Lady Gaga

“House of Gucci”: Opera in Film Form

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

There are certainly several mixed reviews and criticisms about Ridley Scott’s latest film, “House of Gucci,” which chronicles the life of Patrizia Reggiani, a working-class social climber who marries into the Gucci family, helps build the company, and then orders the murder of her husband Maurizio. The Gucci family has shunned the film, saying they were not consulted, and that the portrayals are inaccurate. Former Gucci designer Tom Ford has admitted to laughing at the film and has criticized its inauthenticity. However, taken at face value, the film is a fantastic, epic piece of entertainment that does everything a good film should (admittedly, with some problems with the Italian accents.

To begin with, Lady Gaga is terrific as Patrizia Gucci. She is not just an American actress speaking with an Italian accent: as a fluent speaker of Italian who has spent time in Italy and who has many Italian friends, I can confirm that she speaks English like an Italian. Her inflections, mannerisms, and personality as a scrappy go-getter are spot-on. The emotional continuity in her performance never wavers, and it builds in intensity –Ridley Scott has gotten an excellent performance out of her. She carries most of the film and has a natural strength on camera. I am not a fan of her as a musician, as I find most of what she does is very derivative and not original (legend Grace Jones has said the same thing in not so many words). But as an interpreter of others’ works when guided, she is excellent. Al Pacino as Uncle Aldo steals any scene he is in; with his gravitas and gravelly voice, he has presence with a capital P. Jared Leto’s performance over the top, campy, expressively Italian, and exaggerated, as is fitting for an eccentric family member. Unfortunately, Adam Driver’s inability to grasp a convincing Italian accent diminishes his dramatic abilities, as he is otherwise credible as the meek, non-confrontational Maurizio. Overall, the acting is very strong, as the cast is full of Oscar winners and industry heavyweights. They play off each other beautifully, with every character somehow enmeshed in another character’s life. They are a family, and with family come all the ups and downs we expect.

In addition to the accents, one of the great criticisms of the film is that it is melodramatic, campy, factually inaccurate. To which I say, yes. But that is what we want, because we want entertainment on a grand scale. The tone and scope of this film is operatic; that is, it is grand, visual, visceral, and emotional. Every turn provides intrigue. Just like in great opera such as Don Giovanni, we have love, sex, lust, revenge, plotting, jealousy, and ultimately murder. What’s wrong if Paolo Gucci is flamboyant in velvet suits, emoting at every turn? If Aldo Gucci is mafioso in manner? And if Patrizia is a great schemer like Lady Macbeth or murderess like Lucia di Lammermoor?

Like a grand opera, we expect great sets and costumes, and the film never fails to deliver on that front. We see palazzi, penthouses, fancy cars, and sophisticated settings. The clothes, by Gucci, of course, are a parade of good design and collectible dresses and suits and shoes. These things are crucial to the plot and not merely eye-candy, for the business of the characters is image and object. The Guccis trade in the visual, and so the film must reflect that, form following content. 

Finally, music is an integral part of this film. There are, of course, many arias and opera extracts throughout the film (especially Rossini), but also pop and disco from the 70s and 80s. Granted, some of the song choices are asynchronous; they are not from the particular time period shown on screen. But all the music choices serve to heighten the emotion of the film, giving it more glamour and creating more of the cultural atmosphere.

We don’t often get a film that is well-crafted and well-acted, and is trying to accomplish one goal: pure entertainment. “House of Gucci” succeeds beautifully, even with its flaws.

A Necessary Dose of Magic in Our Lives?

/ The Women of Letters / 2 Comments

I am rereading 100 Years of Solitude by the phenomenal Gabriel García Márquez, and what strikes me from a craft point of view is the delicious “intrusions,” for lack of a better word, of an element of fantasy or magic. Dubbed “magical realism” by the literary establishment decades ago, Marquez’s style (along with that of other well-known Latin American writers) seems like realistic prose at first, but then there are superhuman or unnatural elements introduced. I don’t need to elaborate here, for readers are certainly familiar with García Márquez’s works (Love in the Time of Cholera is another marvelous novel.) But this has led me to think about literature and art that takes us out of the ordinary realm–something that feels necessary when so much modern fiction is based in reality and personal experience. Have we lost our ability to think, to imagine, to go beyond the ordinary?

Outside of genre fiction and fantasy fiction, which are indeed thriving, we do have some noteworthy authors who do not write strictly realistic fiction: Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood immediately come to mind. I feel we need to encourage writers to do more of this, to create worlds, go beyond the pedagogical cliché of “write what you know.” Perhaps that tenant has done more disservice to fiction writing, and would be best rephrased as, “write what you understand.” There is a significant difference: knowing implies a familiarity with a situation, a body of knowledge, a certain mastery of the topic. Understand implies an innate knowing, what one grasps, and one may have acquired that knowledge in different ways or simply through intuition.

In music, think about the phenomena of glam rock as well as 80s new wave bands, who were the former’s successors. In both genres, there is an exaggeration of appearance, of form, of fashion. Though he was later the Thin White Duke, David Bowie’s 1970s Ziggy Stardust was a unique creation, an alien alter ego who was not clad in Doc Martens and jeans. Even Led Zeppelin, who were certainly much more real and not glam rockers, brought an element of the mystical and poetic to their performance–after all, they sang about Viking raids as though they were a common occurrence. We see this continue today, with artists like Janelle Monáe or Lady Gaga (whom I feel is derivative and unoriginal and does best when interpreting others’ works, such as in her excellent performance in “A Star Is Born.”) A lot of ambient music and electronica has an ethereal or unearthly quality to it. Some of it is easier and more enjoyable to listen to than others. We cannot conclude without mentioning Icelandic visionary Björk, who is a mistress of reinvention and truly beyond the ordinary. Each incarnation she becomes is more revolutionary than the last, and we never know what will come next. Her music is almost impossible to categorize, and that is wonderful.

