Stalinists. They revived their friendship with David Alfred Siqueros who had attempted to murder Trotsky. Frida Kahlo issued public statements denouncing herself for having had sex with Trotsky and pledged her eternal devotion to Stalin. Of course, this aspect of her life doesn't fit into the kind of marketable hagiagraphy that has less concern with the reality of a person and of politics than it does with a marketable image. It is true you do see a picture of Stalin on a canvas toward the end, but it is not clear to anyone who isn't already familiar with the story.

I also was disappointed in the actor they had playing Diego. He played his part extremely well, but he was just not the right person for anyone to think to be Diego. The person was an English actor, apparently of Italian or Spanish origin.

Diego was mostly if not entirely Indian, whereas Frida was actually half German Jewish. Diego actually did the rough outlines and instructions of his murals and then got very indigenous Indians to paint in the colors with their rough brush strokes.

This attempt to identify with the non-European art and culture and political identity of Mexico was a big part of what Diego and Frida were about, but it gets no play or reference in the movie. Frida adopted the regional dress of one of the most indigenous areas of Mexico,rather than follow the Europe-centered fashions of Mexico's intelligensia. Mexico is a nation where the the vast majority, the scores of millions of people of mixed and all Indian blood have traditionally struggled against an elite which emphasizes its "Spanish" ancestry. Diego's proclamation of his Indianness and his sucess in Mexico as a mostly Indian cultural figure, and Frida's decision to identify with this was central to their lives and impact on their times.

To me what is rather unfortunate is that while Kahlo's art was interesting and beautiful, and great in some ways, Diego is simply lost in all of this. He was one of the great artists of the 20th Century, far more significant than Kahlo in his impact on Mexican, Latin American, and world culture. Moreover, particularly for Mexicans and other Latin Americans, the cultural ideas about reclaiming the Indian identity and linking with the popular masses and the pre-Columbian cultures that he advanced were very important, not just for artists, but in political and literary circles as well. Diego played an important role fighting with his friend Andre Breton in charting an independent and radical artistic and intellectual response to Stalinist theory of "socialist realist" art. Pathfinder Press has just come out with a brand new updated and better noted and glosseried edition of Breton's What is Surrealism which contains the declaration on Art and Artists in the 20th Century that Deigo, Trotsky, and Breton wrote together.

Of course, all of Deigo's work dealt with the political struggle of Mexico and the world's working people to fight against imperialism and capitalism. This isn't very marketable among the upper middle class fadists at whom this film seems to aimed. They prefer a Frida and a Diego whose personal concerns about romance, sex, and personal fame are at the center of their lives, not two fighters for a socialist world!

Rating:
Summary: WHY didn't it win more Oscars?
Review: This movie was spectacular. Julie Taymor did a great job, especially incorporating the way that Kahlos experiences shaped her art. This movie had everything..happiness, sadness, distress, hatred, love. Selma seriously went through the whole gamut for this. I was VERY dissapointed that she did not win the Oscar for best actress. Not only would it have been great to see an Hispanic actress win, but it would have placed even greater legitimacy to her project! I love Nicole's work, but her performance in THE HOURS was not to par with Selmas. I mean, jeez, Nicole was only in the movie for..what 30 minutes..while Selma held the entire film. You will love this movie..haha dont forget to get the tequila shots out, it only makes it better..but it also makes you cry harder!! Viva TEQUILA!!

Rating:
Summary: Frida Kahlo
Review: I can honestly say that this is one of the better movies out there. It is not only a synopsis of Frida's life, but also a peak at part of Mexican political and artistic history. It portrays the life of an artist, and an incredibly couragous woman, who despite many accidents has the perserverance to never give up and be Frida.