two-cents

First of all, perhaps this would have been a better film if another actress had the lead. I don't dislike Audrey Tatou in general, but contrary to the love notes that other reviewers have written, I think she was very flat & boring in this rol. She is simply is too old for the story, which is the story of Chanel in her late teens and early twenties. Audrey T. is 33 years old in real life. The spark of that dewy youth isn't there. (I am not saying 33 isn't young, it's just that if you saw an actress of 20 next to her, the difference would be palpable. Or maybe it is the director's fault, because most of Coco's charm seem to be from these long, lingering close-ups of Audrey's big eyes---but her character was somber and brooding for a large portion of the film. Anyway, I think of Anne Hathaway's collegiate youth in the Devil Wears Prada, and that same youthful charm & energy just didn't come across in this film, albeit it was attempted to be conveyed with various different scenes, such as riding a galloping horse without knowing how to ride, etc.

Secondly, I agree that it was a very two-dimensional and simplistic movie. It could have been a Hollywood script, rather than the fact it was a complex biography of a real person in an important era of history.

But lastly, it was fun to see the fabulous clothes of an era, the lush settings and French ambiance. For that, it was fun to see.

I had two great insights into Vogue and the fashion world. The first, and most important insight is that assuming the Vogue target audience is 25-45, the people who make the most important decisions are well above that age. Anna Wintour must be in her mid 50's, similarly or even older, Grace Coddington, Karl Lagerfeld, Jean Paul Gaulthier, Giorgio Armani, Oscar de la Renta, etc, etc. And what was also relevant about this "discovery" as seen in the movie, is that these people are NOT wearing the ridiculous outfits they are foisting on the public through magazines such as Vogue--which sets the fashion dictates of a season. Anna Wintour wore only the most feminine, attractive, figure flattering, AGE-APPROPRIATE outfits throughout the movie---which are damn hard to find in the stores! (unless, perhaps, one is paying top, top dollar for designer prices which may cater to an older crowd) But the fashion designs that are being interpreted for mainstream America is following the latest trends as written and photographed by Vogue. Secondly, this is a movie that attempts to humanize Anna Wintour, and does so simply by showing that she is an obsessive human being, whose obsession is her magazine. She does show some warmth with her daughter, but otherwise she is simply driven and clearly makes no attempt to ease the palpable discomfort of others in her presence. She's not evil, nor bitchy, but she does seems to take some pride her in tabla rosa facial expressions--which clearly raises the anxiety level of those submitting work to her. It wouldn't hurt her professionalism to attempt more empathy, but I guess she doesn't see it that way. Overall, it's a very interesting movie and shows the business side of creating the largest fashion magazine in the world, complete with casual references to using Photoshop to enhance an already beautiful woman, or the promotion of fur in fashion due probably to the large amount of furriers who buy advertising. Great eye candy throughout!

I heard this movie was great, exciting, and gripping...and therein I was set up for disappointment. It was beautiful, cinematic, great sound track--but simply exhausting trying to understand all the relationships. After 45 mins, I stopped trying so hard to remember names and connections, the gestalt took over. That helped, but nevertheless without any familiarity of Italian politics, one really had to remember closely the framework that was outlined in the first five minutes. And similarly, there is a scene when his secretary describes what his hand movements mean--if he is tapping his fingers together, you will be dismissed within 5 mins, if he is playing with his ring, it means he is interested, etc....And then throughout the movie it shows his hands--but I couldn't remember the different meanings. It wasn't important, but what I am saying is that it's hard to know the forest for the trees--what IS important to pay attention to, and what isn't really essential. We found it very long because the storyline was rather vague and very gradual. The last 15 mins were excellent. This is a film made at a very high caliber, I just think the writers could have structured it a little differently. But this is 10 stars compared to most of what comes out of Hollywood. It was challenging but special.