Colette: liberación y deseo

The fascinating life of Colette, one of the important figures in both literature and gender definition, is brought to the screen by director Wash Westmoreland ('Still Alice', 'Quinceañera', 'Totally Gay') who also wrote the screenplay with Richard Glatzer and Rebecca Lenkiewicz. The result is a visually fine period piece with excellent performances by Keira Knightley and Dominic West yet somehow falls short of its potential by focusing on excesses.

The true story is that of the gifted country girl Gabrielle Colette (Keira Knightley) who is swept off her feet by writer Henry Gautier-Villars (aka Willy), taken to Paris where Willy's philandering and writing needs are a source of contention with his publisher. Discovering that his wife Colette has a gift for writing, Willy talks her into being a ghostwriter for him, successfully publishing a series of books about the life of 'Claudine' - a reflection of Colette's real life. Riding on the success of the venture, Colette begins to acknowledge her desire for female partners, sharing one wealthy American Matilde (Sloan Thompson) with Willy and finally pairing with the wealthy Missy (Denise Gough) in her decision to 'make it on her own' both as a writer and as performer with Missy. To everyone's surprise she uses her fame to advance acceptance of same sex gender identification, unique fashion, and literature by female authors.

The film is enhanced by the musical score by Thomas Adès and the cinematography by Giles Nuttgens. Minor roles are well performed and the overall recreation of Paris at eh turn of the century is excellent. For some reason, despite Keira Knightley's fine acting, the film fails to convince fully, but for the importance of this story on many levels it is a film very much worth viewing.

Having the film as English originally affected how it flowed and it would've made much more sense to make it in French, especially as Colette writes in French and reads in French throughout the film.

My main criticism of this film is that in my view iconic non English characters rarely work if portrayed by actors of another nationality. I suspect I may have enjoyed this interesting story based on the real life experiences of .possibly the most famous female French .author Colette more as a French film with French actors. I just think it may have lost some of the subtlety of language and atmosphere The actors Keira Knightley as Colette and Dominic West as her husband Wily are good in their roles but imagine for example Beatrice Potter portrayed by Audrey Tattou or Agatha Christie starring Marion Cotillard it would be odd to my mind also and fail to successfully capture their Englishness . In this movie the dialogue is totally English but when Colette is writing, she writes in French, perhaps I'm too picky , it just seemed a little strange. The story of a husband taking the fame and literary credit for his wife's brilliant writing talent and the wife's compliance to hold a marriage together was told earlier this year far far more effectively in "The Wife" starring Glenn Close. This film is about Colette but at times seems dominated and more about Wily the husband they seem to me at times both totally unstable and incompatible especially sexually and emotionally. Willy, fourteen years older than his wife and one of the most notorious libertines in Paris, introduced Colette into avant-garde intellectual and artistic circles while engaging in sexual affairs and encouraging her own lesbian It's worth seeing , not great or an award contender as far as I'm concerned but a very interesting story about a fascinating character who wrote the famous Claudine novels and of course her famous 1944 novel Gigi, which inspired the much loved Lerner and Loewe musical of the same name.

Very well done, interesting. A nice period piece. However, at the end the director states, after I thought I was watching a movie that was historically accurate, that he had changed several characters and other aspects to make them more contemporary (meaning: what he thinks the way things ought to have been 100+ years ago, vs reality) re: gender, sexual preference, racial matters, etc. As such, the movie to a degree is fiction; a lie. Which is sad, as it detracts from the ground breaking path that Colette lived.

My thoughts regarding Collette are conflicted to say the least. On one hand, the film is a well-acted, complex love story. On the other hand, it's a well-acted mess that doesn't know what it wants to say. I'll begin by covering the one element of the film I know I liked: the leads. Keira Knightly and Dominic West are a great onscreen couple. They both have human flaws, but the script also acknowledges the true affection between them. In addition to their romance, they also share a relationship as business partners, adding another layer of complexity to their relationship. Through the progression of this love story, I didn't hate one or idolize the other, which I admired on a screenwriting level. However, about halfway through the film, the dialogue and tone start to side with Collette more and more even though the previous scenes never indicated the story held this ethical position. I understand that her name is the title of the picture, but there are still biographical films that don't necessarily support the central figure's motives or actions. In the first hour or so, the film seemed to simply display Colette's life without assigning the roles of a good or bad guy. The story focused and kept the central dramatic elements in check. After this, Colette starts, I don't want to say "falling apart", rather biting off more than it can chew. New characters are introduced quite literally out of nowhere even though they play very important roles. Colette also starts pursuing a career in theatre for reasons that are never really explained. And her husband Willy (Dominic West) is suddenly made out to as the film's antagonist. I would not mind this dramatic shift if more time was dedicated to the relationship. But like I said, there are so many separate events unfolding in the last hour or so that it's impossible to make sense of it all. In fact, the end credits reveal even more important events took place later in her life, that I quite frankly would have liked to see. I think the film makers struggled deciding what approach to use while telling this story. At first, the film seemed purely subjective as it took a neutral stance and simply showed the events one after another. Perhaps the writers later decided they weren't comfortable with this approach and took a one-sided angle for the rest of the project. I don't prefer one point of view over the other, but I wish Colette would have committed to a single method of cinematic storytelling. I've though about this film a lot and have decided to give it a small recommendation. It is a well acted, well-directed, and well-shot picture from beginning to end, but there is a distracting perspective shift that audiences should be aware of.