Colette: liberación y deseo

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.

"Colette" is a biopic about noted French writer Gabrielle Colette. As the movie opens, we are in "Saint Sauveur 1892" where Colette is in a passionate relationship with an older guy nicknamed "Willy" (whose real name we don't know), an entrepreneur/writer/publisher/womanizer. Next we are in "Paris 1893", and the two are now married, and feeling at home as socialites. As always, they need more money to support their life style, and one day, at the encouragement of Willy, Colette writes a book loosely based on her own childhood and youth, "Claudine At School". Published under the nom-de-plume Willy, the book is an unexpected critical and commercial success... At this point we are 15 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how t all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from UK director (and co-writer) Wash Westmoreland, whose previous film was the Oscar-winning "Still Alice". Here he brings the improbable story of Gabrielle Colette to the big screen. Given the many twists and turns that she encountered in her life, some (but certainly not all) of which are reflected in the movie, I don't want to say a whole lot more about that, so as not to spoil your viewing experience. Do allow me to alert you to the fact that Colette was nominated for the Nobel Prize of Literature in 1948, a fact that is never even mentioned in the movie, not even in the closing moments as to what became of her in later years (the movie covers roughly the years 1892-1905). "Colette" is, as a movie, neither a masterpiece nor a disaster. That is not a strong recommendation obviously, but it's still worth checking out for the stellar performance of Keira Knightley in the title role. It seems as is Knightley threw herself into this role without holding anything back. Dominic West, as Willy, does quite well too but of course plays an inherent unlikable character. I also have to say that I found it a bit off-putting to see all of these characters, living in France, reading French language newspapers, writing French language letters and diaries, etc. all speak... English.

"Colette" premiered to good acclaim at this year's Sundance film festival. It finally opened recently at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The early evening screening where I saw this at was attended nicely (and mostly by seniors for some reason). If you are interested in finding out more about one of the best French female authors of the 20th century, even if the film is far from perfect, I'd recommend you check this out, be it at the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

This movie is truly beautiful to watch. Elegant period dress, recreations of turn-of-the-century Paris inside and out that had me wondering how they were achieved. And the acting by the two principles is truly first-rate.

Keira Knightley has it all and does it all as the title character. A truly beautiful performance, including some line-reading that was worthy of Shakespeare - which this screenplay most certainly is not. (See below.) She held me riveted in many a scene.

Not far behind her in the acting dept is Dominic West, who turns Willy into a real if very flawed human being. Modern literary history sees him through Colette's later eyes, so it dismisses him terribly, but here he comes off as a real charmer.

So what's not to like? A great deal, unfortunately. The script, at least through the first half of the movie, is paint by numbers: very obvious, very flat, very unrevealing. Though Knightley clearly could have conveyed anything, it doesn't do a good job of helping us to understand the very complex woman we see. Too often, it sounds like a summary of a Wikipedia biography of the author. What made her so interesting? What made her tick? What made her so remarkable? The script gives us no clue. Is it because the script was written by two men and, third billing, one woman? I don't buy that. Madame Bovary was written by a man, as were many other great female characters in literature. Perhaps the problem lies, at least in part, with the directing as well.

If you want to see this movie, I would wait until you can watch it at home, so you can pause it to do other things when you get bored or just want a break. Having to sit through all 111 minutes in a theater without a break was too much for me - though it did get more involving near the end. Kudos to Knightley and West, certainly, for doing a great job with their roles. But this was too much like a beautifully costumed and filmed history lesson, and not enough like an engaging story.

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.

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.