Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky

According to some historians, the couturier Coco Chanel and the modernist composer Igor Stravinsky had a brief affair in the early 1920s. Stravinsky was married with a family while Coco was unattached. According to the scriptwriters their paths had crossed before, in 1913, when the "The Rite of Spring" a ballet by Diaghilev with music by Stravinsky opened in Paris, causing such a commotion that the police were called. Coco was one of the audience who liked the piece. Seven or so years later she invited Stravinsky and his family to live in her elegant suburban villa. Stravinsky's wife Katerina was suffering from TB. It's not long before he and Coco are making passionate love and not long after that the rest of the household twigs to what is going on. The affair does not last long though it impels Stravinsky to the completion of one of his major works. To him, charming and successful as she is, Coco is not an artist, merely a shopkeeper, and he does not dissent when Katerina points out Coco buys people. Coco went on to make a fortune out of perfume as well as clothes and Stravinsky became a major 20th century composer. She seems to have gotten over Stravinsky fairly quickly and indeed continued to support (anonymously) his work. Stravinsky on the other hand seems to have been shaken to the core. He did, after all, have something to lose, whereas Coco was a free agent. This production is all that you would expect from a European director – it is all beautifully framed and shot – Coco's own designs are much in evidence – and the story proceeds at a stately pace. As Stravinsky, Mads Mikkelsen, best known as a Bond villain in Casino Royale, is every inch the uptight Russian composer, while Anna Mougladis is rather enigmatic as Coco. She likes the music and likes to support artists, but just why she takes a liking to Stravinsky is not evident, unless you accept Katerina's view that she likes to buy pretty people as well as things. Here the film makers have given us a film of beauty, but one which does not explain itself. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, we can all work out our own scenarios, but aesthetic considerations seldom amount to the full story.

Anna Mouglalis is very thin, Mads Mikkelsen has wonderful cheekbones and they do not convince me that they are playing Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky respectively. The other actors, with the exception of Grigori Manukov as Diaghilev, left no impression on me at all. Surely Chanel had more passion, more anger in her than we see in Mouglalis; surely Stravinsky made more attempts to assert himself with the domineering Chanel than Mikkelsen does here. I was left with a great regret that the great masters of cinema have gone, the directors that were able to fashion material like this into art: Visconti, Losey, Ophuls.

Anyone who presumed that this film would be a follow-on from 'Coco before Chanel', Anne Fontaine's endearing, rags-to-riches depiction of Gabrielle 'Coco' Chanel, would be mistaken. This film is director Jan Kounen's attempt to portray Coco how she really was: a mean-spirited, conceited femme fatale. Only the avant-garde artistry of Igor Stravinsky's music is enough to mollify Coco (Anna Mouglalis). The Russian composer's controversial work repels most for being too audacious and violent, but it entrances her, and after the Russian revolution leaves Igor and his family penniless, Coco invites them to live with her. Igor accepts and thus begins a cataclysmic affair. What begins as a 'Remains of the Day'-type attraction – where Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson were at pains to disclose their true feelings for each other and could only do so through knowing glances – very quickly descends into a sex-crazed love affair rivalling the one in 'Last Tango in Paris'. A subject you can usually trust French filmmakers with, however, what's missing from the plentiful love scenes between the two is, frankly, love. In fact, their entire relationship is rather curious. It's redolent of the relationship a drug addict has with drugs: It's the feeling the substance gives that's sacrosanct, not the substance itself. I was unmoved by what I believed should have been an intense performance for the part of Igor (Mads Mikkelsen). It is staid and lacklustre, interrupted by the occasional paroxysm when he is writing or playing music. The filming of Stravinsky's seminal piece, 'The Rite of Spring' in the grand Champs-Élysées theatre (as in actuality) is very impressive: the suspense, drama and sheer creepiness convince you that you are seeing the spectacle for real. It may be reasonably assumed that Coco was purely a product of her insular background - provincial, orphaned, raised by nuns - but she is never worthy of pity. The only person who deserves this is Igor's wife, Katherine (Yelena Morozova). Her characterisation of a powerless woman who sees her husband slip away from her inch by inch is so full of pathos that it leaves you contemplating whether to buy a bottle of Chanel No. 5 ever again. For all her brutality, though, there's a wonderfully dainty scene where she formulates her signature fragrance. As with everything else, she's very pernickety and it's only after playing Goldilocks that she arrives at the correct blend of the 80 ingredients. Asked if she ever felt guilty for her deeds, Coco simply says 'No' unbearably cavalierly, which left me wondering: If she never had any humanity for herself, why should we have any for her? www.scottishreview.net

