Firstly, while watching this documentary I noticed that the nudity in the art was blurred out. Maybe this was just for television but considering it was produced for television this seems to tell me it's a choice the director and producers made. Astonishing to me that this would be done even for TV considering the fact that Kahlo intentionally included non-sexual nudity to express vulnerability (take for example the Henry Ford Hospital painting expressing her pain following a miscarriage). I genuinely think this is abhorrent to do, censorship - even self-censorship - is wrong, full stop. Anyone so afraid of the human form has no business making or watching a documentary about a painter, let alone Kahlo of all people.
Beyond that the documentary, like many modern documentaries, seems more concerned with uplifting the subjects than examining and analyzing them. Every fault is glossed over, every poor decision left unremarked - everything Diego did excused everything Kahlo did and vice versa. She was remarkable, she was influential, but no person is saintly.
What was appreciated was the clean timeline of events and interspersing her words and thoughts among them, though the lack of a thick accent in the voiceover was an odd decision. I also thought the soundtrack could have been more inclusive of Mexican music. I want to say it was a Clair De Lune interpolation running in the background and it seemed odd to choose a French song, maybe the most famous French song of all time, for a mestizo artist with a German father.
I'd recommend it for people who already like the artist or her work but it is not the best documentary for people who know anything less than the typical reductive "unibrow lady", they'll receive a relatively base level knowledge despite the overindulgent runtime. Sometimes I think documentaries like this would be better made by people with no strong feelings for the subject so as not to lionize a person that is already well-regarded. I'm not asking for hit-pieces but objectivity is best.
