Fur - Official Title According To Picturehouse, (imdb was half right) Options

[friendlyfox]

This is the answer I have received from Picture House regarding the title of Fur.


"The official title is Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus"


(As you know, imdb had changed it from Fur to An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus. but they should have left the word Fur in the title still).


UPDATE 1st (2nd) September

I have had a second email today from Picture House that makes this further clarification.


' “An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus” is the subtitle of the film, so the full title is “Fur – An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus” which is usually just shortened to "Fur." '

This post has been edited by friendlyfox: Sep 2 2006, 06:14 PM

[Wiggleurnose]

Thanks. I think it will more often than not be refered to as Fur in the media...the full title is a bit too long. I wonder if Diane Arbus's estate (run now by her daughter), insisted that it is made clear that this film is fiction and not a biopic?

[kiha]

Thanks Foxy

Looking forward to hearing reports from Rome!

[Kensy]

Thanks Foxy!I am glad "Fur" is still in the title, and then there is more of an explanation which is good, because people would be like, Fur, what in the world is that??? Although I think the second half of the title makes it sound a bit boring, and I really don't think Fur is going to be boring!

Kensy

[Gillian]

Thanks Foxy! I'm glad Fur at least got into the title.

[The_sparkling_di...]

Thanks, Foxy.
I am glad that's the title, so it won't be wrong to just reffere to it as Fur. It would be a little long to say "An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" everytime..

[RedSatinDoll]

Oddly enough, that full title makes it sound MORE like a documentary or a work of nonfiction (complete with index and footnotes and appendix, etc.) than less so. I tend to look at all film "biopics" as essentially imaginary, anyway, but I know there are a lot of people who wrongly assume that screen bios have any relation or fidelity to "facts" or "truth". (There is ALWAYS an element of fiction in any biopic.)

No cinemahouse is going to be able to fit all that on their marquee anyway. I have a feeling wiggleurnose may very well be right about Arbus' estate having something to do with this. (After a while I begin to wonder - if you've changed enough of the circumstances, why not go a little further, change the names, call it nonfiction and spare yourself the trouble of having to deal with the estate?)

Now, if I were to "skankify" (with all due respects to skanky) this title, I come up with this: FAIBODA. That beggers a word contest: define faiboda! (Non-lethal but darned annoying skin ailment? African-Lebanese fusion entree? Deleted character from the cantina scene in "Star Wars"?)

I do hope the word out of Rome is very positive and very strong - then none of this semantic silliness will matter in the least.

This post has been edited by RedSatinDoll: Aug 30 2006, 11:34 PM

[times]

Thanks for that confirmation,Foxy.

I agree with 'Kensy' & RED - 'tis a bit of a mouthful......why they can't simply go with "FUR" I can't understand.

....I suppose they feel they ought to make it clear that it's a fictionalised account - but why not do that on the Advertising & at the start of the Film?

....hope us lot will refer to it as just "FUR", anyway.....

....jeeze,Times,babbling or what..!

The point is made zzzzzzz

[jacindabarrett14]

thanks foxy. i still just like Fur better but i am still going to go see it the first weekand it comes out.

[chattyjaz522]

Thanks foxy! Thank goodness that Fur is still in the title!!

[BabyNick]

Thanx 4 da info Foxy I'm Glad "Fur" is still in the title tho We'll just have 2 c wot da media thinks of the title when we read da reports from Rome

~Viviana~

[archer]

I do hope the word out of Rome is very positive and very strong - then none of this semantic silliness will matter in the least.

The word out of Vatican City will be enigmatic.
The ways of god are impenetrable.


Hopefully, the film’s title is not a reflection of its qualities.

[NicoleFan17]

I don't really understand why some are saddened by this news since this has been the full title since it's been finished shooting?

"An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" is just a subtitle. Sorta like Hitch: The Cure for the Comman Man was the full title of that when it was released. But everyone called it Hitch anyway. This shouldn't matter one way or the other.

[RedSatinDoll]

Sorta like Hitch: The Cure for the Comman Man was the full title of that when it was released. But everyone called it Hitch anyway. This shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I think "The cure for the common man" was a tagline for that film rather than a subtitle, and meant to be a pun on "cure for the common cold". (My all-time favorite tagline is for the original Aliens ('79) - "In space no one can hear you scream". Perhaps not the cleverest tag line ever, but it's the one that has stuck with me.) The thing about a tag line is it is part of the PR, meant to catch the viewer's eye (and ear), to make you chuckle, or make you curious and ultimately be part of the package that is meant to draw you into the theater.

"An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" is more along the lines of what I'd call "the studio covering its butt."

But I agree with your ultimate point, Nicolefan, that the title doesn't affect the quality of the work, although as part of the marketing I believe it can have an effect on ticket sales.

[RedSatinDoll]

The word out of Vatican City will be enigmatic.
The ways of god are impenetrable.

And here I sit without a single ram to sacrifice. *sigh* Does an old CPU count?

Getting back to Nicolefan's point (if I may) I don't think that we're "sad" about the title. Annoyed by studio foolishness, but that's nothing new. (It was ever thus.) I think what we're seeing here is a group of fans who are going to go into DT's if we don't see Nicole on the screen again sometime SOON gosh darn it, and are picking over every little scrap of news and sucking on the dry bones until that happens. (And all you Keith fans think you're through withdrawal? You have no idea.)

[Bluebell]

Glad to know that they kept Fur as the title. Maybe due to legal issues they had to add that it was an imaginary portrait on to the title.

A friend just wrote & told me they will have a sneak peek at Fur tomorrow on Access Hollywood.

This post has been edited by Bluebell: Aug 31 2006, 08:55 AM

[kiha]

On Access Hollywood tomorrow August 31 they are going to show scenes from

" Nicole Kidmans controversial new film Fur"

They showed a clip of her wraped in human hair

[NicoleFan17]

Thanks for the info kiha and Bluebell.

Did it look like like the actual film or was it a behind the scenes type thing that was seen on there a long time ago?

[kiha]

Thanks for the info kiha and Bluebell. 

Did it look like like the actual film or was it a behind the scenes type thing that was seen on there a long time ago?

No it was the film

[NicoleFan17]

No it was the film 

OMIGOSH?!?!?!?!?

This post has been edited by NicoleFan17: Aug 31 2006, 10:07 AM