in Fur (4/10)
Polanski is an accused child molester who can’t return to the United
States because of a pending
against him that he ran away from. Having spent the rest of his career
in Europe, he’s won two Oscars as Best Director (Chinatown, 1974
and The Pianist, 2002).
here, apparently without much money, he basically films David Ives’ Tony
Award-winning Broadway play based on Leopod von Sacher-Masoch’s (from
whom the word “masochism” is derived) novella of the same name. The two
person film stars Mathieu Amalric as writer-director Thomas who has
spent an exhausting day interviewing actresses, and Emmanuelle Seigner,
Polanski’s wife, as an actress, Vanda, auditioning for the lead role in
the play as a woman who enters into an agreement with a man to dominate
him as her slave.
film is mostly Vanda and Thomas acting out the script, with reality
constantly colliding with fiction. In order to distinguish between
what’s the script and what’s not, the subtitles for the lines from the
script are italicized and the real dialogue between them are not in
italics. If you speak French, however, and don’t need the subtitles, it
might be a little confusing.
the main points of the film seems to be to display Seigner’s voluptuous
48 year old body because her breasts constantly upstage both actors.
Even though some may argue that they are the best part of the film, her
décolletage is a constant detraction from her fine performance as
someone who is clearly not what she seemed when she walked into the
theater late after everyone else had left.
problem is that it’s all talk and the subject might be off-putting to
those who consider that the idea that pain and humiliation are a normal
part of love-making is simply perversion, which is probably the vast
majority of normal people. In French.