Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

plex There is a vital reasoning behind the purpose of making this film. Chanel is one of the most influential persons of the 20th century, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" is arguably the best piece of music ever composed. As a matter or fact, I am quite surprised this story, in its generality, was not tackled sooner. This film has many of the element we see in any other films that are well shot, acted, and edited. However, it is the constant vagueness of the storyline which concerns me and left me unsatisfied. I can see the styling of sparse dialog, especially when the writers can convey all the meaning they need to with forced economy, and economical dialog is what you get with this film. However, this is an information-driven story, and next to nothing is explained to the point I felt it was assumed that I as a viewer were to be expected to know the details about the subject before hand. As a result, I had to research multiple web-sites to fill in the blanks, to answer the questions that this film left behind. When you are trying to convey complex scenarios with limited dialog, the camera becomes more vital to tell propel the story and the burden on the actor's abilities become's crucial. This is where, IMO, the film lacks cohesiveness and purpose. I wanted to know more about both of our protagonists, Coco and Igor, but I got little information, leaving me to use my imagination, when I wanted facts instead. I never new "Rite" had so many re-writes over so many years, I never knew of the affair, I knew of the controversy behind the the music but I had been taught early performances caused riots. What happens to Katarina? The kids? Did they get back together? What were Coco's thoughts about her affair decades later? What drove her to Stravinsky? The "Rite" score seems to just magically be completed but I was eager to learn insights of the creative process and see it develop. To that point, I think they really missed out as "Rite" is the primary music played throughout the film and is used as a phantom character. I like Mikkelsen well enough, but found him to be an odd choice for this role. Coco, portrayed by Anna Mouglalis was sublime and commanding.

Turfseer 'Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky' is worthwhile for some sumptuous visuals and great Stravinsky music, as well as some excellent additional music by Gabriel Yared. The film begins quite nicely with a depiction of the original Paris performance of Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' in 1913. That performance of course was considered scandalous at the time, not only for the iconoclastic rhythms introduced by Stravinsky but also for Diaghilev's frenzied choreography. At the performance is Coco Chanel, the famed designer, who admires the piece despite the derision from most of the clueless 'bourgeoisie' in the audience.Flash forward seven years and Stravinsky, his wife and children, have fallen on hard times. In steps Chanel who offers to put them up at her estate in the suburbs of Paris. At first Stravinsky declines but changes his mind after he realizes that the fresh suburban air would be good for his wife, who suffers from what appears to be pneumonia.The rest of the Coco and Igor narrative is rather predictable. Coco, the free spirit that she is, seduces Stravinsky, and makes love to him frequently, as the rest of the family enjoys the good meals and gifts, the designer magnate bestows upon them. Eventually (wouldn't you guess), Stravinsky's wife falls into despair as she becomes quite aware that Igor has strayed into the arms of Ms. Chanel. Historically, this all plays out for approximately nine months until May of 1921, when the wife and children left (and Stravinsky soon followed).There are some rather perfunctory sex scenes between Chanel and Igor with the great composer uttering the best line to Chanel that she's not an artist but rather a "shopkeeper." This is probably the worst thing you could say to someone like Chanel, who suddenly loses all interest in Stravinsky and gives up on him as a lover. Nonetheless, Chanel remained generous toward Stravinsky, bankrolling a new production of the 'Rite of Spring' and remaining friends with him, in the years to come.The implication here is that somehow Coco Chanel was a muse for Stravinsky which is not borne out by any evidence. The entire narrative is based on a fictional book entitled 'Coco and Igor', inspired by Coco Chanel's claims that she had an affair with Stravinsky. This was disputed by Stravinsky's second wife as well as his long-term assistant.Chris Greenhaigh, who wrote both the screenplay and the novel it was based on, also throws in an irrelevant sub-plot about how Chanel goes about coming up with her famous fragrance, 'Chanel No. 5'. It's a pointless aside due to the lack of conflict (Chanel has meetings with her chemist, sniffs various experimental fragrances, and finally decides on her final pick). Voila!What's much more interesting about Chanel is completely left out in this film. That of course is that she had a long relationship with an anti-Semitic British aristocrat, was probably (more often than not), a Nazi sympathizer during the war, may have been a Nazi spy and aided a Nazi war criminal after the war.'Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky' details a footnote in the career of a great composer. We're asked to get excited about this imagined relationship and I'm not sure why. I get the idea that Chanel and Stravinsky were sexually attracted to one another. And that's about all I get from Greenhaigh's speculations. Anna Mouglalis is quite good as Chanel but Mads Mikkelsen (the Danish actor who was cast perfectly as a man falsely accused as a pedophile in 'The Hunt'), seems much too stiff as Stravinsky (the great composer was known to be quite a social, genial soul).I would recommend 'Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky' mainly for the look and feel of the visual and musical aspects of the production. But I remain unconvinced there's enough drama here to sustain one's interest for a full 119 minutes.

