MovieChat Forums > Coco Chanel (2008) Discussion > EMBARRASSINGLY BAD

EMBARRASSINGLY BAD

posted 16 years ago by regfox-1
9 replies | jump to latest

How is it possible that a group of people can (or would) get together to render a notable person's life virtually unwatchable? This is simply a rehashing of another inadequate film about Chanel from the 1980s called CHANEL SOLITAIRE. These two films are concerned with only one thing: Chanel's relationship with Balsan and Capel. The only thing the original film did right was to cast a french actress, Marie France Pisier. Otherwise, both films are lacking.

For anyone who wants to know all about Chanel, pick up Axel Madsen's book CHANEL: A WOMAN OF HER OWN and/or Edmonde Charles-Roux's CHANEL AND HER WORLD. These books cover her entire life in all it's fascinating glory. Madsen's book even addresses things before her birth and after her death. I do not understand why feature films are not being made from these resources. To viewers with less superficial interests, Chanel's entire life and her contributions to the world at large are just as interesting (more so, even) than her love life. Why insult her memory by turning her life into an idiotic Harlequin romance?

The Lifetime film (and we all had to know it was gonna be a stinker coming from them!) leaves out so many things! They barely address her family and Chanel's was a large one. No mention of her brothers? Why?!? Julia is in a few scenes and then disappears (aside from the fact that she did die young). Where is Coco's other sister Antoinette who modeled Coco's clothes for her in Deauville? The woman at Shirley MacLaine's side throughout was playing Adrienne who was, in fact, Coco's young aunt. Both she and Coco's sister Antoinette modeled for Chanel often. The young woman referred to as Chanel's niece is probably Antoinette's daughter.

Admittedly the film does attempt to portray her early life and somewhat accurately. However, what happens to Coco after Capel dies? Arthur 'Boy' Capel did in fact die on his way back to Coco after leaving his wife...and at Christmas no less! What of her other affairs? The Duke of Westminster? The Nazi officer? Grand Duke Dimitri?

Coco's involvement with the Nazi officer is surely noteworthy. Although Chanel escaped the fate of many french women post-World War II who had been involved with German officers (they were paraded nude through the streets of Paris), she was forced into Swiss exhile until her return depicted at the beginning of the Lifetime film. Curiously, some 'crackpot' on here had the audacity to blame Chanel for the deaths of many people during WWII. Although her affair with the German officer is documented, she was NOT responsible for the deaths of anyone. She simply made a poor choice of a lover and she paid for it afterward.

Also, her life (particularly after Capel's death) evolved into something even more extraordinary. She got in with the artsy crowd. She spent time with people like Dali, Picasso, Misia Sert, Diaghilev, and Reverdy. She knew the greatest people of her age! Why was this not considered worthy of the story being told on Lifetime?

Malcolm McDowell (who had no business being in the film) thinly represented her relationship with the Wertheimers who own a large stake of Chanel including Chanel 5. She was always at odds with them because they owned her most valuable resource.

There is no question that Shirley MacLaine was a great actress and probably can still shine...in the right role. She is horribly mis-cast in this mess though. Chanel is quintessentially french. Paris is full of aging actresses. Lifetime should have, but didn't, do the math. There are many reasons why this film is terrible but casting MacLaine is the main one.

If studios are going to go to the trouble of telling someone's story, why not be accurate and thorough? Otherwise, it's misleading and disrespectful to the memory of it's subject. Let's hope they get it right with COCO AVANT CHANEL starring Audrey Tautou.

[–] theoceansblue 15 years ago

I would have liked her full story. Probably would have been around 8 hours, but so worth it :3

[–] mptnla 15 years ago

Totally agree regfox, MacLaine was miscast. Not only that, Coco Chanel herself was incredibly thin and Shirley looked as though she was stuffed into those suits.

"I'm not ugly. People tell me I look a lot like Sandra Bernhard."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trpdean 15 years ago

regfox, Your review is so blistering! I did have the ractoin when I first saw some of it, that it seemed a soap opera - but (and I don't know why so few comment on this) a very beautifully made one nonetheless - with spectacular at costumes, sets, houses, etc.). It didn't hold my interest.

There is something called "On Demand" on my cable system, and I just watched some of it again. I liked it better this time.

