.png)
Tom Ford, the design maverick who brought Gucci back to life and revolutionized the men’s suit has shared his thoughts on Ridley Scott’s new Gaga-vehicle House of Gucci, and overall, I’d say he shares the same views that most of us have.
In an essay written for the digital periodical Air Mail published Saturday, November 27, Ford who is played in the film by Reeve Carney and a director of two films himself, had issue with the film’s excessiveness and inability to create absorbing characters despite oversized performances.
Ford informed readers of his potential bias due to his direct involvement in the film’s events as the brand’s Creative Director and a close associate of Maurizio Gucci played by Adam Driver for the four years up until his death. Ford was also an interview subject for the book in which the film used as primary source material. Tom Ford seems to have mistaken bias for credibility.
Ford praised technical aspects of the film and its overall ambition, as well as Lady Gaga’s “spot-on” performance of Patrizia Reggiani, but ultimately called it overlong and hollow and compared it to retro-night time soap Dynasty:
Because of the size and star power of the cast, the screenplay is at the mercy of servicing them. One feels that some roles were expanded to simply attract and then to placate the stars. As the running time ticks by, viewers are subject to pointless and sometimes confusing scenes that seem to exist solely for the purpose of allowing the leading actors to “act.”
Under different circumstances, there is no doubt that some of those scenes would have ended up on the cutting-room floor. But because they stayed in, there is no time for the character development of the key players and thus we have little attachment to—or empathy for—any of them. The result, sadly, is a story in which we identify with no one.
He then went onto expose character inaccuracies, citing his time spent with the film’s real life composites, writing that the scene in which Maurizio toasts Ford after the third act comeback fashion show never happened and criticizing the character in general.
Maurizio was much more interesting in life than his depiction in the film suggests. He could be incredibly charming and surprisingly sexy if you caught him when he was relaxed. He had a true vision for the company but had a hard time focusing. He was mercurial. He would be in a meeting, slip into the bathroom, and come back a completely different person
also stated Ford also explosively alluded to unanswered questions regarding Maurizio’s sexuality, which could not be corroborated through a google search.
He was straight as far as I know, but would spend hours in the afternoons locked in his office with his decorator and often disappeared for weeks at a time on his boat with the man.
Ford had particular problems with the acting styles of Al Pacino and Jared Leto, who give cartoonish performances as Aldo and Paolo respectively, comparing their onscreen time to “Saturday Night Live versions of the tale.” Ford had more jokes of the “jot down in iPhone notes” variety writing both performers had the license to be “absolute hams—and not of the prosciutto variety”
Paolo, whom I met on several occasions, was indeed eccentric and did some wacky things, but his overall demeanor was certainly not like the crazed and seemingly mentally challenged character of Leto’s performance.
Ford did however shine a light on one particularly vulgar scene he wished that he got to live out while working for the fashion house.
However, Leto as Paolo does have some of the best lines in the film and manages to actually piss on the famed Gucci Flora scarf created for Princess Grace. I was jealous of that. It was something that I always wanted to do myself, as I was constantly being asked to try to revive that damned scarf.
Ford shared other anecdotes including Maurizio’s terrible business acumen which often involved tying up the design team for weeks to make “new making new uniforms for the crew of his yacht” instead of working on brand collections.
Tom Ford signed off in a cynical fashion, seeming to suggest that the film was disrespectful in its campy and animated approach, before predicting that this will likely have little effect on the film’s success.
I was deeply sad for several days after watching House of Gucci, a reaction that I think only those of us who knew the players and the play will feel. It was hard for me to see the humor and camp in something that was so bloody. In real life, none of it was camp. It was at times absurd, but ultimately it was tragic. But with Gaga’s and Driver’s strong performances, powerful over-the-top portrayals by the entire cast, impeccable costumes, stunning sets, and beautiful cinematography, the film, I suspect, will be a hit. Splash the Gucci name across things and they usually sell.
Read our thoughts on House of Gucci here and here’s our Twitter shitpost thread on the subject.
