Ridley Scott calls House of Gucci controversy “alarmingly insulting”

UPDATE: Ridley Scott is not mincing words when it comes to the Gucci family, with him slamming their reaction to the film in an interview with Total Film Magazine. Scott’s not one to back down from a challenge, and his response proves that while they may have a problem with the film, he definitely doesn’t think they have a thing to complain about:

“The people that were writing from the family to us at the onset were alarmingly insulting, saying that Al Pacino did not represent physically Aldo Gucci in any shape or form,” he said, adding: “and yet, frankly, how could they be better represented than by Al Pacino? Excuse me! You probably have the best actors in the world, you should be so fucking lucky.”

Despite an impressive opening weekend at the box office, House of Gucci has taken some hits the last couple of days. First fashion mogul and filmmaker Tom Ford had some harsh criticisms for the film and now the heirs of Aldo Gucci, played by Al Pacino, have come out against the film and even hint at taking legal action regarding the depiction of their family.

In a statement published by ANSA, an Italian wire service, the Gucci family slammed director Ridley Scott and the producers of House of Gucci and say they “did not bother to consult the heirs” of the fashion empire before portraying their family members in the film as “thugs, ignorant, and insensitive to the world around them.” The statement also read, “The Gucci family reserve the right to take every initiative (necessary) to protect their name and image and those of their loved ones.”

The Gucci family was particularly perturbed by the portrayal of Patrizia Reggiani, played by Lady Gaga in the film. Reggiani was an Italian socialite who was convicted for hiring a hitman to kill her ex-husband Maurizio Gucci, played by Adam Driver. The statement claims that the film portrays Reggiani “as a victim” and they reinforced that claim by pointing to statements from Gaga and other cast members who made that assessment while promoting the movie. The statement goes on to say it was “mystifying” that a woman convicted of instigating the murder of her husband and served 18 years in prison for the crime would be portrayed as “a victim trying to survive in a male corporate culture.” The Guccis claim that in the 70 years that the fashion house was a family-owned business, it was “an inclusive company” and that in the 1980s, the period depicted in the film, several of the label’s top executives, including the “president of Gucci America, the Head of Global PR & Communication, and member of the board of the directors of Gucci America” were all women.

I highly doubt that these new criticisms will get much of a response from Scott and, if he does respond, he’s likely to disagree with their claims. When the Gucci family first lashed out against the film several months ago, Patrizia Gucci, the daughter of Aldo Gucci, came out against Ridley Scott for, “stealing the identity of a family to make a profit to increase the income of the Hollywood system.” In response to this, Scott said, “I don’t engage with that. 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.”

I guess that is how Scott and the producers were able to portray the Guccis as they saw fit. The film is based on the 2001 book “The House of Gucci: A Sensational Story of Murder, Madness, Glamour, and Greed” by Sara Gay Forden. The movie is using the book as its inspiration and as Scott put it, the family has made themselves public domain because of some of their actions. Certainly not the actions of the heirs per se but the misdeeds of those that came before them.

Do YOU agree with the Gucci family for slamming House of Gucci?