I understand your criticisms - but don't you think you're asking too much in some of your points? Do you really think any film would take the time to delinate the evolution from first to last acquaintance of Chanel's relationship with Dali, with Picasso, with Misia Sert and Diaghilev, with Reverdy?

And reflect not only her relationships with two lovers - but (as you write "What of her other affairs?") with "The Duke of Westminster? The Nazi officer? Grand Duke Dimitri?.

You're really asking why they devoted 2.5 hours, instead of 10-20 hours, an entire season to her life. Perhaps they should - but I'm sure they made the determination that the market wasn't there.

As far as Maclaine playing Chanel, I think she did a good job - yes, she was undoubtedly chosen because she was available at the right price and is quite famous for Americans. Yes, there are MANY French actresses of the right age to play the part - Pisier could still do it in fact - or Caron, or many others (even if not physically right, Ardant would be a good choice - or Audran).

BUT - the film was made by Americans for an American television network, so I'd expect an American to be employed to play Chanel. This is natural - I doubt a French television production about World War I would employ an American to play Pershing - it's unnecessary.

I do like your comments because your passion shows how very much you cared about the subject - I just think you expect things that aren't to be provided by a particular foreign country's 2.5 television movie.

And you don't give it credit that it deserves - sumptuous settings, beautiful use of light, the costumes are really superbly done, the feeling for the time period is good. It's often a beautiful movie.

[–] obs-2 15 years ago

I enjoyed it. I'm not familiar with Chanel's history at all.

Agree with the other comments that a more thorough biography would have been better but would have taken eight hours.

Regarding Maclaine, while I'm sure the part could have been cast better, she only gets about ten minutes of screen time, so it didn't bother me at all. The important parts of the movie were the flashbacks, in which Maclaine did not appear at all.

[–] pierce_MN 15 years ago

I saw Coco Avant Chanel in Amsterdam two weeks ago, in French with Dutch subtitles, but it was so beautiful and this has absolutely no heart. Chanel
Solitaire is better than this. I think MacLaine is fine as the older Chanel, but the script is pretentious and dull, dull, dull!! Audrey Tautou even looks like Chanel, and when you see her in the pink suit, leaning against the mirror and smoking, she becomes Chanel! Oscar nomination for her, please!!!

[–] Kariann1 15 years ago

So, Coco Avant Chanel is going to be released to American audiences?

Alright, I will admit I saw the TV movie just chock full of commericals. I liked it so well, I wanted to rent the DVD. I am so happy I did! I agree with everyone about the costume design, the scenery, and the basics of this story.

It is one of those films that you pop your popcorn and get your Pepsi, and just enjoy a good story! I wish they would have covered the World War II period. I wouldn't have mind an extra 45 minutes. Coco was such a fascinating character and loved the actresses who protrayed her.

I have recommended this film to others, mostly females.

(Thank you to the original poster for providing extra details.)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hell-cat-1 8 years ago

I enjoyed the movie for what it was but there was just so many inaccuracies throughout. I just finished "Coco Chanel: The Life and The Legend", which is an absolutely amazing book and goes into the different accounts of Coco's life. Coco was very mysterious and enigmatic, there was many accounts of different events in her life and I love how the book provides each one and let's you decide the truth.

My main gripe was how much they left out, i.e., as you said her other affairs with Bertrand, Dimitri, the Nazi Officer and of course Paul Iribe. They left out so much, specifically what a workaholic she became in her old age and how lonely she was that she injected herself with Morphine nightly after the death of her final lover Iribe who had a heart attack on her tennis court at La Pausa, her Mediterranean villa. Her life was so interesting and historical, why leave all this out?

They also focused far too much on Etienne and Boy, who both cheated on her and were white washed in the movie. They also forgot to mention how Chanel accepted all of her lovers cheating on her.

The other thing that really annoyed me was that Mark character, like who was he? The OP said a Wertheimer, but he was a business partner, why would he be involved with her collections? What absolute tripe! Also, her comeback collection received awful criticism in Paris, but they failed to mention how well it was received in America and Coco's success there. And also how she invented the double C logo was embarrassing, many of her ideas stemmed from her childhood and the orphanage at Aubazine.