by Frank Calvillo
Even those with not an inkling of interest in fashion cannot help but at least admire the achievement-filled career of Yves Saint Laurent, which included, among other things, succeeding the great Christian Dior as head of the Paris fashion industry while still in his 20s. Beyond a natural flair for design though, Saint Laurent will be remembered for his unique views on the image of women as free-thinking individuals which he echoed through his designs. His famous pant suits were seen as both bold and chic, serving as early tools for women’s liberation while still radiating femininity.
Quite simply, Saint Laurent, the man, was both a visionary and an innovator who made monumental strides in fashion, which are still being felt today. Its a real shame then that Saint Laurent, the movie, never truly realizes that.
Co-written and directed by Bertrand Bonello and starring Gaspard Ulliel in the title role, Saint Laurent provides a look at the legendary designer, jumping back and forth between the years of 1967 and 1976, a time which most point to as his peak period. Examining the designer’s relationship with his art, public, colleagues, confidants, and lovers, Saint Laurent attempts to delve into the mystique of one of the fashion world’s most celebrated figures.
The most glaring negative of Saint Laurent is that for all it’s stylistic attributes, the film simply has no clear narrative style. Rather than follow his main subject according to the events of his life, Bonello instead chooses to jump distractingly back and forth between years according to whatever collections Saint Laurent is showing.
That’s not to say that the director doesn’t include some fascinating and telling sequences throughout the film. Having Saint Laurent show one of his collections in a split screen played alongside the various social and political issues of the day is brilliant. Likewise, the scene where he transforms a woman unsure about wearing a pant suit he has designed (unheard of apparel for women during those days) by letting down her hair and adding some eye catching jewelry, thereby giving her an air of confidence, does briefly capture the essence of what made him a visionary.
However, those moments are sparse in a film that is less of a cohesive feature film and more of a series of stunning set ups and art installation pieces.
I’ve always felt that the main point of any film based on the life of a real-life figure was to learn about the person, their character and what made them who they were. Saint Laurent’s script offers nothing about what made it’s subject the revolutionary artist he was, instead painting him as the kind of hedonistic, bored, spoiled rich boy typically found in a Bret Easton Ellis novel. Even during the times Saint Laurent deigns to occasionally muse about how rotten things are, nothing really seems to stir in him. “I can’t draw like Matisse,” he states at one point, to which he’s told, “You’re Yves Saint Laurent, and you want to draw like Matisse?!”
Ulleil is good, but the script never gives him any powerhouse scenes with which to fully show his take on the character. Its a shame since the actor seems to be completely invested in the man he is portraying. He’s ably supported by great turns from Jeremie Renier and Louis Garrel as his business manager/confidant and lover, respectively, and by Amira Casar and Aymeline Valade as his muses.
As I mentioned before, there’s a curiously exquisite look to the film that isn’t glossy, but rather classic and timeless. For all its narrative problems, Saint Laurent never ceases to be visually interesting in terms of colors and shot composition, which mirror both the time and place of Saint Laurent’s Paris as well as the heightened reality in which he existed . Even as the script begins to wear a bit on the audience’s patience, the actual film manages to become increasingly beautiful as it goes on.
After watching the film, it becomes obvious that the only audience for Saint Laurent are the most devoted fans of the designer and his work. For everyone else, the film would read as nothing but a shoddily, half-baked biopic. While later scenes with a great Helmut Berger (as an older version of the designer) actually convey what the rest of the film doesn’t, Saint Laurent never recovers from the damaging decision to almost never leave those nine years in the designer’s life.
If there is any point to Saint Laurent’s existence, its in how manic, yet isolating, the world of fashion can be. However, Bonello is only able to achieve this by making a film which is itself manic and isolating too.
The Package
There are two separate interviews (one with the cast, and the other with Bonello), both of which last not even the length of the film’s trailer, which is also included.
While the cast does provide some interesting takes on the people they portray, the interview with Bonello is at least notable for watching the director try and justify the liberties taken with Saint Laurent. “Sometimes you have to be unfaithful to bring the character to life.”
The Lowdown
Ultimately, Saint Laurent is about as gorgeous and thin as the models who wore his designs.