House of Gucci
United Artists
It’s telling that we live in an era where both Tiger King 2 and The Tragedy of Macbeth are simultaneous high profile projects. Both involve treachery, morally suspect characters, villainy, and conflict, but one is Jerry Springer and the other’s The Bard. House of Gucci, like its familial namesake, is the former wrapped in the trappings of the latter. It’s a trailer park covered in artisanal leather. It’s enjoying the Louvre from a bathroom’s open stall. It’s like spilling ketchup on a Rothko and being unable to tell the difference. It’s a lot of fun with a number of virtues, but it’s also a messy, overlong film that doesn’t entirely mesh.
The Guccis have a fashion dynasty. When hopeful lawyer Maurizio (a perfectly cast Adam Driver) meets Patrizia Reggiani (a Lady Gaga who CHEWS. THAT. SCENERY... but she’s legitimately electric in every scene), he’s taken in by her freeflowing charm. After a spot of tension, they get pulled back in and rise to the top of the family food chain after a series of Machiavellian moves, counter moves, and surprises along with uncle Aldo Gucci (an excellent Al Pacino), his son Paolo (Jared Leto), and Giuseppina Auriemma (Salma Hayek)... and the way their struggle for power ends has startling implications for the Guccis themselves.
House of Gucci has a lot going for it. All the central performers excel in their roles. Lady Gaga is a vengeful Machiavelli with sex appeal. Adam Driver is a lanky, awkward ‘nice guy’ turned Machiavelli-aspirant (without the chops to succeed). Jared Leto’s Paolo is a joke, and it’s perfect fun in every scene. Also, being a Ridley Scott film, it’s technically flawless, alongside a script with a number of truly hilarious moments of comedy that always land. It’s serious subject matter, but the characters are so absolutely outlandish but take themselves so seriously that it’s a massive, multi-level cake of camp.
At the same time, while the script excels at the dialogue and humor it also has a number of weaknesses. Its an indulgent, overlong film that tells a 2 hour story in over 2.5 hours, with a host of scenes that could be honed or cut for the greater good. Instead of being tight and pointed, they meander and struggle to balance a variety of characters and a number of scenes don’t really add to the ending as written... it’s fine to have scenes that build character development but in a film that’s more 3 hours than not (and feels slow at times) the script could use another draft or two.
It’s also a movie whose tone, while fun, blunts the impact of the its own circumstances. Lady Gaga has machinations with real stakes, but those stakes are rushed through with oddly comical undertones to blunt the implications of what she’s done. Paolo meets a bad end, but he’s treated as a clown so the sadness never lands. It’s often funny, but when the film tries to be anything else it struggles.
House of Gucci has a lot of virtues, and mainly in its performances and technical attributes. It’s a gorgeous (but not particularly innovative) film. The performances all land, with Gaga, Leto, and sometimes Pacino stealing the spotlight while Driver excels in every scene with a more muted character. A ton of the jokes land, even the more subtle ones, and it’s largely an enjoyable film. At the same time, it’s a very long movie with little justification for such an extravagant duration... there’s a lot that could be chopped and reorganized. Combined with a tone that seems to prioritize humor over emotional stakes and you have a film with loads of potential but falls extremely short.
Is it fun? Yes.
Should you see it? Depends on your schedule.
Is it Best Picture territory? No. But it’s a good time, and that’s something. Personally, I’m awaiting that rare Director’s Cut that’s shorter and tighter.
House of Gucci premieres November 24th.
Follow me on Twitter.