Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Terrorizing the Vulnerable

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Arts and Culture
Email this item Print this item

Haute Love, High Fashion

Posted on May 13, 2011

Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Bergé strike a pose in this still from “L’Amour Fou.”

By Richard Schickel

They were the oddest of couples: Yves Saint Laurent, the world-class fashion designer—flighty, depressive, manically hard-working and for a time both a drug addict and an alcoholic—and Pierre Bergé, the couturier’s business and life partner for a half century—a stolid, determinedly unsentimental man who elliptically recounts their story in Pierre Thoretton’s disappointing documentary “L’Amour Fou.”

The occasion for Bergé’s reflections is the auction of the pair’s vast assemblage of art objects a little more than two years ago. I use the word assemblage in preference to collection because it appears to have been put together impulsively rather than through the operation of a rational plan or as a firm statement of taste—not that that affected the amount realized at auction, which was something close to $500 million.

That figure is not mentioned in the film. Neither is the fact that prices must have been favorably affected by the celebrity of the men who owned the 733 items placed on sale. As Thoretton’s camera pans about the rooms in which the objects were displayed—often enough as they are being packed for transfer to the auction house—you gain a powerful sense of pure clutter. Nothing in their arrangement suggests that this or that piece is more significant than the others. In a way that’s charming—these guys just liked to live surrounded by pretty (and valuable) things. In a way it’s disquieting. What’s the point of grand-scale acquisition if you don’t in some way impute relative value (or affection) for all that stuff? There is a whiff of the Collyer brothers about this duo, except that they are hoarding not old newspapers but Picassos and Renoirs and Brancusis—priceless icons of modernism.

To a considerable degree, this film is an attempt to enhance the importance of Bergé in the creation of Saint Laurent’s celebrity. People inside the Parisian fashion world knew what he meant to the designer; he kept the business organized, grew it to world-class status and, above all, gave his lover the privacy to more or less work himself to death. This was OK with the melancholy and illusive Saint Laurent. The film reports that he was happy only twice a year, when, inevitably, his shows received triumphant receptions from the fashion press and the rest of the tiny, hothouse fashionista world. Within two days, of course, his euphoria faded, and he would retreat for a brief time into one of the homes that he and Bergé owned in Morocco or Normandy, after which, naturally, he started work on his next collection.

Bergé admits that his own nature was controlling, and he makes no apology for it. Indeed, he makes no apology for anything in his life. And therein lies something of a mystery. We are not allowed to imagine what Saint Laurent saw in this man—except an enabler. What we see of him is a rather ponderous figure, always impeccably clad in a well-cut, obviously expensive suit, insisting that he has no sentimental interest in the collection that he’s selling. Or, more or less, in Saint Laurent himself or the half century they spent together. He manages occasionally to utter the proper mourner’s words, but in totally dispassionate tones. He and a few other intimates pay tribute to the “genius” they served, but they cannot explicate it. Perhaps, one begins to think, because genius was not requisite to Saint Laurent’s activities.

This suspicion grows when Thoretton shows us footage from a variety of Saint Laurent’s shows. The dresses he creates are not meant to be worn anywhere but on a runway. You can’t imagine any woman getting out of a taxi wearing them or sitting down to dinner in them—if, indeed, a woman could actually sit down in them. Design, at this level, is essentially a publicity stunt, a way of establishing a “look,” be it Russianate, for example, or a knockoff of Mondrian’s manner. It is for Saint Laurent (and others) to translate these radical statements into clothing that real-life women can actually wear without looking foolish or absurdly vulnerable. That’s where the money is—tons of it, obviously. Which says nothing of the perfume lines the house developed and where, one glumly suspects, there’s even more dough.

And that’s where the insistence on the designer’s “artistry” begins to look more than a little fishy. An artist naturally needs to make money and to gain attention. But he is also hoping for something more, which is, of course, immortality. This is something that cannot be gained in the rag trade, with its incessant pressure to come up with something new and attention-grabbing every six months. I think Saint Laurent, who was not a well-educated man, had something like an artist’s spirit—he was a bold conceptualizer and he had a hand gifted enough to realize those conceptions in an often dazzling manner—but he was obliged to operate in a world that is almost the definition of ephemera. It is also, of course, a big money world (not healthy for artists) and one that is utterly vacuous. It is no wonder that the man was chronically depressed and subject to addictive behavior.

This is not quite a tragedy. But there is an implicit sadness in the tale this movie tells. Bergé was too close to, and too profitably engaged in, the fashion world to point out its pitfalls to his partner—if he even noticed them. And Thoretton is too distant from it to perform a similar function in his film. They have to accept it on its own half-hysterical, half-stupefying terms. As does whatever audience this film might have. 

Lockerdome Below Article

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Ehrenstein, May 17, 2011 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

I’m sorry but you know very little about St. Laurent’s work. His major creations were eminently practical. His primary designs were clothes that women could wear in evryday life. The pantsuit, for instance, was a S. Laurent specialty.

The trouble with this documentary is that it shows very little of St. Laurent’s art. There are a few flashes of models on the runway in big flashy items, but that’s all. Mention is made of his ready-to-wear line, but nothing about what it meant for middle-class women to be able to purchase clothes designed by St.Laurent. He was alos instrumental in providing black models with careers —something no other designer would do back in the day. His appreciation of the beauty of black women is enormously important.

As a portrait of Pierre Berge the film is not without interest. But as St. laurent is gone we have no “other side of the story” re their relationship. Amd even if he were it’s exceedingly difficult for outsiders to udnerstand what two people see in one another and how and why they live together—regardless of sexual orientation.

Report this

By deang, May 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I haven’t seen the film and I know little about Berge, but I know quite a bit about St. Laurent. His depression seems to have arisen during an obligatory stint in the French military early in his career. And his clothes were no more or less wearable than those of any other designer of his times. He led the move away from made-to-measure (couture) clothes and toward off-the-rack (ready-to-wear) ones during the 60s and was famous in the late 60s and early 70s for reflecting women’s demands for more practical clothes by featuring casual, mix-and-match trouser outfits that could still be worn today by women on the street. The “Russianate” outfits of his (from 1976) that you suggest were unwearable were just extravagant versions of the comfortable peasant styles that had been popular since the late 60s. And his Mondrian collection of 1965 was based on the popular “shift” dress of the time, a narrow but comfortable and widely worn shape that was favored over the hobbling sheath dresses of the previous decade. When St. Laurent really seemed to retreat was during the 80s, when every collection was just a variation on the broad-shouldered, 40s-inspired, conspicuous consumption, 80s power jacket outfit that we now associate with shows like “Dynasty.” He really seemed to lose creative steam during that era, and I felt that he was sort of retreating from life. Maybe Berge was pressing him to emphasize business over creativity.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook