Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006)

MY EXCITEMENT for a movie based on some of the details of Diane Arbus' colorful life quickly dwindled away as potential for quality storytelling gave way to a generic, dull and boring two hour long treatise of Nicole Kidman's emotion ridden countenance. My least favorite part of the movie happened when one of the characters underwent a profound changed in appearance in order for romance to take place. Or did this happen because the movie had too generic of a Hollywood-style plot that its mainstream audiences had to feel comfortable watching?I barely made it through the movie, according to my tastes, it was not worth the time.

Initially disappointed that this wasn't a film about a French lady who had a passionate and full sexual relationship with a chimpanzee. (You can't blame me and it does have Nicole Kidman in the starring role). I found I hadn't wasted me pocket money on a bottle of Cava and a packet of cheesy puffs for nothing. This film, for me, explored a facet of Diane's personality. I mean, how a 'normal' American wife with a family chose to photograph those who would have been regarded at the time as freaks. The woman's photos are beautiful and naked. And so is this film. I feel the film is not about her photos in themselves but about an aspect of her personality that found the 'freakish' to be beautiful and sexual. For me the film was honest. Real sexuality has little to do with how the media define it as being something that belongs to he world of silicone and air brushing. You don't have good sex that unites you to the eternal spirit with someone who is more worried about how their butt looks than 'la la la ing' you to ecstasy. The story deconstructs sexuality, it explores it from different angles. But hey, it isn't a sex movie, it is subtle. It is more about nudity and release. It's well worth watching. It's a beautiful movie. If you want to get to know Diane Arbus though, go to a library - if you still have one - and borrow a book of her photos. This film won't inform you of her life but I feel it will motivate you to find out about it. It's a shame though,I so wanted to say that the Chimp who played Robert Downey Jr was really good....

I've seen some dumb movies over the last 20 years (Saw Splice this month) but this is really something. This movie's big idea is that the answer to the open ended question about why Diane Arbus transformed from housewife to "photographer of the uncanny," is a Harelquin romantic fiction about an inspiring freak who secretly lives upstairs, who used to be the Dog boy. See, isn't that simple? It's why she shoots freaks? Gee, connecting the dots has never been easier. Gosh, that was a satisfying answer. You need to be developmentally less than 15 years old to be pleased with that airhead concept.They managed to get the usual two-dimensional artist biopic (they've been making for about six decades now) Kilmt, Goya's Ghosts, Lust for Life, down to just one dimension. I could not believe the insipid, shallow places this movie went, and the shallow answers it provided for the Arbus enigma. Absurd crap. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Who greenlit this? And why do they have control over that much money?

This film works better than I expected. I was a little nervous of what an imagined film actually meant (ie nonsense, or total nonsense) and whether it was going to be worth watching because of that. When a movie deals with a real person, I think it is reasonable to see where the lines between truth and fiction are going to be drawn. Obviously any film will take some liberties for the sake of a smooth plot narrative. This film is smooth and pretty well polished, and I was less distracted by what was truth and fiction than I expected. The film appears quite conventional in some aspects, ie 'freaks' are real people too, they are nice and kind, and we shouldn't prejudge them. The love affair between Arbus and Lionel I wasn't entirely convinced by . To me it was reminiscent of that horrible beauty and the beast TV series in the 80's or 90's. Again I would like to have known more of what was truth and what was fiction. You will not learn anything about Arbus's work here, which is a severe disappointment. The cinematography is excellent though, reminiscent of Hitchcock, Barton Fink, especially in the corridor shooting. The colours are rather like Mad men; the TV series set in the 50's/ 60's in an ad agency. Nicole Kidman is reasonable in the role, there are moments, especially acting besides her husband in the film, which ring true in there awkwardness. Downey is mostly hidden behind the hair caused by his illness, so its hard to judge how good his role is. I found the film watchable enough, but those awkward questions of what is real and what is fiction are not answered. It matters less to me having watched the film, but means that my praise for the film is more lukewarm than maybe it should be.