Kahlo no different than Dali

I read the Kahlo bio by Herrera before I saw the film because I knew nothing about Frida. I was surprised to discover a new surrealist painter that rivals anything by Salvador Dali.

That said, the film is a serious tribute to Frida and Diego, and Julie Taymor is cementing her place in cinema history with her richly beautiful pictures. There is so much art to consider! She has a dynamic style that you cannot look away from. If Agnes Varda is the godmother of the french new-wave, then Taymor is at least the high priestess of neo-classic art house cinema. She has me wrapped around her finger now, and a new film can't come soon enough.

I was skeptical about this movie because I am such a fan of Frida Kahlo. I was blown away by Salma Hayek and Alfred Molina! They were awesome. I think they both deserve recognition for their work in this film. The director also did an exceptional job. The color in the movie was great. I especially loved how paintings were incorporated in the story. This role should make Salma an even bigger star.

You are just part of the mindless herd of middle class assholes, nothing more.

FRIDA finally made it to our community. Last night as I was leaving the theatre a friend asked me if I enjoyed the film. “I’m not sure that’s the right way to describe it,” I said, “but it was a very good film … What a tortured soul!”

My friend’s response: “But what a woman!”

Such praise could be appropriately applied to three women connected with this film. Selma Hayek is certainly mesmerizing as the title character, Frida Kahlo. She gives a powerful, sensual performance that stands toe to toe with Alfred Molina’s Diego Rivera. Another woman deserving the epithet is Frida Kahlo, the provocative surrealist painter whose character is explored. But with respect to this film I think the most remarkable woman was Julie Taymor whose directorial skill is everywhere. Taymor made a huge impact in the theatrical world with her amazing Broadway adaptation of THE LION KING. With FRIDA her production concept utilizes the tenants of surrealism’s (and Frida’s) rejection of normal standards. I love the frequent odd, but appropriate images such as the gold flecked visualization of Frida in the streetcar accident, and the use of the KING KONG parallels was superb as well.

The result was a film that gave us a strong sense of an extraordinary woman with immense talent. Frida comes across as a visionary who was able to overcome tremendouse obstacles, who was able to insert her powerful personality into her varied relationships, but who nonetheless endured as a tortured soul.

It's my understanding the Selma Hayek was the inspiration and power behind this movie ever making it to the screen. Hayek's proposal for Frida was turned down by all the major studios and it was only Hayek as one of the producers of the movie and her effort that made it possible.

Yes, Selma Heyak is definitely to be admired for producing the film as well as for doing an outstanding job in performance. Part of producing was in getting great people to participate. Aside from Molina, for example, she got Antonio Banderas and Edward Norton to take supporting roles. Elliot Goldenthal's music is terrific--and varied. At times it reminded me of THE THIRD MAN. The cinematography was especially appropriate for the subject. The editing was remarkable.

None of this would have been possible if Hayek had not surrounded herself with the right people.

I agree. Others have praised Selma's acting in the film. I'm just saying I was impressed by the directing.

Julie Taymor was on PBS a week ago discussing her film with Bill Moyers. If you saw the special features disc for TITUS, you would have seen how immersed she is in the production of her films. She is also one of the most articulate people I've ever had the pleasure to hear in conversation.

She had just as much passion for Frida as Salma. If you look on Yahoo!Movies, you can see Salma in interview raving about Julie: "She is one of the few Geniuses working in movies today".

All in all, I classify Taymor as a Kubrick type of filmmaker (with total conviction & control) . Say what you want about Miramax, they give the director freedom to make original films. (just like Ahmet Ertegun of Atlantic Records allowing Led Zeppelin & Yes to be alone to develop something truly great)

Not knowing Taymor, she sounds like Ridley Scott who has conviction and control in his movies. What else has she done? Does she have any history so one can compare her works to determine if she is making an own style or impression?

Julie is known primarily as a theatre director. (The Lion King, Oedipus Rex) She has only directed one feature besides Frida: TITUS.

Titus should make any cineaste sit up and take notice. I don't have enough adjectives in my vocabulary to describe my admiration for THAT film. Just see it, dammit!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Julie is known primarily as a theatre director. (The Lion King, Oedipus Rex) She has only directed one feature besides Frida: TITUS.

Titus should make any cineaste sit up and take notice. I don't have enough adjectives in my vocabulary to describe my admiration for THAT film. Just see it, dammit!

---

Frida has yet to be released in the UK, so as a fan of both Hayek and Kahlo (and the Quay brothers, come to think of it), I'm reserving my judgement.

But what a film Titus was! I've always detected a kernel of greatness in 'Titus Andronicus' that most people seem to deny, and Taymor teased it out expertly. Her anachronisms, I felt, were not just a case of showy postmodernism, but a genuine attempt to illuminate some of the murkier corners of Shakespeare's work that aren't immediately intelligible to somebody watching half a century or so later.

I second that motion.