MovieChat Forums > Frida (2002) Discussion > baby in pieces

baby in pieces

posted 19 years ago by ayoung81787
11 replies | jump to latest

when she said the baby came out in pieces
did she literally mean . . .in like, actual pieces? or what?
thanx
-anne

[–] Haifis 19 years ago

Basically, Poor Frida had a miscarriage. A very bloody one at that. This shocked her and was truly upsetting to her.

[–] monalisa35023 19 years ago

From research on Frida I've learned that this wasn't her only miscarriage. She first had an abortion because doctors told her the baby was breech, but she tried several more times and the movie only showed one of her attempts. She tried again after this really bloody miscarriage and lost that baby too. She finally came to terms with the fact that she would never be a mother so she started an immense doll collection. From what I can gather she would spend long periods of time cleaning and dressing her dolls just like you would a real baby. Very depressing really.

-Can I have a look at Uranus too, Lavender?
Ron, Goblet of Fire

[–] kutelilkat 18 years ago

when watching the movie, i thought why doesnt she adopt? she seemed very loving to children.

[–] Dea_Olivae 15 years ago

I am curious, could they not do a C-Section if the baby was breached? Or with her medical problems was that just not possible back then?

I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity

[–] Amira76 18 years ago

The birth of Frida's child that was shown in the film was not in pieces, and it wasn't in pieces in reality either. The child was given birth to by Frida and was fully developed, yet grossly premature and unable to survive. A miscarriage brought on the contractions and eventual birth of the child.
Frida specifically asked to have the child brought to her, and the nursing staff did so, and eventually put the baby in a solution so that she could capture the image of her baby by drawing/painting him. The baby was a boy. The solution was to prevent what happens once death occurs, such as the unpleasant smell and the changes to the body.
I hope I've helped you with your question. I'm a great admirer of Frida Kahlo and I know almost everything there is to know about her! She truly was an incredible woman, and her life is anything but depressing, as she was so full of life and never gave in to her lifelong pain--physically or emotionally.

~Amira

[–] ayoung81787 18 years ago

Wow. Thank you so much. So is that the story behing the birth painting then? Or was that a painting of Frida's birth? I've never seen the picture you're describing.

[–] deborah-101 18 years ago

I've seen the picture in books about her artwork. She was greiving for not being able to keep the baby, which would have been a diffuclt feat at best, as in the trolley accident, her uterus was pierced by a piece of railing.

She ended up bringing herself out of the grief and depression by painting the baby. She was an unconventional personality, so she always did the unexpected.

[–] maddog30-2 14 years ago

Indeed she did the unexpected and was her own person. I've always wondered why the artistic community, all over the world it seems, have always had leanings towards Communism or at least Socialism. They include, artists, painters, authors, stage and movie people. Even back in Frida's time this was the case and it continues today. Why is it that this community leans towards Communism. Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, and many others of today's artists have the same inclinations. To be sure, Frida and her family of artistic friends who partied together were all Communists, certainly Frida's friend, Italian Tina Modotti was a solid Communist. One thing they all have in common is that they usually always have more money and a better stature in life than the average working person. So what gives?

[–] Hoolifan 14 years ago

The artistic status quo is left wing. Anyone who doesn't have at least some socialist leanings tends to be excluded from the artistic community.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I think the problem with your Q is you think in organised constructs. Simply put conservatism preserves what is and therefore takes less risks with pushing for new boundaries. Art by its very nature requires boundary pushing and so conservative ideology or society constricts the creative, though the creative requires boundaries too. They're not dichotomies but polarities that require one another. Today with hindsight we forget that Communism and Socialism were exciting. They pushed boundaries. Hence the attraction between the two.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]