Diane and I saw this wonderfully beautiful, intelligent and memorable film this afternoon at the SXLuna in Fremantle and we both had the same feelings about what we had just seen. Forget anything about Hollywood and the silliness they continually smother the viewing public with because this film is in another dimension of film reality. Coco & Igor is a thinking person's film; a film that draws you into another time period, another reality. It is a film that wraps the viewer in the sensuality of direction and its twin, cinematography; without the director's positions and shot sequence then a film can become mushy and uninteresting. Coco & Igor is mesmerizing in the beauty and care of the camera shots as well as the care taken with the set decoration and lighting. The people involved set a brilliant canvas upon which the film unfolded and the principals rose to the occasion. The music that engulfs the film's background is the music of Stravinsky and it massages the viewer's mind throughout this personal examination. The film is exploration of the attraction of two people to each other and the difficulties posed by that doomed attraction. As I saw it this soft, lovely film centred on the attraction of these potent personalities and the debris of this attraction that slowly engulfed them. This story had to be filmed; the people involved were too important to the 20th century and because of that importance it is for all of us because we are all touched by these two 20th century giants.

Let's start with the basics. This movie deserves an Oscar nomination for WORST casting in the history of filming! Having seen documentaries and read books about Stravinsky and the Ballet Rousse firm, the persons in real life have nothing in common with the characters of the movie by personality or by appearance. Diaghilev is reduced to a silly man, Nijinsky is laughable, even the looks are totally different than the real persons. Well, they just couldn't sell a movie having Stravinsky and Chanel look a bit ugly (like they were indeed) they had to have Anna Mouglalis play the part (no resemblance with Chanel of course). Acting is very bad in this movie also, everyone is so pretentious. Especially Mouglalis is desperate of appearing femme fatal.... It is a movie about a period of the life of the genius Igor Stravinsky and all we can listen is variations of the "rite of spring". Apparently the director is more fascinated by the scandal of the first performance than the beautiful music of this man, thus placing himself among the ignorant public of that premiere. The movie is a bad adaptation of a bad book, so even the plot is not tight.... really awful, a disgrace to a musical genius like Igor Stravinsky....

There are no proofs Stravinsky and Chanel ever were lovers. But surely he and his family lived in her house some years after the "Rite of Spring" disaster in 1913, there the audience was in total uproar from the radicalism of Stravinsky's music. Chanel is here shown as a heartless people's collector. Strainsky lets himself be part of it, but not fully, since he has his integrity in his music. You would perhaps think that Mads Mikkelsen was too handsome to play the rather ugly Stravinsky, but Mikkelsen is unable to give a bad performance. The film is better than you may have feared and suspected.

This film is about the famous fashion designer Coco Chanel, and her attraction to the Russian musician Igor Stravinsky. "Chanel Coco & Igor Stravinsky" has beautiful classical music, thoughtful cinematography and great atmosphere, but unfortunately there is not much story to fill the film. The pacing is dead slow, probably to stretch it to 2 hours. I find the passion between Coco an Igor not enough, and the jealousy and rivalry between Coco and Katarina not intense enough. In the end, the film cuts suddenly into the future then back to 1920, which is confusing. In addition, the ending does not bring so much closure to the story, it would have been good to generously reduce the existing footage and expand on what happens between the two time frames. Though the film is not boring, it is dull and lacking in passion.

I loved this movie so much that I had to leave a comment here even though I've never been fond of Stravinsky's music. I walked in expecting another mushy love story and discovered something completely different. The story unfolds very slowly, yet I was never bored for a moment. Another reviewer hit the nail just right when he said: "Coco & Igor is mesmerizing in the beauty and care of the camera shots as well as the care taken with the set decoration and lighting." This movie should be required study for any student learning the art of movie making. The mood and feel it creates cannot be explained in a few sentences. It overwhelms your senses without using a single Hollywood explosion. It takes the viewer into a special unique world with incredible Camera direction, a rich beautiful texture of a backdrop and a "lust" story unlike any you've seen. The acting is superb and completely invisible, especially the character of Chanel played by Anna Mouglalis. Every aspect of this movie seems to have been measured to the millimeter, just the right amount of dialogue, just the right amount of music at the right moment. Every camera shot, every facial expression tells you more about the situation than any words would have been able to. It is like watching a painting that comes to life with music. Watch closely and you'll see!

