“The production of the film did not bother to consult the heirs before describing Aldo Gucci — president of the company for 30 years [played by Al Pacino in the film] — and the members of the Gucci family as thugs, ignorant and insensitive to the world around them,” the statement said. (Via Variety.) The statement claims that the movie rewrites history in terms of the protagonists and the course of events, in which Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga) takes a hit out on her husband Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver) amid their unraveling marriage. The family said the movie ascribes “a tone and an attitude to the protagonists of the well-known events that never belonged to them,” adding that the film is ultimately “extremely painful from a human point of view and an insult to the legacy on which the brand is built today.”
The statement was first published by Italian news agency ANSA, and also slammed the portrayal of Patrizia “not just in the film, but also in statements from cast members, as a victim trying to survive in a male chauvinist corporate culture.” The Gucci family asserts that it was always an “inclusive company,” adding that in the 1980s, “there were several women who held top positions.” Last week, Scott anticipated such criticisms on BBC Radio, and reflected on remarks made to the Associated Press by Patrizia Gucci herself, who accused the director of “stealing the identity of a family to make a profit.” Scott said, “I don’t engage with that,” adding, “You have to remember that one Gucci was murdered and another went to jail for tax evasion, so you can’t be talking to me about making a profit. As soon as you do that you become part of the public domain.” Meanwhile, Tom Ford (portrayed in the film by Reeve Carney), also penned an essay over the holiday weekend expressing his disappointment in the movie, including Jared Leto’s outsized performance, while praising Lady Gaga’s turn. Read the full statement, translated from Italian, from the Gucci family below: Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here. The production of the film did not bother to consult the heirs before describing Aldo Gucci – president of the company for 30 years – and the members of the Gucci family as thugs, ignorant and insensitive to the world around them, attributing to the protagonists, events, a tone and an attitude that never belonged to them. This is extremely painful from a human point of view and an insult to the legacy on which the brand is built today. Even more objectionable is the reconstruction that becomes mystifying almost to the point of paradox when gets to the point of suggesting an indulgent tone towards a woman who, definitively convicted of having been the instigator of the murder of Maurizio Gucci, is painted not only in the film, but also in the statements made by cast members, as a victim who was trying to survive in a masculine and macho corporate culture. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Moreover, over the course of it 70-year history during which it was a family business, Gucci was an inclusive company. Indeed, precisely in the 1980s – the historical context in which the film is set – women were in several top positions: whether they were members of the family or extraneous to it, these included the president of Gucci America, the Head of Global PR & Communication, and a member of the board of directors of Gucci America. Gucci is a family that lives honoring the work of its ancestors, whose memory does not deserve to be disturbed to stage a film that is not true and that does not do justice to its protagonists. The members of the Gucci family reserves every right to protect the name, image, and the dignity of their loved ones.