Dharmendra Singh 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

gradyharp COCO CHANEL & IGOR STRAVINSKY is a sumptuously beautiful film to watch - all artsy art nouveau decor, almost devoid of conversation, with captiating portrayals of two of the 20th century's most creative talents - Coco and Igor - played with distant but memorable acting by Anna Mouglalis and Mads Mikkelsen. And there is enough of the core star (Stravinsky's 'Le sacre du printemps') of the 'biography' to make it musically stable. But the problem with this otherwise tasty peak into the lives of Coco and Igor is the lack of accuracy of fact. Perhaps that is what writers Chris Greenhalgh, Carlo De Boutiny, writer/director Jan Kounen had in mind: drop a few elements of fact, mix those with a huge dollop of imagination and create a moment of lust and frustration that usually accompanies the public and private lives of stars. Perhaps in their eyes, fiction is stranger than fact. What we do know is that prior to the May 29, 1913, at the Théatre des Champs-Elysées in Paris scandalous premiere of 'Le sacre du printemps' Igor Stravinsky (Mads Mikkelsen) was a very successful composer of such favorites as 'The Firebird' and 'Petrouska' and before his premiere of 'Le sacre' was presented by the Ballet Russes under the direction of Diagilev (Grigori Manukov) with choreography by the notorious Vaslav Nijinsky (Marek Kossakowski in a very bland portrayal): Stravinsky would later write in his autobiography of the process of working with Nijinsky on the choreography, stating that "the poor boy knew nothing of music" and that Nijinsky "had been saddled with a task beyond his capacity." In the audience is the icy Coco Chanel (Anna Mouglalis) who, still grieving for her deceased lover Boy Patel (Anatole Taubman), connects with the primitive passions of the production. The film then cuts to 1920 with Stravinsky and his four children and tuberculous wife Katerina (Yelena Morozova) barely existing in Paris when Diaghilev introduces Stravinsky to the wealthy patron Coco Chanel who invites the poverty stricken Stravinsky family to stay in her lavish villa outside Paris where Stravinsky composes while Katerina copies her husband's music and Coco keeps her successful Parisian business and seeks out her famous perfume Chanel No. 5. Some history books (including memoirs by Stravinsky himself) state that the stay lasted for only 2 weeks and that the two were simply close friends, but the creators of the film would have us believe that a torrid love affair occurred under the eyes of Katerina, a lusty sexual fulfilling of a need for both geniuses which ends in Katerina and the children moving out to Biarritz and distance develops between Igor and Coco: the secretive patronage of Coco to the Ballet Russes is supposed to have allowed a new performance of the 'Sacre' with costumes designed by Chanel and re-choreographed by Leonid Massine - the truth of these elements cannot be proved. So what we have here is a two hour nearly wordless study of the needs of two famous people colliding in an affair but also focusing the world of Paris' attention on new ways of creativity. Mikkelsen and Mouglalis are terrific if cold, the 'love' scenes are beautifully photographed, and the decor of Chanel's house and all of the costumes are splendid. Gabriel Yared provides a musical score that is based on phrases from Stravinsky and makes for an exciting background for this visual outing. It is worth viewing if only to step inside the Paris of the time of the two main characters. Just don't expect solid facts to reign! Grady Harp