House of Gucci
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenwriters: Becky Johnston, Roberto Bentivegna
Cinematographer: Dariusz Wolski
Production Companies: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Bron Creative, Scott Free Productions
Distributors: United Artists Releasing (United States), Universal Pictures (International)
Release Date: 24 November 2021
Runtime: 2 hours 38 minutes
MPA Rating: R
Availability: Theaters
Synopsis
The dark side of one of the fashion industry’s most prestigious names is put on full display in Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci. Beginning in 1970s Italy, the story opens with hardworking and wannabe socialite Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga) having a chance encounter with Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), an aspiring lawyer. Swooned by the prestige of the Gucci name, Patrizia comes on strongly to Maurizio following their encounter – much to the chagrin of Maurizio’s father, the once-famous actor Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons) – and the pair eventually marry. After marrying into the Gucci family, it doesn’t take long for Patrizia to start making strategic alliances and betrayals against the other Guccis – including Maurizio’s uncle and cousin, Aldo (Al Pacino) and Paulo (Jared Leto) – in the hopes of having her and Maurizio ascend to the top of the Gucci family. But as she and Maurizio continue in their quest for power, their ambitions cause the destruction of the Gucci family and the dissolution of their union to disastrous results.
Analysis
I really appreciated how much of a dark satire this film was. The movie is primarily concerned with skewering the highly inflated prestige of the Gucci family by showing how ridiculous and self-absorbed its members are. Characters are constantly putting on airs and trying to seem more successful than they are. This in turn compels them to make stupid decisions and say ridiculous things – all while lacking in any self-awareness – and we the audience laugh at their unsuccessful attempts to project strength and confidence. Watching these same characters avoid taking responsibility for their actions and grovel for forgiveness is thus cathartic because of the contrast between their enviable façade and pitiful inner nature. And while I know that the movie didn’t intend for them to come across as comical, I also couldn’t get over the accents. Except for Lady Gaga and Al Pacino (i.e., the only actors of Italian descent on screen), everyone’s doing their “best” Italian impression: they sprinkle in small bits of the language here and there and change up their cadence, but most of their attempts feel awkward. So I found scenes where characters talked about embarrassing or grave matters funny because it felt like I was watching actors playing people than actual people. This is especially the case for Jared Leto: the sing-song way he speaks, coupled with how the pitch of his voice will rise and fall dramatically, meant that he sounded like Mario the whole time. His over-the-top accent alone made Leto steal every scene, which made the film occasionally feel like a straight-up comedy.
The movie also has a very pleasing aesthetic. For one, the muted color palette the film employs is a perfect match for the family’s collective persona. The filtering of images through cool colors evokes the sense that these people, in their extravagant wealth and influence, occupy an almost first-class reality, far removed from the types of troubles and annoyances that bother us ordinary folk. On the flip side, the color style acts as a metaphor for how cold and vain the family members are. The absence of any vibrancy or warmth solidifies that these people are more concerned with their titles and self-image than they are about the well-being of anyone else, including the ones they supposedly love. And as you may expect from a film about the fashion industry, House of Gucci boasts excellent costume designs. Everyone here is dressed to the nines, and the clothes are very much of the era – at least I’d imagine so – and organic enough that they don’t come across as tacky or forced. Additionally, each character’s attire is an ideal complement to their personality; for example, Patrizia is always wearing something big and loud, Maurizio goes for a sleeker and more refined look, and Paulo’s clothes always look ruffled and disorderly.
On the downside, I found a couple of technical elements pretty distracting. One thing that really bothered me was how drawn out some shots were. This had the effect of dulling specific scenes since their importance and level of believability were weakened the longer the camera stayed fixed. And for scenes that tried to establish a sense of mystery or suspense, the prolonging of shots made maintaining an air of mystique impossible. While enjoyable, I still found most of the Italian accents distracting too. Like I said before, the “adoption” of Italian accents by most of the cast – Pacino and Gaga excluded – made them feel like they were actors portraying people instead of just people. And for Leto’s performance in particular, while amusing, his accent was distracting and felt out of place during the film’s more dramatic and emotional scenes. I’m not blaming the actors for their accent work: they’re giving it their all, and pulling off an accent that one doesn’t grow up with is obviously very difficult. However, I think some blame lies at the feet of Ridley Scott for deciding to have all of his actors sport Italian accents. I think he should’ve allowed them to use their regular accents so that we’d buy into the characters more, or, considering that the film centers exclusively on an Italian family, why not use at least a majority Italian cast?
I was also confused by the way the movie handled the main characters. Although you follow multiple characters, none of them feel truly fleshed out enough to come across as three-dimensional. We’re given only the soft contours of each person’s identity to base an opinion on, but not a lot more. This can be attributed to the film moving at a brisk pace and events rather than characters driving the story. And because the film tries to tell so many characters’ stories, no one comes across as protagonist or antagonist. They’re all just thrown into the plot so that we as the audience can witness the implosion of the Gucci family on a personal level. Therefore, it wasn't easy to figure out who I should be rooting for or against at any time since the movie never seemed to take sides. Now, clearly no one in the Gucci family during the period the film analyzes was actually protagonist or antagonist. However, these archetypes are still present in many biopics (e.g., the band Queen being the protagonist to John Reid’s antagonist in 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody) and moreover are important for getting the viewer emotionally invested in the story. Without these clearly defined roles, we’re left essentially indifferent to what happens on the screen.
Conclusion
In closing, House of Gucci is a film whose appeal lies mainly on its surface. Its dark satirical tone and unique aesthetic will spark your interest, but numerous flaws will likely detract from your viewing experience. While it certainly isn’t as shallow as the family it depicts, this is probably the type of movie you can hold off on until it hits streaming. And hey, at least you’ll get a good laugh out of it.