The heirs of Aldo Gucci, who was chairman of the Gucci fashion house from 1953 to 1986, have issued a statement saying they are “a bit disconcerted” about what they claim is their inaccurate portrayal in Ridley Scott’s “House of Gucci” film.
“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.
It added that the pic attributes “a tone and and an attitude to the protagonists of the well-known events 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,” it noted.
The statement — first published by Italian news agency ANSA, of which Variety has a copy — goes on to blast how Milanese socialite Patrizia Reggiani (played by Lady Gaga in the film), who was convicted in 1998 of facilitating the murder of Maurizio Gucci (played by Adam Driver), “is portrayed not just in the film, but also in statements from cast members, as a victim trying to survive in a male and male chauvinist corporate culture.”
“This couldn’t be further from the truth,” the statement goes on to say, since during the 70-year time span when the Gucci company was a family business, it was “an inclusive company,” it claims.
Indeed, during the 1980s, when the film is set, “there were several women who held top positions” at Gucci, whether they were family members or not, such as the president of Gucci America, the head of Global PR and communications, and a member of the board of directors of the Gucci America company, the statement noted.
“Gucci is a family that lives honoring the work of its ancestors, whose memory does not deserve to be disturbed to stage a spectacle that is untrue and which does not do justice to its protagonists,” the statement concluded, adding that “the members of the Gucci family reserve the right to take action to protect the name, image and dignity of themselves and their loved ones.”
Despite the tone of the statement, no legal action is being taken at this time by the Gucci family against Scott’s Scott Free shingle and Universal, according to an inside source.
Scott, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today show last week, dismissed previous criticism made to the Associated Press by Patrizia Gucci, who while speaking on behalf of the family, had accused the director of “stealing the identity of a family to make a profit.”
“I don’t engage with that,” Scott told BBC Radio. “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.”
The full statement, translated from the Italian, is below:
The Gucci family takes note of the release of the film “House of Gucci” and is a bit disconcerted because, although the work claims to want to tell the “true story” of the family, the fears raised by the trailers and interviews released so far, are confirmed: the film carries a narrative that is far from accurate.
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.