Coco Chanel, played by Audrey Tautou (left), blurred gender boundaries by introducing menswear to the fashion set.
September generally kicks off an onslaught of biopics — Bright Star recently opened and Amelia and The Young Victoria will hit theaters in the coming months. But we have to wonder what the mission is of these autumn perennials. To educate? To reveal a previously unknown side? To feed longtime fans’ obsessions? Or merely to present highbrow fodder for awards ceremonies?
The French-language Coco Before Chanel, opening in select theaters today, stars Audrey Tautou (Amélie, The Da Vinci Code) as Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel, one of the most influential figures in 20th-century fashion. As the title indicates, the film is concerned with the pre-fame portion of her life as it traces her humble beginnings in an orphanage to her nightly cabaret performances and finally into a quasi-love triangle between a wealthy horse breeder and a British businessman. But without a clear plot trajectory, the film struggles to maintain momentum, relying on the tired period-piece mainstays of sweeping landscape shots accompanied by swelling orchestral music before concluding with little impact.
Fashionistas beware: Design itself plays a secondary role in the proceedings. Writer/director Anne Fontaine is primarily interested in Coco’s struggle between independence and male dependence in the face of class and gender barriers. It’s relevant to Chanel’s legacy in that her designs frequently blurred gender lines by introducing pants and suit jackets into the lady’s wardrobe (one scene even features a character referring to Coco as a boy). But this aspect feels sublimated by the staid, traditional style of filmmaking.
What do you think? Do you prefer a more traditional biopic that preserves the reputation of a historical figure? Or one that uses an established figure as a jumping-off point to a larger discussion?
Photo credit: Sony Pictures Classics
© 2010, VIV Publishing, LLC., Zinio, LLC. - San Francisco - New York - London - Barcelona - Taipei - Sydney - All rights reserved.
3 Reader Comments:
Historical figures, established figures…
Who cares? As long as there’s lots of cleavage!
I too find this cyclic scheduling amusing. Summer is for mindless blockbusters chucked full of action and laugh riot films that are usually not. Then Fall is time to get back to school, get serious and immerse oneself in the classics or at least the historical biopic the subject of which one might confront someday in some arcane core requirement class. For my own liking biopics are fine if like any other form they are well done. If not, not. I care not if they are jumping off points or preservers of reputation. I care more if they are well done, add to my knowledge of the subject or the theme and not exercises in self indulgence. Truth should be mined, subject fleshed out and theme explored. If there is nothing there then forget doing the film. It may be your dream (filmaker), but if there is nothing there pretty pictures will not suffice.
I prefer a tradional piopic, however, I feel that this can be skewed to what the director wants and/or would stimulate public interest such as a “scandal”. Although the film is not rated highly, I think I might still go to see it just to see her designs even if they aren’t the main source of the film.