MovieChat Forums > Coco avant Chanel (2009) Discussion > Nazi Lover

Nazi Lover

posted 14 years ago by urians
12 replies | jump to latest

I don't care what you say or do for a redeeming quality; while her coutrymen were fighting for liberation she was whoring it up in the Ritz hotel with a card carrying member of the Nazi party for her own self satisfaction. NO ONE should ever give her any credit, other french woman were killed and their heads shaved after the fall of the Nazi and Vichy occupation, but not Coco, she just exported her nazi loving mystique to America for which she became famous for in the '50's. Screw her, celebrate someone worth a damn.

[–] manfredv-2 14 years ago

Common who are you kidding, the whole French Government was serving Hitler if I remember my history correctly. The women didn’t “exported her nazi loving mystique to America” She exported here fashion business, and NONE of this has anything to do with the movie. Remember it’s called “Coco avant Chanel” which I think probably means before WWII. Sounds like you don’t like the women, I guess that means that your not planning on going to the movie, fine.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] taggertjc 14 years ago

Whatever she did or did not do, we can be certain of these things:

1. Nothing she did changed the outcome of the war; and

2. She did not sell secrets to the enemy in any way, shape or form.

Certainly what she did wasn't laudable but keep it in perspective. Aside from offending the sensibilities of so many people who did she hurt?

You have eternity. I have only now.

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

"1. Nothing she did changed the outcome of the war"
"who did she hurt?"

We'll surely never know. "Who could she have helped" is the real question.

[–] I_Created_U 7 years ago

"Who could she have helped" is the real question.

I don't see you helping people in Darfour. It's always nice and easy to judge after the fact, when history has been written in stone and we already know who the good and bad people are. In situation, everything is much different and nobody can pretend to know for a fact on which side he would have ended up to be in those 15 years of madness that swept through Europe between 1930 and 1945, on the resistance's side or on the collaboration's/nazi's side. Bear in mind that there were tens of thousands of Jews in Hitler's army, from simple soldier to high ranked officers in passing by bankers and backers on both side of the Atlantic.
And as for our collective capacity for barbarism and each individual's ability to cause harm to other human beings in the most evil ways, Milgram's or the Stanford experiment come to mind. Reality is always much more complex than textbooks.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] logan03 14 years ago

I figured out why this film has only gotten a 6.6 rating as of April 2010 & it's probably because of idiots like you who are blinded about something she did in the '40s and want to hold that against her forever, so you purposely give this film a crappy rating based on that.

This movie was set in the '20s before she became famous and that's all it was. Can't help but notice that you not once mention this film. Maybe you should try actually watching it before you come to a site reviewing A FILM before you let loose with your hysterical rantings. Thank you.

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

Why is everyone talking about this when in fact she was a nazi sympathizer and spy? She didn't just sleep with a nazi.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lukeneave 11 years ago

No it doesn't. Most people admire her as a fashion designer and probably know little of her as a person. In any case, if Rembrandt had posthumously been revealed as a muderer it wouldn't stop him being a great artist. It is not hypocritical or stupid to admire her as a fashion designer while not admiring the person. It would however be absurd to say you didn't like her designs because she was a Nazi collaborator.

[–] VillainInBlack 11 years ago

I think it is hypocritical because how many people would actually admire Chanel if they knew about her past? Unlike most people, I do research on any person who's work i'm interested in. Would it be ok for football fans to admire OJ Simpson, despite the fact he's an alleged murder? I guess Chanel gets a free pass though because she made clothes and she's rich, with you being the prime example...

I'd rather be nothing...-Bishop-

[–] lukeneave 9 years ago

You didn't read my post properly, I didn't say SHE deserved admiration, What people admired her for had nothing to do with her as a person and everything to do with her as a fashion icon. It is not hypocritical at all to admire someone's work whatever they are like as a person.

You ask - Would it be ok for football fans to admire OJ Simpson, despite the fact he's an alleged murder?

Yes, if what they admire is the football player. It is nonsensical to say you don't admire what someone has achieved with their skills because of behaviour unconnected to what they have achieved, however repugnant that behaviour may make them as an individual.

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

They aren't giving her credit for associating with Nazis - they're praising her for something else... Even Hitler himself loved dogs! All people are light and shade; some people are more sketchy than others, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at them from a balanced perspective.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"