Painter Salvador Dali challenged us with his revolutionary surreal artwork. Why should there be an eyeball in a random place? Who cares; it is what it is, perhaps what our subconscious understands. Francis Bacon’s grotesqueries are certainly unique and far from ordinary: distorted faces and gaping mouths. David Hockney might be painting ordinary scenes of men and swimming pools or fields with flowers, but his use of color takes us out of reality into a vivid, multi-hued world. In the world of fashion, we have the bizarre brilliance of the late Alexander McQueen, who clothes were really more like costumes rather than typical runway or off the rack wear. Issey Miyake also creates works of art with fabric that just happen to be things one can wear on one’s body.

To be able to imagine and create in fantastical ways brings us back in touch with a part of ourselves that we had so strongly in childhood. Why be prosaic all the time, realistic, ordinary? These artists and more have challenged us to see and feel in a different way and have all created an aesthetic of their own. The best artists always do this, and that’s why we love them so dearly.

Great Performances: What Makes a Good Performer

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

Yesterday, I had to submit audition material for an opera opportunity. In looking at my different takes of the same aria, what sold me on one particular take over another was my commitment to character, and how I looked more urgent to convey the message in the aria (“Ah, fuggi il traditor” from Don Giovanni by Mozart). That was the take I submitted on video. And speaking of video–I have a friend who sends me videos of her two-year-old who is immensely entertaining. She loves to sing songs and perform for the camera, even dubbing herself “Good Singer” at her tender young age in a display of extraordinary self-confidence! This has led me to reflect on the performers and performances we love. What is it about them that really grabs us? Rather than list general characteristics, I will comment on some performers or performances, ones who are generally regarded as great and others that I particularly like. This is by no means a comprehensive list, only some thoughts off the top of my head.

-Freddie Mercury. Why do we love him? This shy, buck-toothed British-Parsi man who captivated the world before his untimely death? Perhaps because he gave it all went on stage, in great contrast to his offstage personality. He was fierce, unbounded with his emotion. His voice was beyond that of most rock singers, sustaining long, lyrical lines with a range that went quite high for a man. Needless to say, his flamboyant costumes were part of the appeal. He could soar with great passion, croon as though singing a lullaby, or belt out a rock anthem, and we would always believe it.
-The Carol Burnett Show. This classic chestnut of TV not only featured comic geniuses in Carol Burnett, Vicki Lawrence, Harvey Korman, and Tim Conway, but it had skits that mocked popular culture, day-to-day life, and even well-known films or performances. “Went with the Wind” was probably its most infamous spoof on “Gone with the Wind,” and truly one of the best parodies in television. It never took itself too seriously, well-aware that the mockery was part of the process (Korman could not contain himself in the “Old Man” skits with Conway and always laughed). The sets were lavish, and Burnett’s tacky costumes by Bob Mackie were part of the over-the-top 70s appeal.
-Gil Shaham. One of my absolute favorite violinists (who is a wonderfully nice guy when you meet him offstage), he has the extraordinary ability to communicate with the audience when he plays. He almost seems to angle his violin more toward the audience, as if the violin is speaking with them in a dialogue. This is a quality rarely seen in any other violinist.
-Queen Latifah. The woman has presence. For anyone who has seen the film “Chicago,” her role as Mama Morton steals the scene every time. There is something so grounded and confident about her.
-Oprah Winfrey. True, she has done some acting in her time, but I think of her more as a journalist/TV host. Frank, funny, honest, and inquisitive, her curiosity and rapport with her guests was always personal and unique. When she moved on to later projects, such as “Super Soul Sunday,” she revealed her deeply spiritual side. In being herself, she has revealed that she is a natural performer, someone who is able to convey her appeal and engage the audience.
-Adele. I am not a great fan of Lady Gaga, whom I find an attention-getter and whose musical career and performances strike me as being highly derivative (though I find her quite good when interpreting others’ work, such as in “A Star is Born” and in her album with Tony Bennett.) But Adele is the truly talented one of her generation; by avoiding fuss and feathers, she performs by singing from deep in her soul. Not to mention her natural beauty, which I think was almost more stunning before her weight loss. She has tremendous integrity as an artist, and Grace Jones commented that she would not work with Lady Gaga but with someone like Adele instead.
-Figure skaters–too many to name. Scott Hamilton, Meryl Davis and Charlie White, Johnny Weir, and more. We love watching them glide on the ice, fly through the air, and (in the case of Davis and White) dancing together. The combination of spangly outfits and superhuman movements is captivating.
-Bollywood stars–too many to name. Is it their good looks? Their carefully choreographed dance sequences? The songs (which are, inevitably, dubbed by playback singers)? The beauty of Sridevi, Aishwarya Rai, the charisma of Shah Rukh Khan (who played against type in the poignant, meaningful “My Name is Khan”) and Amitabh Bachchan are all something otherworldly.
-Joao Gilberto. This introverted Brazilian man who often sang in almost a whisper, as though strumming a guitar while sitting by a bedroom window, drew us in to his power by his heartfelt sincerity. Nothing could be simpler than his lyrical melodies sung to a percussive guitar, but they are the most touching songs one could hear. One of his albums would inevitably be a desert island disc, so to speak.

These performers are so varied in their genres and styles. And yet they all hold one thing in common: they touch our feelings and emotions. Who are some of your favorite performers?