I've had a handful of Piaf's songs on my IPod since the film came out and really like her voice. As a Billie Holiday fan, it's interesting to hear something completely different, completely gripping, from the exact same time period.
I went to DC this weekend and bought an Interview magazine for the trip. Marion Cotillard happens to be on its cover. Upon reading the article (which was okay--it was given by a bland-o Nicole Kidman) and seeing the awesome pictures accompanying it, I went home to watch La Vie en Rose.
pic: clearlyfabulous.com
And this:
Are the same person.
I didn't like the movie though. It was fragmented among many different aspects of Piaf's life. It begins at a show towards the end of her life, then goes to her childhood, her deathbed, back to the mid 1950's, back to her childhood, to her deathbed, to her 20's, zip bang whiz!
I'm all for flashbacks or flashforwards. I love Tarantino's use of time dysmorpha in his films. This wasn't the same, however. This was whiplash inducing.
Piaf was a mother--she had a baby in her late teens or early twenties who died as a toddler. I watched 90% of the film thinking they'd decided to leave this out for story purposes, time, whatever.
Nope! The child is mentioned in the last five minutes as Piaf's having delusions on her deathbed. She's now full of sadness and regret about this child? The one who's not only NOT been mentioned the whole time, but also the one's whose absence coincides with many refereneces to "no regrets" and "free spiritedness"? If it was fiction, it would have felt like the writer was throwing this in there at the last minute for a twist.
So, back to the awesome photography from Interview magazine:
