"One day, they'll kill to dine with us!"
--Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel, Coco Avant Chanel
Is it ever difficult to spot a powerful man, no matter the size of the room, the crowd, the man himself? I would have to argue no. There are generally tell-tale signs, like their uncomfortably quiet nature, shrill tone that demands--nay, commands--attention, and more often than not, beautiful female companion who rarely leaves their side. Humility is always encouraged, but never promised. A powerful man never has to comment on his wrath...it has preceded him. But if goaded, if pushed to that point, he'll never let you forget how much he most certainly controls. Books, plays, movies are developed around his legacy. He is immortalized often, to be replicated in another individual. Rinse, repeat: history always repeats itself in the next generation.
But what of powerful women? There is certainly an archetype, no? She, who gives it all up for the chance at success. And by "all" I do mean love, family, children. She realizes her path, her destiny, her sealed fate (?) early-on but works often to prove it wrong. Yet tragedy strikes and she must adhere to the path of her stars. She succumbs to her talent, and becomes a success. Alone at the top....makes a girl sometimes wish for mediocrity...which is an ill-fate, all in of itself.
After watching the new Coco Chanel movie last night starring Audrey Tatou and a hypnotizing Alessandro Viola (w-o-w), I thought of how unconventional women so often have to give up on ideas of normalcy in order to simply breathe without restraint, hesitation. You want so badly for life's simplicity to apply to you, but it never does. Just as much as you are celebrated for your unique streak of independence, as much as you are lauded for your fearlessness, and that clever little mouth of yours, you're more often than not, damned for it. You have to compromise at some point, even if that means compromising your future. For Coco, that meant focusing on her brand and her "fortune", and remaining true to herself at all costs (that cost would, of course, be love).
But as the movie argued, Coco always understood this. She used sex, love, relationships to get her what she wanted, which was ultimately something of her own. She was incredibly progressive and gifted, and after the death of her true love, focused. Something in me immediately responded to that, I don't know why, but I was really fascinated with how she was able to compartmentalize many of her dalliances with men into "business" and "pleasure". I guess she saw the facade in it all..."all" being men and women. Oh, is that bitter of me? Ugh, who cares. It's true. She carved out her own idea of love (for a time) and was happy (for a time), all whilst being creative and herself. For a woman, at that time--nay, at any time--is something to be in awe of.
What I cannot reconcile, however, is how the legacy of Coco has since been suppressed to make way for the almost inane luxury line we know today. I doubt most women who wear Chanel at present are independent thinking or find themselves in a constant struggle to preserve their id. If that's presumptuous of me, I apologize. But more than likely, I am right. In fact, I know I am. I won't lie, though: I would kill for a Chanel quilted, but I believe the bag has come to stand for things that I'm not comfortable endorsing which is 'sameness' at (literally) any cost. Which kinda sadly dismisses Coco's impact altogether, wouldn't you say?
No comments:
Post a Comment