There is buzz around the fact that Lifetime will be premiering a new made-for-television film called “Coco Chanel”, based on the famous lady’s life. The television premiere is expected to take place in September.

I ‘m sure, that almost everybody knows who Coco Chanel is: she came on the big arena with a little black dress - empty pockets, but brightened mind - and revolutionized fashion for women. She was named one of the most influential people of the 20th century. Her passion and way of life makes me draw parallels with Edith Piaf, who (also in a little black dress) made her own revolution in French chanson.

The coming film consists of two mini-series: the first one shows young Chanel, who is as miserable as could be, as an orphan during the World War. The second part of the mini-series focuses on Chanel’s return to Paris from an exile of 15 years, and her re-establishment not only as a fashion mark, but also as a fashion trend-setter.

Film director Christian Duguay told Variety: “We’ve worked hard with it, and turned it into something that is meaningful and worth making an event miniseries. There’s no point in doing it if it won’t educate and entertain, but in an original way.”

Film critics, however, are not unanimous about movie’s success. In New York Post, Linda Stasi roughly criticized it, calling it “freely uninspired”:

After three looong hours of dull, awful, embarrassing dialogue and bad acting, you’ll feel that you may never get inspired by anything again. First off, the structure is all wrong, because the movie seems like it’s actually two separate movies made in two separate parts. Clearly the filmmakers are striving for “La Vie En Rose,” but end up with “La Vie En Dull.”

The film’s director describes the movie as a love story that contains “some strong social statements about women and about how the world has changed.” Chanel’s mature character (the second part of the movie) is played by Shirley MacLaine, the Academy Award-winning, six-time Oscar nominated actress, who will, no-doubt, brighten the movie up. A strong character played by such a strong actress, how could it go as wrong as the New York Post claims it did?

The actress, herself, didn’t seem to be disappointed by the film. In an interview made by Dayna Gross in My Lifetime, she spoke about what she liked the most in the character she played:

Her contradictions. Her colorful rudeness. Her sense that everything was about her talent and her goodness. She could improvise a new outfit in 10 seconds. I loved that. And I loved her conflict between love and ambition, as well as her conflict between how to get things done and not being hurtful.

In spite of all the critics, I’m greatly anticipating this movie. I am going into it with an open mind, uninfluenced by the jeers of some critics. Hopefully you will do the same. Let’s meet here after watching it. We’ll indeed have some opinions to share.

Photo: © New York Post

Related posts:

1. Audrey Tautou: The New Coco Chanel
2. The Soloist: Playing The Strings Of Life
3. Godfather Returns In Restored Version