‘House of Gucci’ lives for the applause, gets crickets instead

Darina Lubenov, Editor-in-Chief

Money, power and love. There’s a story behind the popular belts and GG marmont bags that shook the world and the house of Gucci itself. 

“House of Gucci,’’ directed by Ridley Scott, was sold as an ever-changing, crazy tale about a family business that just happened to fall apart. The point with this movie, however, was missed entirely. The history of Gucci is tragic, as it details a family business founded in the 1920s that was ultimately destroyed because of the desire for power and greed.

I’m devoted to all things fashion, but I’ve never really been devoted to Gucci as a staple in my interest. Although if someone were to surprise me with Princess Grace Kelly’s original ‘60s Gucci Flora scarf I wouldn’t necessarily say “no.” 

Despite my lack of devotion to the Gucci brand, I was excited to watch “House of Gucci.” For starters, one needs to learn the history of the house. I watched this film with my mother (who is more of a fan of  Lady Gaga, who appears in the film) who did not know Gucci’s history the way I knew it. 

But my fellow moviegoers were still somehow surprised at the more basic events that happened in the 1990s. The theater gasped when Maurizio Gucci, portrayed by Adam Driver, passes away in the film. My mother even turned to me and asked me quietly in the theater, “Is that Tom Ford?” 

Yes, Tom Ford was at Gucci for 10 years, hired on in 1994. Tom Ford was a major strategy to the revival of Gucci and many viewers most likely did not even realize who it was. 

The point is, people seemed to have forgotten that “House of Gucci” is supposed to be a real story with a tragic ending. The casting or the acting was not the problem in this case. It was solely the writing in the film that was the issue. 

For one, Jared Leto is an incredibly talented actor that is not at fault for the terrible script he had to perform. Paolo Gucci was the funniest character in a movie that truly had no need for a funny character. Sure, this is based off of the story, but “House of Gucci” is supposed to be tragic and real. 

Another real issue in “House of Gucci” is the feedback from people who knew members of the Gucci family and Gucci history. Mentioning Ford again, his review of “House of Gucci” was imperative, because many Gucci family members who lived through the early 1990s have passed away and cannot speak on the movie. 

There was a point where Gaga, who plays Patrizia Reggiano, did not appear on the screen for what felt like a very, very long time. Considering that she is a really integral part of the Gucci story, there was no reason for her to not appear for such a long duration in the movie. After her separation from Mauricio, Patrizia hired hitmen to murder her husband because she was cut off from the family. I feel like this is a little more hindsight in what Patritzia did outside of her divorce. We see her consult with her oracle, Pina, played by Salma Hayek, and we see her beg for Mauricio to come home. These just seemed to be dull moments and missing the point of the story.

In essence, “House of Gucci’’ completely missed the mark on telling the saddening story of betrayal and once again greed. As you can tell, it was all over the place. 

I can compare it to a movie based off of a book. It does not follow the storyline as it should. There are too many things that are taken out of context. 

The scriptwriters could have put much much of an effort into it, and it could have been a much better learning experience for audience members who don’t know anything about Gucci history.