Coco and Igor

Deb 7 Me 7

We saw the 2008 TV movie "Coco Chanel" and we liked 2009's "Coco Before Chanel" and so how could we miss the 2010 installation, "Coco and Igor". This seemed like a pretty specialized topic with limited appeal but was really a good flick. The main figures are Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky. Some big names. Diaghilev and Nijinski from the Ballet Russe were featured as they depicted the great classical music riot. I love the idea of a classical music riot.

I imagine that art directors live for this kind of project. All the details, the drapes, furniture, clothes, cars, buildings were all superbly detailed. And this is such an important element to understanding her position. She was a major contributor to style, fashion and the change of what was acceptable socially. Between the wars, from 1917ish to the early 1940s she rocked Europe. Then again after the big war in the 1950s she kicked America's fashionable ass with styles that are still contemporary. And that was a neat thing in this film, there was a scene showing her shop in Paris, with the now-familiar Chanel logo out front. The stone streets and worn buildings were so primitive looking, and here's this "look". It defines what we call contemporary.

So as a movie it was pretty neat. It was a great interpretation of the changes that were going on in the early 20th century. But the premise of the movie, an affair between Coco and Igor, is just based on rumor, there's no evidence they ever hooked up romantically. someone just made up how they thought it could have happened. So it's sort of a Oliver Stone thing. Really well done and based on lies. But somehow this wasn't offensive like Stone's films, it was entertaining. It kept me going all the way through, although at a snails pace, Coco's breakaway dress perked me up after a dry spell.

Good movie if you like fictionalized biopics about this period of time.

The Kids Are All Right

Deb 7 Me 4

First off, I have a problem with big budget movies that can’t think of anything more original than the name of a rock song to use as a title. Millions of dollars, focus groups, market research and the best they can come up with is a title that's already been used. And the name seemed to have little if anything to do with the movie. It’s a sure sign that this is a mainstream movie destined to annoy anyone regardless of their demographic.

The film centers around a lesbian couple who has raised two nice kids. You’d think their sexual preference would be a plot point, difficulties they might face socially, issues their kids might deal with, something with some meat to it. But no, it’s just someone’s idea of a new twist to an otherwise bland story. The kids are curious about their sperm donor father (even though they are three years apart each of them share the same donor) and that’s where the interest is focused. You’d think that could be made interesting, and it could, but they didn’t.

The humor comes from potty mouths. The audience is surprised when the actors use the “f” word or make some other sexual reference and that’s where the bulk of the laughs seem to come from.

The art director did a great job. There is some very interesting use of color in places and the art director probably had a good time too. The actors were fine, although the fifteen year old looked more like twenty. It was filmed in LA. It had to be in LA, NY or San Francisco, there doesn’t seem to be a lesbian population in middle America, only tomboys.

I got the feeling all throughout the movie that there was a very good screenplay at some point and it got lost in the Hollywood formula that serves the masses. This movie is the reason I try to stay away from middle of the road mainstream films. It’s just a waste of valuable time. On the redemption side, everyone here is a total basket case, but the kids are alright.

Oddly Deb gave it a 7 although she had very little good to say about it. I figure mainstream movies shoot for a 5, it’s the best they can do, and this one fell short to a 4.