MovieChat Forums > Coco avant Chanel (2009) Discussion > I Celebrate Audrey and This Movie but No...

I Celebrate Audrey and This Movie but Not Chanel

posted 14 years ago by TriumphReq
15 replies | jump to latest

I thought Audrey was typically sweet, gentle and beautiful even if she had to appear frail in this film. This movie was fantastic and romances she had between the two gentlemen kept me wondering which she would end up with. I love how the French are able to shatter the stupid American ideas of marriage and relationships. I am becoming more and more interested in Victorian era culture.

I thought Chanel's boyish black clothing was dull and ugly however. Was she the first emo designer? Hideous I thought. The beautiful colorful dresses and large hats the other ladies wore made certain scenes in the movie look like paintings. Imagine if we all dressed like that from time to time.

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

I am by no means an expert on ladies' fashions, but I thought the whole point of her "emo" designs was that she was rebelling against the frilly overindulgence of the Victorian era.

Like Monet whose hazy Impresionist paintings rebelled against the crisp & structured style of Classical art, Coco's simple & natural designs rebelled against corsets & hoops.

Personally I think the corsets are hot, and I like wasp-waisted fashions. But I respect the statement that Coco was trying to make with plain jane designs. I think the whole point of the movie was that she opposed society's norms on all levels.

[–] TriumphReq 13 years ago

I guess I don't respect ideas that are rebellious just for the sake of being rebellious. I do like those that rebell against bad ideas however.

Perhaps her rebelling against the other of society's norms like women not being the designers was more admirable.

[–] crystalnyoung 12 years ago

Not to sound nit picky, but it was the Edwardian era style Chanel was contending with.

[–] danielle_br 14 years ago

I`m not sure of this, but I think her designs are closely related to women`s liberation in the XX century. Clothing was very strict and uncomfortable for women, and opulent beauty was the norm. Chanel introduced the concept of chic simplicity that was easy maintenance and comfortable everyday wear. That new approach to women`s wear made it possible for women to have a more active daily life, as corsets allowed very limited activity (they messed directly with the respiratory system). That gradually lead to a more prominent role of women on the labour market. I have read something like this. So, Chanel was a pioneer, and her importance as a designer resides there. I guess she opened new roads for women, and I highly doubt women today were allowed to wear trousers if the world didn`t had her influence.

[–] TriumphReq 13 years ago

"I highly doubt women today were allowed to wear trousers if the world didn`t had her influence. "

I highly doubt that. Women today from 11 to 55 now wear hideously unflattering skin tight black leggings with no other coverings that look painted on. Even I am embarrassed when standing behind a strange woman like this in a checkout. I don't even think it is appropriate for 18 year olds and I am a youngish guy myself.

[–] danielle_br 13 years ago

You`re referring to those women who wear leggings without covering their buttocks, right? God, that`s a hideous trend that is going on! Even if the woman in question has a great figure, is completely tasteless and classless. I`m glad someone hates it too.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HollyMegan 13 years ago

I sort of agree. I watched the movie and thought "wow, those Victorian outfits are really pretty!" And then Coco Chanel had to go and ruin that beautiful style of clothes with her drab clothing. It's like how Victorian houses were beautiful, and then Frank Lloyd Wright came along. The Victorian style couldn't last forever, but the rebellion against their style that came afterward was just ugly.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaynemanfieldscar 12 years ago

i agree, i do not like plain clothing at all, i am so glad when tight wraps, wasp waists and hip huggers came in later on!!! curves should be celebrated not hidden.

Jayne Mansfield: A woman should be pink and cuddly for a man.

[–] TANSD76 11 years ago

Still better than Karl Lagerfeld. Hack.

[–] flavia-blinda 10 years ago

Corsets where extremely uncomfortable in that time, and they also caused spinal problems. Though Chanel wore pants, she wasn t the reason women started wearing them. Pants where not accepted until after WWII, hence in 1941 for the first time a woman with pants appeared on the cover of Vogue.

The main reason women started wearing pants and were also permitted to is that, during the second world war, they started to take over men s duties while they were away : driving busses, being teachers etc.
So even though Chanel wore pants, they were badly seen until the 30s-40s.

[–] velcronewsletter 9 years ago

i think that trousers became worn more acceptably from the late 20s to the 30s for leisurewear and then during ww2, garments that needed to be worn in the workplace and then afterwards, more casually. greta garbo for example wore trousers all the way through her hollywood years in the 20s and 30s when it was still uncommon and katharine hepburn wore them a decade (a bit more maybe?) later in everyday life just like garbo but by then it was becoming the norm

[–] velcronewsletter 9 years ago

the age for whalebone corsetry, massive decorated hats and frills and unpractical clothes was coming to an end, even if chanel hadn't made her style popular so quickly. the status of women and society was changing, the job market was changing and she just sped it along. She didn't just make basic colours and styles fashionable and essential for everyone eventually, she used cheap materials like jersey and rabbit fur which was a different approach for the time