Two movies about the legendary fashion icon in one year! I did not see the other one, "Coco before Chanel" – never a fan of Audrey Tautou. This one is in fact more Stravinsky than Chanel, and could be been re-titled "Le Sacre du Printemps - from disaster to triumph". When Chanel asserts that she is as "powerful" as Stravinsky he retorts that he is an artist while she is only a "shopkeeper". I'm not sure how much is lost in translation from the original French meaning in these two quoted words that appear in the sub-title. I suspect quit a bit. On a less artistic plane, there is simply no symmetry. Stravinsky is torn between two women (and one with a family to boot), a predicaments to which Chanel is immune. The third lead in this movie is The Rite of Spring, Stravinsky's masterpiece is featured in a 20-miuntes scene at the beginning of this movie. This is an orchestration of a ballet performance in which a young girl dances herself to death as a sacrificial offering. If the subject matter was controversial at the time, the music was outright outrageous – way ahead of the contemporary (early 20th Century) audience's capacity to appreciate. Pierre Monteux, conductor of the Ballets Russes upon hearing Stravinsky's piano demonstration of the score, considered him "raving mad". The sequence in the movie recreates the scene from descriptions of people who were there: squirmed at first, then began to murmur, and then the whole theatre erupted into a monstrous cacophony of hoots, catcalls and hisses. The scene, however, also conveys the beauty of the music described by Stravinsky himself: each instrument is like a bud which grows on the bark of a venerable tree; it becomes part of an immense ensemble. And the entire orchestra, the entire ensemble, must take on the meaning of a rebirth of spring. Moving from instrument to instrument – melancholy woodwind, echoing brass, pulsating percussion and finally harmonizing string – the camera did full justice to Stravinsky's music. The simple plot unfolds after this masterful introduction. Successful and wealthy Chanel undertakes the financial support of this unfortunate artist, moving his entire family (wife and 4 kids) into her plush villa, purportedly motivated entirely on her appreciation of his musical talents. To no one's surprise she eventually becomes his mistress. The subtle duel between wife-guest and mistress-host is underscored from the very beginning when Catherine Stravinsky combats her host's * for black and white décor by strategically placing in their bedroom red tapestry, the only thing she is really able to do under the circumstances. The first sex scene appears at exactly midway through the 2-hour movie. Both protagonists know exactly what they are doing. The movie drags on a little from there, and moves slowly towards a somewhat unspectacular conclusion. The performance of Anna Mouglalis is mesmerizing. With her full lips, deep sensuous voice and model-perfect poise, you can't find a better Coco Chanel. There is never a moment's doubt as to who is in the driver's seat. Mada Mikkelsen I remember well from "King Arthur" (2004) as Tristan, the taciturn, cool-as-cucumber Sarmatian knight wielding a Tartan curved sword and carrying a scouting hawk on his shoulder. Here as Igor Stravinsky, he is dimmed by Mouglalis whenever the two appears together in a scene. But still, it's an adequate job. Yelena Morozova as Catherine Stravinsky is not to be overlooked. While An absolute underdog, with her sometimes almost eerie persona, she proves to be a match for Mouglalis' Chanel.

If the nineteenth century gave us the best social utopias, it also gave us the most developed idea of individuality. The sacred individuality (Durkheim) is not just a metaphor, but something to die for (Heinich). Stravinsky and Chanel are entering the twentieth century affirming the supremacy of their individualities. Stravinky's notes send us straight to an unresting subjectivity. No more lakes with swans, or marvelous epic narratives, but a strong voice evoking one's darkest secrets and turmoil. Stravinsky's wife, Katia, belongs to a pre-modern world. Her praying and her religious loyalty to her husband guide her resignation. It is certainly annoying for us, impatient inhabitants of the XXI century. Igor's success is her success. For Coco, his success is the affirmation of the possibility of supreme geniality, power, originality, uniqueness. Like a rare perfume, Coco needed to belong to such nobility. Disruption seems certain when Coco is deeply disappointed: she does not earn recognition from her Igor. However, this conflict yields an aftermath - a situation where conflict is in the open, but too much is at stake for a premature disruption. What is produced at such aftermath, at such unbearable relationship? The spring of each one's individuality. The "Le Sacre du Printemps" is for both. Both celebrating individuality and youth.