Biopics are usually a kind of a love/hate "ambivalent" experience for me. As much as I love and enjoy (most) art, when art tries to portray artists, it often gets curled up in irrelevant aspects or structures that are not really that "artistic" or worse, don't give the artist in question room to be understood - in lack of better words.
The first problem any biopicturizer always have to face is .. should I focus on a specific, naturally defined period of the artist or should I take a complete life story, birth (or youth) to death approach. In many cases the last one is chosen and mostly it ends up as "wikipedia" like run through to get to the inevitable end of life, rather than taking time to understand the artist.
"Frida", about the Mexican female surrealist painter Frida Kahlo, chooses the second solution so we get a largely superficial run-through of her life as a teenager, wife, lesbian lover, revolutionary communist ... and also a bit about her painting. I did not expect much to be honest going into this and I was not terrible disappointed or surprised either. I got what I expected and what little good I could find was overwhelmed by the lack of focus on the art itself.
The art must be the centre of an artist biopic, why is this so hard to consider? Unless off course, the art itself is not the real incentive for the "story" but some other aspects of that persons attitudes, be they political or personal, and how that could be used to further some political agenda. This is to me the real driver behind this movie ... and since it received an incredible 6 Oscar nominations and won 2, it is as good as certain it is not for the movie making side, the deep portrait of the artists art but the underlying appeal to political correctness.
The sexual extrovert Frida, ends up seriously wounded after a bus accident where she is literally impaled and must go through serious treatment and is bedridden for a very long time. To cheer her up her father gives her a staffili, canvas and brushes to have a bit of fun while crippled.
We get an idea that she already has a bit of talent for the art and that she in particular has her own style and as her life seems to always be heavily influenced by the accident she has encountered, she has a bit of a nihilistic streak that comes out in her paintings as surrealist motifs often with herself or people around her as the figures.
She had already had an "erotic" voyeuristic incident with an established painter, Rivera, who she seeks out to help her figure out if her art is actually any good. If nopt she won't spend more time on a pipe dream.
Rivera is a notorious womaniser and openly communist (as most artists are) but she (at the outset) is only interested in a professional judgment and potential relation. He takes a liking to her art and to her, and off course they end up as lovers and later as wife and husband.
This is a crucial aspect of Frida's life since it seems that she - officially - is in support of open marriage and not being held down by the "ties" of marriage and so on. Clearly stated by a side character, so that she does not have to utter it directly herself, but viewers still get the point and project it onto her. Even if he promises her to be true to her they both know that that is not going to be the case and he keeps having affairs left and right (mostly left I suppose).
For reasons that can only be explained by political correctness, her life seems to be subordinate to his. She is slightly portrayed as a victim who is not given the "respect" she deserves from this "important" male artist with whom she is married. The ideals of motherhood and being a housewife, is constantly battling in her and she seems to be setting her art aside for the wellbeing of their marriage. And we never really get to enjoy her art or get an understanding of how and why her art tends to be asa peculiar but also very personal and intimate, as it is. It is as if we are supposed to think she is deliberately being held down to serve the man. At least I cannot help not explaining it in any other way.
The problem with the wikipedia plot structure is that as soon as one is settled with a certain period in her life, it has to move on to the next. Some aspects are only shown fleetingly, like a passage in Paris. This is annoying because it is a portrait of an artist - not a road movie. It is not really that interesting whether or not she was in Paris or Acapulco, of if she had sex with some groupie or not. I don't care. What I do care about is her art and there is too little focus on it.
It seems to be mainly a story about sex and politics. There are a lot of sex or sex related scenes and honestly they don't bring anything to the table. it does not even relate to her art so it is just hot filling for the sake of sex. The politics is maybe a little more serious in the sense that it is a huge part of her husband's life and art. He is basically a communist revolutionary and uses any possible chance at signalling this. most famously with the mural that eventually was torn down again in USA in the thirties. An out and out attack on "capitalism" while an appeal to the "heroism" of the worker at the "crossroad" ... that obviously should go in his direction.
The movie stops when Frida dies and I am left a little exhausted and left behind with a feeling of "what was this movie trying to tell me about this artist?". Nothing really - when it comes to art. It did try to start scenes from a painting of hers or relate incidents, like when she has a stillborn child, but it seemed more like a cinematic tool than a way to understand her artistic urges.
I liked the first act until she gets married to Rivera. She was strong headed and ambitious, but with a clear sense of realism. I liked that, that felt promising and engaging. But somehow that was lost in all the later more or less banal "marital" stuff and her sexual escapades and so on. It is a great opportunity lost in my opinion, and I believe, as is always the case, it would have been better to focus on a specific period and get into that more deeply. If that is not possible, then it is not story worth telling - or there is a hidden alternative story, a political one instead, that kills all joy of it. And she goes to bed with Leon Trotsky !!! ... yuck !
5/10
