Its mind-boggling that we have to wait so long for biopic of such fascinating historical personality as famous French writer Colette (there was also another 1991. movie largely unknown outside of France) but in a way perhaps the subject just had to wait for the present climate - the avalanche of #metoo phenomenon unearthed long-suffering and victimised women who were previously denied the voice so someone like Colette is just a perfect pioneer to celebrate. Colette was mainly known as one of the most scandalous public persons in turn-of-the-century France where she not only published titillating novels "Claudine" but also started a whole Colette fashion with short hair, etc - she was so popular that market was saturated with all sorts of product with her name, including soaps, face creams and whatnot. Later in life she also wrote "Gigi" that became spectacularly successful Hollywood musical, so her fame is well and truly deserved. However, for the purpose of this movie, script sticks to her formative years when she was dependant to her cunning husband and how she eventually escaped his grasp, making the name for herself.
Contrary to 90% of audience in cinema tonight, I am actually familiar with Colette since I have trilogy of her first few "Claudine" novels (translated to English as "Claudine at School", "Claudine in Paris" and "Claudine Married"). I also have curious oddity, a recording of UK musical about her as composed by John Dankworth for his wife Cleo Laine who apparently idolised French writer as a young girl and never saw anything scandalous in lesbian overtones that novels were so famous for. It might be in the eye of beholder, because myself I never found "Claudine" remotely erotic, its all very mild and wrapped in a pretty language so unless one is really looking for it, it might completely escape your attention. But it was surely scandalous in 1900 and all that talk about girls in a school hugging and kissing each other & being obsessed with a teacher were obviously very exciting for the readers back than. I mean, today we have "50 Shades of Grey" which is fairly explicit so high school girls kissing each other in the mouth is by far very quaint but it might I do understand it was very risqué back in the day.
This particular movie focuses on Colette's earliest beginnings - frankly, this is just a first chapter of a very interesting and eventful life so they can easily make trilogy out of her - at the start she is shy provincial girl who get married to a slick city businessman enthralled by her virginity and freshness. Soon we discover that "Willy" publishes ghost written novels under his own name and has quite a reputation in a nightlife, out of necessity he somehow discovers that his young wife has literary talent and uses her the same way he uses his ghost writers (except he don't pay her) - "Claudine" is a series of idealised reminiscences of Colette's own childhood and days in a small village school, but spiced up by Willy who encouraged Colette to throw in occasional lesbian/bisexual warmth that made novels such runaway bestseller. Before you know it, Colette actually starts experimenting with her own sex, has lady lovers and slowly builds the confidence to become her own person, divorces Willy and eventually gets recognition as the person who wrote "Claudine" herself. It is quite an ice-breaking life, to be honest, just consider how scandalous was to cut her hair short into fashionable bob (later imitated trough the whole Paris) not to mention her affairs with famous lesbians and wearing of men's clothes. One thing that the movie don't explain at all is how did it came that Colette suddenly became theatre celebrity - being a ghost writer is one thing (and in a protective shadow of a husband anyway) but for a early 1900 married woman to suddenly perform on a stage is another thing - it wasn't until I came home and did some research that I discovered that it came out of financial necessity after her divorce from Willy, where Colette performed parts of "Claudine" on a stage. Well, movie doesn't really explain how and why, we just see Colette sitting pretty in a salon one day and the next day she is on a stage. And backstage in a dressing room her socks are breaking so we get the message she needs new socks and might be in financial difficulties.
It turns out director Wash Westmoreland is a gay man, who brings his own sensitivity to a project and movie feels like a labour of love - many little details that bring the feeling of right period, like costumes, furniture, novelty of electric light switch seen for the first time, etc. My main doubt was the actress Keira Knightley whom I never took seriously since she mostly played decorative roles in "Pirates of the Caribbean" and was mainly wriggling her nose in a manner of someone who smelled something distasteful - lady of the nostrils in each single movie - however, this is really a great role and it feels like beautiful present to Knightley who shows far more than I gave her credit for, including several quite direct lesbian scenes. Perhaps she was just waiting for the right character to play and Colette was certainly someone larger than life who inspires with her bravery and fierceness. Afterwards I found out that this was not the end of the story because Colette got married twice more and had much more fire (and scandals) still left in her so that is why I said this could easily be made into a trilogy.
No comments:
Post a Comment