Surviving Picasso (1996)

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.

I recognize James Ivory's talent, but except for this movie, never watch any of his movies for the second time, and this because his taste for stretched, out-of-date, heavy, static movies(see "Howard's End"). His predilection for adaptations for the big screen of a novel usually set in a time period when social standing was more of an issue than today, combined with his obvious taste for older actors, and not at last, his age, which unavoidably sets the pace of the movies he directs, makes him a favorite for an older audience. This is not the case here, where Ivory uses all his resources to the full extent, without sacrificing on freshness. The point of view is quite interesting placed as Françoise Gilot, a subjective, yet well informed observer, this imprinting a fresh and personal point of view to the account. Françoise has the right, and judges Picasso(although she knew what she was getting into), who clearly was a difficult man, but also, like all powerful personalities, was a much misunderstood man. In a sense it's an account of a meeting between an artistic genius with a common person, who unavoidably perceives him as an oddity; but how can one expect a man like Picasso to behave like a common man, when he was not one? Anthony Hopkins undergoes a complete transformation, and becomes the man Picasso, this only coming as further proof that a great artist can only be understood by another great artist, and the rest of us are just lucky spectators.

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.

A closer look at the controversial life of world famous painter Picasso. A guy who's only intentions are women - a guy to whom marriage doesn't mean anything. The movie isn't too great at all. Actually many times it's boring. But there's a good reason to watch it: Anthony Hopkins, one of the greatest actors alive. Vote: 6 out of 10.