FRIDA ** 1/2 (out of ****) a film review by Richard A. Zwelling
In his review of Frida, film critic James Berardinelli states that he takes great displeasure in saying not-so-nice things about films that represent a creator's passionate artistic pursuits. Such a statement perfectly encapsulates the way that I too feel about a film that was in large part made possible by the persistence and dedication of lead actress Salma Hayek. Although the directorial credit belongs to Julie Taymor, this project was largely Hayek's. She carries one of the production credits and stars in the role that the entire film revolves around: that of early twentieth-century Mexican painter, Frida Kahlo.
The film does have some positives, ones that clearly reflect upon the filmmakers' passion and sense of visual flair. The set design, costumes, and soundtrack are all stunning. The two Academy Awards that Frida received (Original Score and Makeup) are both well deserved. In addition, the film is filled with solid performances, most notably, Alfred Molina as muralist Diego Rivera, with whom Frida has an ongoing love affair, and Geoffrey Rush as Russian refugee Leon Trotsky. Other notables include Valerina Golino, Antonio Banderas, Ashley Judd, and a brief appearance by Hayek's boyfriend, Ed Norton, as Nelson Rockefeller.
A well-designed bio-pic, however, should do more than just present concrete details of a person's life (e.g.-- names, locations, events). It should dig beneath the surface and provide deeper insight into the inner workings of a memorable historical figure. Knowing very little about Frida Kahlo, I went into the film with the hopes that I would learn more, not just about her life, but about her mind, and consequently, what made her so unique as an artist.
While the events of the film and Hayek's performance make very clear many of the individual details of Frida's life, I never gathered more about her than "she's a passionate individualist with powerful artistic visions". This characterizes many artists, however, and I learned all I needed to know about that particular characteristic within the first ten minutes of the film. At the end of the film, Molina delivers a monologue that attempts to encapsulate all of the idiosyncrasies that made Frida the artist she was. The question that immediately raced through my mind was, "Why didn't you guys use the rest of the movie to show this instead of telling it?"
Another consistent problem is the way in which the story is told. Each event that takes place during the course of the film seems more like a disjointed, isolated incident, rather than part of a greater whole. It's almost as if the film says, "This happened to Frida...then this happened to Frida....then this happened to Frida". Consequently, the film has an episodic feel, and the individual parts never seem to coalesce into a more complete picture.
Along those same lines, several of the film's transitions seem abrupt and dramatically unsatisfying. For example, there are the numerous times when Rivera and Frida suddenly break apart and then get back together without much context as to why they are doing so or what happened in the interim. It is true that one of the things that allows for dramatic effectiveness is contrast, specifically emotional "peaks and valleys", as screenwriters call them. Frida, however, has too many of these crammed into too small a frame of time. Characters are ecstatic, and then an event will suddenly and inexplicably happen that causes everyone to come crashing back down to earth, or vice versa.
Several scenes in the film contain genuine works by Frida Kahlo, but the film never uses them to shed light on Frida's inner life. They are more there as decorative pieces to add to the film's stylistic flair, and as a result, the film's more visually stimulating moments feel more like a trip to an art gallery rather than a cinematic exploration of an artist.
The film's lack of depth can also be seen in Hayek's performance. While the performance is extremely effective (and no doubt took a large amount of preparation), it is not at all varied and does not require a large amount of range. As I mentioned earlier, I was always seeing the "passionate individualist" and nothing more. It is also very clear that this was a film directed for actors (as evidenced by the large amount of closeups, especially on Hayek), but too often, I felt like I was being given a show when I wanted to be presented with deeper insight into the characters' lives.
All in all, Frida has all of the ingredients necessary to produce an insightful exploration into the mind of a unique presence in twentieth-century art. The individual parts, however, never come together as they should, and the result is a stylistically rich film with many captivating visuals, but a considerable lack of biographical illumination.
========== X-RAMR-ID: 34880 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1140264 X-RT-TitleID: 1117398 X-RT-AuthorID: 7583 X-RT-RatingText: 2.5/4
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews