The movie does create some confusing messages throughout its “follow along” story though. For example, in the movie we are shown many pieces of Picasso’s artworks being created and displayed on the screen with minimal effort and in almost no time there are multiple pieces of his works that are being shown to us. The filmmaker goes on to say that viewers will think he created a composition in a matter of minutes, even though they’ve been filming for hours. The techniques that Clouzot uses make it seem as if Picasso is creating his works effortlessly in a matter of minutes, which in a sense would possibly seem realistic to the viewers due to the fact that there are some people who may not realize the time and effort which artist put into each and every piece they create. The way in which Picasso uses abstract ideals in his paintings could lead us to believe that maybe there is minimal effort involved in his artwork, but the reality of it is that Picasso’s works include a lot of attention to create pieces specific to his technique.

Once the movie continues, we are able to then realize that maybe his process is not as instantaneous as we might think. We watch as Picasso is creating his pieces, slowly the paintings start to take shape and it is clear how often Picasso revises his work, which diminishes the idea for the audience that the painting is created effortlessly. The first piece that we see being created is a man that is painting a portrait of a nude woman, which Picasso commonly does. As we know, the film makes it look as if Picasso is quickly able to make these paintings, so in the movie it looks as if he is able to compose the man and woman in the painting quite quickly, but by now we know this is just the sped up technique that Clouzot uses in the film. We soon are able to see some other details as they begin to appear and bring the painting to life. We are able to see step by step as each detail is added and then soon the composition appears nearly a finished product. The viewers are able to see Picasso start to make some elements less intense with certain details, isolate some of the structures of the painting by using black ink, and finally he intensifies the work altogether by bringing new details such as more shapes and formations into the work. The sketch begins to take shape and soon we are able to see the final image.

Other paintings in the movie follow pretty much the same process as the first one we are shown. There are times in the movie when Clouzot’s tactics to keep the movie interesting feel forced in order to intensify the film. In turn, this feels a bit cinematic rather than realistic even with Clouzot’s tricks throughout the movie which includes time-lapse through particular points and taking out some of the detail and precision that goes into the art. The high point of the film, when Picasso is in a race against time to finish a painting, really dramatizes the trial and error artists go through with their creations, in an expectancy of perfection of art without putting attention into their works. Clouzot somehow is able to in some ways de-sentimentalize the process of art-making for Picasso.

Clouzot is able to keep the film interesting. For the most part, the film was a true depiction of Picasso’s process of making art and provides insight into what steps the artist goes through to make his works his. There were some aspects that left the film feeling cinematic, such as the sped-up parts of the film and making it a race against time, but overall the film depicts a thorough visual experience of the art made by Picasso.

Let’s start by saying that one would die to know what was on Picasso’s mind. In the movie Mystery of Picasso at the opening we see Mr. Pablo Ruiz Picasso sitting down on a chair looking to a certain direction as he smokes a cigarette. In this movie by Henri-Georges Clouzot, which also includes stop-motion and time-lapse photography, we get to experience first-hand what goes through Pablo Picasso’s mind when in the process of painting. The whole film is set in Picasso’s studio and we see him draw and paint many times on one canvas as he changes from one subject to another.

As a viewer I was able to see what goes through this man’s mind as he sketches. It is amazing how he starts with a line and all of a sudden, it is a whole human or animal like figure. As you enter into the world of Picasso in this film, you will feel confused and wonder whether he is done or not, but that is how he tricks you. By simply putting a few lines on a canvas with black ink he makes you believe everything is the way you see it, but the finish product is always something you do not expect. As I went into this movie, at first, I thought it was boring. At most times I was even outraged because I would have never considered his work to be art whatsoever. The beginning was a bit hard to watch but as I kept on watching I saw and felt what he was thinking and observed his work become better over time. His work also showed me parts of him that you wouldn’t know by just looking at him but mostly by asking him.

The movie is more of a documentary showing Picasso drawing, allowing us to watch his thought process evolve over time. The choice in music made it suspenseful and intriguing as to what was going on, was there going to be trouble, what is he going to paint next, is it going to be crazy or simple. I personally liked the parts in which the director and Picasso have full ongoing conversation about what is going on, making it seem more normal and real, like if nothing is staged. The movie also cuts to scene’s where you see Picasso work and prepare his ink before each shot.

Although the film itself was humdrum, after each painting I would want to watch more and more, satisfying my curiosity. Like I said in the beginning of this review, you never know or understand a painting unless you see it fully from its thought process to the final product, and that is what this movie mainly focuses on. Watching this movie made me feel calm and had me very deep in thought. After 30 minutes into the movie I got tired and told myself that I was not going to watch anymore, mainly because I was disgusted by the idea that this man was a very well-known artist. I actually however, went back to the movie and finished it because my curiosity of what he was going to paint next bothered me.

It is hard to believe that this is the type of art that has been admired throughout the 20^th century and up to today. But it is even harder to understand where the influence for this work came from, and what is the meaning behind it. It took me a while to at least have a little understanding through this movie of the significance of this type of art in general. The movie did its job in helping me understand this artist and his work by showing him painting from beginning to end. His work also showed me parts of him that you wouldn’t know by just looking at him but mostly by asking him.  Overall, I think this is a good movie, if you are looking to understand Picasso’s work better or simply to understand what was going on in the art world around the 20^th century and see what was being admired around this time, you should watch this movie. I think people admire Picasso’s work because it is different and very confusing, making you want to dig deeper into its meaning and how he did it. This type of work does not really put everything simple for you, instead it makes it harder because there are things underneath and there are different elements put into it that make it more fun and daring. I liked the movie, but I am still not very fond of Picasso’s work. I personally think that there are other artists in the world who have more interesting works than Picasso, the works that were painted in the movie mainly show women completely nude, either sitting down or standing at a distance from somewhat nude men watching them as if they were an obscene object. But I did more research and found some of his artworks that I was very fond of. From 1 to 10, I rate this movie a 7, because it really represented the artist well and made me understand his work a little more. I took 3 points off because I was not very interested in the pieces of art that the artist painted in this movie.

The name “Pablo Picasso” is an internationally known name. He has become a rock star of the art world but also an enigma in the minds of many people. The Spanish-born artist has enraptured audiences and art lovers for decades, and the film The Mystery of Picasso (1956)  is a doorway into the brilliant mind of the painter.

Unlike most films about artists and the work they create The Mystery of Picasso is a documentary in which the artist, Pablo Picasso, displays his own artistic process which makes the film a piece of artwork within itself. In collaboration with director, Henri-Georges Clouzot, they are able to bring to life the artwork of the master as he creates it by using a semi-transparent canvas that shows each brushstroke as he works from behind–though it is the mirror image that the camera captures. This combined with the use of stop motion photography makes it seem as if the paintings are painting themselves. This medium offers Picasso the chance to peel back the layers of his art and show the audience that the creative spark of his work is not the final piece, but the journey he took to create the piece itself.

The paintings start off relatively slow and safe. He draws with thin black lines that slowly reveal reclining women and short naked men with bulls, and then slowly fills in large parts of the canvas seemingly destroying what he spent so long carving out. Soon the pace picked up and Picasso started making bold strokes of colors. What once was a thick blue line seemingly lost in the middle of the canvas transforms into a scene of a woman sleeping in a field. Picasso paints with passion and as if he is  merely uncovering what was already within the canvas. As a viewer it is almost impossible to tell where he is going with any piece.

It may seem dry to literally be watching paint dry for an hour and fourteen minutes, however it is the exact opposite. The small moments when the camera cuts away and pulls back to show the entire filming set up, combined with the little nuggets of dialogue between Picasso and Clouzot, keep the film on a distinct path. During these moments away from the canvas they discuss the process of his paintings and about how Picasso wants to take more risks and not be as “superficial”, as he said in his own words while pulling out his oil paints.

Picasso’s process is not linear. He backtracks and redraws and repaints constantly. It is impossible to tell when he is finished with a piece because he will go back and smash the composition to bits and then reform it as he sees fit. Picasso is the god of his paintings–both the destroyer and the creator. This can be seen multiple times throughout the film as he turns a fish into a chicken, into a portrait of a person or as he repaints a goat over and over again each time destroying the previous incarnation.

This film is revolutionary in a totally unique way. It takes the medium of cinematography and elevates it to the status of high art. In the case of The Mystery of Picasso film becomes just another tool in the artist’s belt. This film bridges the gap between film/photography and fine art. 

It also shows that Picasso is not infallible either, and that he too sometimes struggles to get a piece to turn out correctly. As Picasso said, “To draw, you must close your eyes and sing,” but it seems that even Picasso’s voice can sometimes crack. He overworked one of the final paintings, so much that he admits that it was not going the way he envisioned, and he pulled off all the collage and started the painting anew. As both an artist and an art lover I appreciated the honesty and was inspired by his will to keep going and restart. This film just feels honest. The farther into the film one gets the more the preconceived notions of Picasso fall away. In a way, this film helps humanize Picasso to a general audience.

This type of film/documentary was very different for director Henri-Georges Clouzot, who usually stuck to thrillers, but I feel like it was one of his most successful films. He worked as a filmmaker during Nazi-occupied France, and after the war was banned from film until 1947 because of his involvement with Continental Films– which during the occupation was Nazi controlled–and especially for directing the movie Le Corbeau which was Nazi-propaganda to subdue the French people with weightless and empty entertainment.. The Mystery of Picasso seems to be Clouzot’s redemption in the eyes of the French public.

This film was a beautiful deep dive into the creative mind of Picasso. It also helps give context to a lot of his other works. His process is more important than his final pieces. By just looking at a finished piece there is no way of understanding how many layers he repainted to get the final look. An example from the film is how he repainted the bull and matador from a realistic style into his more well-known cubist style. The final piece also has no way of showing how much time and effort was put into it. One painting took over five hours, but as Clouzot pointed out to Picasso, “I hate to think the people watching will think it took ten minutes.” It is a privilege to watch his creative process unfold and thus watch the real artwork come to life, and I would highly recommend watching The Mystery of Picasso to anyone with even a passing interest in his artwork.