- House of Gucci frames Patrizia Reggiani as the mastermind of a signature forgery central to the Gucci inheritance dispute.
- In real life, Patrizia was never formally charged with forging Rodolfo Gucci’s signature.
- Maurizio Gucci faced legal fights and accusations involving his staff; the movie compresses and reassigns events for dramatic effect.
Film vs. Fact: How House of Gucci Tells the Story
Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci puts Patrizia Reggiani (played by Lady Gaga) at the center of key family conflicts, including the plotline that suggests she engineered the forging of Rodolfo Gucci’s signature. The scene serves the film’s narrative: it gives Patrizia a direct, active role in the power struggles that lead to her later conviction for involvement in Maurizio’s murder.
What Really Happened With Rodolfo’s Signature
In reality, Rodolfo Gucci died before signing a document that would have transferred shares — a fact the film keeps. That unsigned paper created a costly inheritance tax issue and intensified tension inside the Gucci family. Maurizio Gucci was accused of involvement in forging his father’s signature and faced legal proceedings that pushed him to leave Italy.
Court records and reporting show the forgery accusations were directed at Maurizio and involved his secretarial staff. According to published accounts, Maurizio’s secretary, Roberta Cassol, was alleged to have attempted the forgery and may have delegated the task to her assistant, Liliana Colombo. Maurizio initially was found guilty in a civil case but was later cleared in another hearing. Throughout these legal battles, Patrizia’s name does not appear as a formal defendant in the forgery case.
Why the Film Blurs the Lines
House of Gucci reshapes events to keep Patrizia in the foreground. As the movie follows her emotional and moral arc from outsider to central figure, filmmakers attribute actions and motives to her that historical records do not definitively support. The Los Angeles Times reported that an assistant to Rodolfo testified against Patrizia, but that testimony did not lead to formal charges related to the signature forgery.
This kind of compression and reattribution is common when adapting complex real-life stories for screen: it simplifies multiple legal threads and emphasizes character-driven causes for dramatic clarity.
Bottom Line
The film’s suggestion that Patrizia Reggiani orchestrated Rodolfo Gucci’s signature forgery is a dramatization, not confirmed legal fact. Historical records point to accusations against Maurizio and his staff, not a formal prosecution of Patrizia for the forgery. House of Gucci uses creative license to heighten stakes and make Patrizia’s later actions feel more plausible within the film’s storytelling.
For viewers drawn to the true-crime side of the story, it’s worth separating cinematic narrative choices from court documents and contemporary reporting when assessing who did what in the real Gucci family saga.
Image Referance: https://thecinemaholic.com/patrizia-reggiani-forge-rodolfo-gucci-signature/