Tom Ford, the design maverick who brought Gucci back to life and revolutionized the men’s suit has shared his thoughts on Ridley Scott’s new Gaga-vehicle House of Gucci, and overall, I’d say he shares the same views that most of us have.
In an essay written for the digital periodical Air Mail published Saturday, November 27, Ford who is played in the film by Reeve Carney and a director of two films himself, had issue with the film’s excessiveness and inability to create absorbing characters despite oversized performances.
Ford informed readers of his potential bias due to his direct involvement in the film’s events as the brand’s Creative Director and a close associate of Maurizio Gucci played by Adam Driver for the four years up until his death. Ford was also an interview subject for the book in which the film used as primary source material. Tom Ford seems to have mistaken bias for credibility.
Ford praised technical aspects of the film and its overall ambition, as well as Lady Gaga’s “spot-on” performance of Patrizia Reggiani, but ultimately called it overlong and hollow and compared it to retro-night time soap Dynasty:
Because of the size and star power of the cast, the screenplay is at the mercy of servicing them. One feels that some roles were expanded to simply attract and then to placate the stars. As the running time ticks by, viewers are subject to pointless and sometimes confusing scenes that seem to exist solely for the purpose of allowing the leading actors to “act.”
Under different circumstances, there is no doubt that some of those scenes would have ended up on the cutting-room floor. But because they stayed in, there is no time for the character development of the key players and thus we have little attachment to—or empathy for—any of them. The result, sadly, is a story in which we identify with no one.
He then went onto expose character inaccuracies, citing his time spent with the film’s real life composites, writing that the scene in which Maurizio toasts Ford after the third act comeback fashion show never happened and criticizing the character in general.
Maurizio was much more interesting in life than his depiction in the film suggests. He could be incredibly charming and surprisingly sexy if you caught him when he was relaxed. He had a true vision for the company but had a hard time focusing. He was mercurial. He would be in a meeting, slip into the bathroom, and come back a completely different person
also stated Ford also explosively alluded to unanswered questions regarding Maurizio’s sexuality, which could not be corroborated through a google search.
He was straight as far as I know, but would spend hours in the afternoons locked in his office with his decorator and often disappeared for weeks at a time on his boat with the man.
Ford had particular problems with the acting styles of Al Pacino and Jared Leto, who give cartoonish performances as Aldo and Paolo respectively, comparing their onscreen time to “Saturday Night Live versions of the tale.” Ford had more jokes of the “jot down in iPhone notes” variety writing both performers had the license to be “absolute hams—and not of the prosciutto variety”
Paolo, whom I met on several occasions, was indeed eccentric and did some wacky things, but his overall demeanor was certainly not like the crazed and seemingly mentally challenged character of Leto’s performance.
Ford did however shine a light on one particularly vulgar scene he wished that he got to live out while working for the fashion house.
However, Leto as Paolo does have some of the best lines in the film and manages to actually piss on the famed Gucci Flora scarf created for Princess Grace. I was jealous of that. It was something that I always wanted to do myself, as I was constantly being asked to try to revive that damned scarf.
Ford shared other anecdotes including Maurizio’s terrible business acumen which often involved tying up the design team for weeks to make “new making new uniforms for the crew of his yacht” instead of working on brand collections.
Tom Ford signed off in a cynical fashion, seeming to suggest that the film was disrespectful in its campy and animated approach, before predicting that this will likely have little effect on the film’s success.
I was deeply sad for several days after watching House of Gucci, a reaction that I think only those of us who knew the players and the play will feel. It was hard for me to see the humor and camp in something that was so bloody. In real life, none of it was camp. It was at times absurd, but ultimately it was tragic. But with Gaga’s and Driver’s strong performances, powerful over-the-top portrayals by the entire cast, impeccable costumes, stunning sets, and beautiful cinematography, the film, I suspect, will be a hit. Splash the Gucci name across things and they usually sell.
Read our thoughts on House of Gucci here and here’s our Twitter shitpost thread on the subject.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
