Re: House of Gucci reviews
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:41 pm
I got to the end of House of Gucci, and my reaction was "And...?" It was an easy enough watch -- I didn't feel the 2 1/2 hours -- but it didn't add up to anything important enough that I knew I had to hear this story. It began promisingly enough: for the first 2/3, there seemed a chance the narrative would build to some crescendo. But the latter portion of the film didn't feel like it fulfilled what had preceded, and the violent event that climaxed the film felt more lurid than any kind of natural culmination. It also felt awfully rushed past: I'd like to have known how the plot was uncovered by prosecutors -- were the perpetrators so comically inept it unraveled immediately; if so, why did it take two years to bring to trial? The film leaves all that a mystery.
It may be that, in a effort to cut the already-lengthy film down some, later scenes were eliminated that would have made things clearer. Or it may be there were elements lacking from the script stage. If it's the latter, I think you have to say Ridley Scott was the wrong director for the project. I think we've said many times here that Ridley Scott is a very solid craftsman/image-maker/performance-generator -- he makes his films look/sound/feel professional. But he's not a person who senses what's lacking in a script and reworks it, either by sending writers back for another draft, or covering over the bumps in his directing. Scott's movies are exactly as good as his screenplays are, and, in this one, the screenplay falls short.
I can say exactly where it loses its way for me: when Maurizio's home is invaded by feds, and he takes off on his motorcycle. The film charts his trip across the border as if it's the von Trapp family climbing every mountain -- it pauses for maximum tension at the checkpoint -- but it never lets us know the upshot of the sequence. Did it matter that he escaped to Switzerland -- given that Patrizia was there to take the brunt? What happened to the investigation, anyway? It's barely mentioned again. The main impetus for the raid appears to be to get Maurizio to St. Moritz, where he can kick it back up with an old flame. And that sequence didn't really work for me, either, as it seemed light on explanation -- is Maurizio just an aging goat tired of his wife, looking for revived sex life? Or is the intention that, back among his own (educated) class for the first time in a while, Maurizio notices how declasse his wife is? If so, that could have been dealt with more artfully: he seems to go after Patrizia from the moment she intrudes on the scene; it would have worked better if we experienced Maurizio's embarrassments and understood why he would drift away. As it is, he just comes off as a faithless husband; since, at the same time, he suddenly starts screwing over his family in business dealing, it has the effect of turning a a character -- in whom we've invested a certain amount of hope -- into a weasel not worth our attention. Sabin suggests what the filmmakers wanted was for Patrizia to have, inadvertently, made him into a monster who eventually destroys her. That's interesting, and may scan, but I have to say it didn't register for me while I was watching the film. Which is a flaw, because it might have made me more sympathetic to Patrizia in that final third. The scene outside Maurizio's apartment could have made me feel for her crushing letdown. But I was already, by then, anticipating her violent turn; I was at least half-expecting her to shoot him then and there. (Which is the disadvantage of having vague knowledge of how a film ends.)
I don't think Lady Gaga is to blame for this; she plays what they give her to play, and I thought it was a perfectly effective performance within that limitation. Best actress awards, maybe not (though I can more easily understand people singling her out than Kidman.) The acting on the whole is not a problem in the film -- Driver and Pacino are actually quite good, as well, as is Jeremy Iron, despite being terrible casting for an Italian. (Why are we so strict about some ethnic casting, but let an uptight Brit play a demonstrative Italian?) As for Jared Leto, who's been accused of wild hammery -- I don't think it's anything more than an actor doing his best to play a role for which he's wildly miscast. Since Paolo is clearly the Fredo of the family, I kept thinking how John Cazale would have played the role: with just as much sympathy, but without a metric ton of make-up, or demonstrating how much he was stretching just to fill the part.
The only other things I truly didn't like about the film were the (literally) operatic sex scene in the trucking firm office, and the overuse of late 70s/early 80s disco oldies to carry story weight. And, maybe, the title card at the end that points up how nobody from the family is involved with the company anymore. That might have been a pertinent piece of information at the point in the film where Maurizio has his final face-off with Aldo and Paolo -- but, by the end, it's almost extraneous to what the film has turned into.
It may be that, in a effort to cut the already-lengthy film down some, later scenes were eliminated that would have made things clearer. Or it may be there were elements lacking from the script stage. If it's the latter, I think you have to say Ridley Scott was the wrong director for the project. I think we've said many times here that Ridley Scott is a very solid craftsman/image-maker/performance-generator -- he makes his films look/sound/feel professional. But he's not a person who senses what's lacking in a script and reworks it, either by sending writers back for another draft, or covering over the bumps in his directing. Scott's movies are exactly as good as his screenplays are, and, in this one, the screenplay falls short.
I can say exactly where it loses its way for me: when Maurizio's home is invaded by feds, and he takes off on his motorcycle. The film charts his trip across the border as if it's the von Trapp family climbing every mountain -- it pauses for maximum tension at the checkpoint -- but it never lets us know the upshot of the sequence. Did it matter that he escaped to Switzerland -- given that Patrizia was there to take the brunt? What happened to the investigation, anyway? It's barely mentioned again. The main impetus for the raid appears to be to get Maurizio to St. Moritz, where he can kick it back up with an old flame. And that sequence didn't really work for me, either, as it seemed light on explanation -- is Maurizio just an aging goat tired of his wife, looking for revived sex life? Or is the intention that, back among his own (educated) class for the first time in a while, Maurizio notices how declasse his wife is? If so, that could have been dealt with more artfully: he seems to go after Patrizia from the moment she intrudes on the scene; it would have worked better if we experienced Maurizio's embarrassments and understood why he would drift away. As it is, he just comes off as a faithless husband; since, at the same time, he suddenly starts screwing over his family in business dealing, it has the effect of turning a a character -- in whom we've invested a certain amount of hope -- into a weasel not worth our attention. Sabin suggests what the filmmakers wanted was for Patrizia to have, inadvertently, made him into a monster who eventually destroys her. That's interesting, and may scan, but I have to say it didn't register for me while I was watching the film. Which is a flaw, because it might have made me more sympathetic to Patrizia in that final third. The scene outside Maurizio's apartment could have made me feel for her crushing letdown. But I was already, by then, anticipating her violent turn; I was at least half-expecting her to shoot him then and there. (Which is the disadvantage of having vague knowledge of how a film ends.)
I don't think Lady Gaga is to blame for this; she plays what they give her to play, and I thought it was a perfectly effective performance within that limitation. Best actress awards, maybe not (though I can more easily understand people singling her out than Kidman.) The acting on the whole is not a problem in the film -- Driver and Pacino are actually quite good, as well, as is Jeremy Iron, despite being terrible casting for an Italian. (Why are we so strict about some ethnic casting, but let an uptight Brit play a demonstrative Italian?) As for Jared Leto, who's been accused of wild hammery -- I don't think it's anything more than an actor doing his best to play a role for which he's wildly miscast. Since Paolo is clearly the Fredo of the family, I kept thinking how John Cazale would have played the role: with just as much sympathy, but without a metric ton of make-up, or demonstrating how much he was stretching just to fill the part.
The only other things I truly didn't like about the film were the (literally) operatic sex scene in the trucking firm office, and the overuse of late 70s/early 80s disco oldies to carry story weight. And, maybe, the title card at the end that points up how nobody from the family is involved with the company anymore. That might have been a pertinent piece of information at the point in the film where Maurizio has his final face-off with Aldo and Paolo -- but, by the end, it's almost extraneous to what the film has turned into.