Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (Steven Shainberg, 2006)

Message

Antoine Doinel · #1 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:56 pm

I liked Secretary, more for tackling an interesting subject with an appropriate mix of fun and maturity, but had some issues with it. I'm intrigued by Fur and at the very least it looks like it may boast yet another great performance by Robert Downey Jr.

Trailer

#2 Post by **Matt** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:16 am

Hm. The trailer kind of makes it look more like it should be called Secretary II: The Erotic Awakening of a Lady Photographer, but I'm willing to give Shainberg and his screenwriter, Erin Cressida Wilson, the benefit of the doubt.

flyonthewall2983 · #3 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:24 am

Although Secretary is one of my favorites, I must say I wasn't excited seeing this trailer. Then again, I've never thought of Secretary in terms of being "visionary". I think what got that film by (my opinion) was the story, and the execution of that story by the cast. I was reminded of elements American Beauty the first time I saw it, and Fur looks like something Tim Burton would or has done.

portnoy · #4 Post by **portnoy** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:56 pm

Fur's good - not great - and what separates it from cloying Cinema of Art Direction like Burton's is the usefulness of its almost preciously quirkiness in its exploration of Arbus' work. I'll probably regret liking this movie at some point, but I still quite like Secretary, despite my misgivings about its representational politics (which, indeed, are just as problematic in Fur). A curio, and a minor film, but as pure entertainment I was thoroughly engaged.

Fletch F. Fletch · #5 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:35 pm

a good profile on the movie, here.

Barmy · #6 Post by **Barmy** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:04 pm

Nicole's nose really bothered me in this flick.

tavernier · #7 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:56 pm

Barmy wrote:Nicole's nose really bothered me in this flick.

That's all?

Barmy · #8 Post by **Barmy** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:34 pm

Don't get me started...

Poor Nicole...it looks like The Invasion is being dumped in mid-August 2007.

#9 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue May 08, 2007 9:15 pm

I just saw this and I guess I'm the only one anywhere (though please I'd love for someone to have my back) who thought this was a tremendous film. A complete exercise in style that never exhausts itself, a love letter to Nicole Kidman's bangs, and the perfect antidote to the usual nauseating biopic genre.

Greathinker · #10 Post by **Greathinker** » Tue May 08, 2007 11:41 pm

domino harvey wrote:I just saw this and I guess I'm the only one anywhere (though please I'd love for someone to have my back) who thought this was a tremendous film. A complete exercise in style that never exhausts itself, a love letter to Nicole Kidman's bangs, and the perfect antidote to the usual nauseating biopic genre.

I saw around half of it before leaving, someone rented it. I'd like to just say it was ridiculous but I guess that won't do here. I'm a fan of Arbus' work-- there was a fantastic exhibit at the Walker a few months ago that introduced me. And so I didn't appreciate the film's contention that her creativity and work was some kind of fetish, and that her repressed sexuality helped catalyze the whole thing-- it reeks of hollywood storytelling. Along with the apartment full of freak shows, as if she just stumbled into this underworld with Downey Jr.playing the gatekeeper-- I guess it would be too confusing, complicated, or boring to portray her as a character who saw these kinds of fringe characteristics in people naturally and wanted to use them to make a point. Maybe more biopics will at least put "An imaginary portrait" in their title too so that I can skip them in advance.

#11 Post by **domino harvey** » Wed May 09, 2007 1:58 am

I wish more biopics just flat-out made up facts and events instead of following a linear episodic path through a celebrity's rise, fall, and death. This movie is the flip side of the horrendous Factory Girl, which never seemed to justify itself as to why it should be a movie. Fur never justifies itself as to why it should be a biopic, but luckily that's the only outcome of the two that can still survive as a film. Maybe since I only have a passing appreciation of Arbus and knew the film to be almost entirely fiction, I was able to enjoy it on its own merits, whereas an ardent Arbus fan might understandably feel cheated by not being given the real deal... which begs the question of who the intended audience for this film was? Answer: People who love Nicole Kidman's bangs.

tavernier · #12 Post by **tavernier** » Wed May 09, 2007 2:59 am

domino harvey wrote:which begs the question of who the intended audience for this film was? Answer: People who love Nicole Kidman's bangs.

Based on its box office take, there aren't many.

Mestes · #13 Post by **Mestes** » Wed May 09, 2007 9:23 am

portnoy wrote:... but I still quite like Secretary, despite my misgivings about its representational politics (which, indeed, are just as problematic in Fur).

Would you mind expanding on this point?

Antoine Doinel · #14 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:18 pm

Rented Fur tonight and thought it was an interesting exercise, it ultimately a somewhat failed one. The first half of the film is utterly fascinating. Shainberg's work behind the camera and the careful entry of Arbus into Lionel's world is handled wonderfully. Their first conversation about sexuality and brushing on fetishes is astounding; something very brave in a Hollywood film.

However, from there Shainberg loses his grip by focusing too much on the relationship between Arbus and Lionel. He fails to see express exactly what Arbus sees in her subjects and instead just hammers home the point that she shares some of these "freaky" tendencies herself. There are hints of them in her personal life (an obsession with hair; rough sex) but Shainberg doesn't go deep enough.

However, the biggest problem with the film is in making this "an imaginary portrait". Ultimately, Shainberg's insights into the creative process aren't particularly unique. This really could've been about a fictional photographer and the dramatic and thematic arc wouldn't be any the less for it.

patrick · #15 Post by **patrick** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:45 pm

I didn't care for this movie much at all, to the point where I hardly feel right commenting on it since I tuned out partway through the film and started cleaning the house. I don't have a problem with the "imaginary portrait" concept, but Diane Arbus had an interesting enough life that I wonder how necessary this film was since Kidman as Arbus is just Shainberg's cypher for the artistic process. I think the ideas were interesting (if somewhat cliched), but the execution just didn't do it for me.

flyonthewall2983 · #16 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Sat May 26, 2007 12:05 am

Mestes wrote:
portnoy wrote:... but I still quite like Secretary, despite my misgivings about its representational politics (which, indeed, are just as problematic in Fur).
Would you mind expanding on this point?

I second this.