Fur- First Review Options

[NicoleFan17]

hehe, what else is new .  Love it or *do not like* it .

true.

Now someone find another postive review to get my mood up please.

[skankyoldwhore]

Listen to Steven Shainberg speak about Fur and biopics here:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/eug/

[kiha]

Listen to Steven Shainberg speak about Fur and biopics here:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/eug/

Thanks Skanky Is it November yet

[susi]

fascinating...

I am reading with much interest!

Thank YOu!

Susi

[Kensy]

I've been asking lots of people in line what they've seen that they liked. Steven Shainberg's Fur, starring Nicole Kidman, is getting a mixed response. The Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson liked it. Generally, people I've chatted up either seem to love it or *do not like* it, so now I want to see it for myself.
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/09/03/tell...spatch-day-two/

In my opinion, I think this is a GOOD thing! I think celebrities, and entertainers would rather have full-on, passionate fans, rather than those people who are "half there" or "in the middle"

I know Keith Urban has mentioned this before.

"Fur" seems to be in a way, slightly like "Moulin Rouge!" You either love it or strongly dislike it.

"MR" is my all-time favorite movie (I saw it for the first time 1 month ago) and the rest of my family absolutely dislikes it.

When I get older, I hope to see "Fur" and have the same feeling and emotions as "Moulin Rouge!" as far as TOTALLY LOVING IT!!!

Kensy

[scarlett]

Thanks for sharing all the articles. I think the very fact no one uses '*do not like*' when speaking about it says volumes. It's so easy to pan a flick that disappoints. There are a lot of wonderful films out there that are liked but not loved by the critics. I'm now imaging this film as one that requires more than one viewing to capture all the nuances. The rich tapestry it creates may just get better each time. I'm intrigued the more I read and see!

[BabyNick]

Thanx Wiggle, NicoleFan17 and Skanky
The more I read about da film the more impatient I get I'm dyin 2 c dis film

~Viviana~

[NicoleFan17]

I'm just surprised we don't have word on what Variety thought of this yet. We got some idea of what the other important mention, The Hollywood Reporter, review is going to be. Usually Variety is all over stuff like this.

[skankyoldwhore]

I'm just surprised we don't have word on what Variety thought of this yet. We got some idea of what the other important mention, The Hollywood Reporter, review is going to be. Usually Variety is all over stuff like this.

The Anne Thompson review is not THE Hollywood Reporter review, most major critics are at the Venice festival then off they go to Toronto, I think we should start expecting key reviews after Rome. None of the films at Telluride have any major critics writing about them.

This post has been edited by skankyoldwhore: Sep 4 2006, 10:20 AM

[Bluebell]

Thanks for all the write ups.

I get the feeling there won't be much middle ground on this movie. You will either like it or not like it at all. But it also seems to be a movie that will keep people talking about it it no matter which side your opinion falls & I think that is a good thing.

This post has been edited by Bluebell: Sep 4 2006, 11:07 AM

[NicoleFan17]

Skanky, I was under the impression that Anne Thompson was pretty big? I always see her on tv every now and again.

And I just saw the video clip that you posted. Thanks for that! I know his opinion on biopics being so mannered and predictable today isn't shared with everyone here but I agree with him 100%.

Anyway, in relation to skanky's post, here is a bit more on Shainberg talking about Fur, and why he wanted Nicole for that part, from the first link that sylvia posted (sadly, no video):

Steven Shainberg, the director of Fur, hosted a Q&A at the Nugget Theater at 11 a.m. My notes from the session:

His uncle was best friends with Diane Arbus, so he grew up with her photographs around his home ("Some kids would read Dr. Seuss; I would look at Diane Arbus photos"). He didn't want to do a standard biopic, with a birth-to-death arch. Nor did he want to retread things the audience already knew. He offered Pollock as an example of an anticlimactic biopic. When you get to the drip-painting scene, Shainberg said, the audience is already thinking, "Oh, here comes the drip-painting scene." "Biopics suffer enormously from the audience being ahead of the film," he said. He wanted Kidman because she could pull of a "metaphoric Arbus" rather than a literal one. And he deliberately avoided filming in the style of Arbus because it would be "aesthetically anachronistic." Fur takes place before Arbus takes a single shot with her camera, so she has not yet discovered her style.

http://aslittleaspossible.blogspot.com/

This post has been edited by NicoleFan17: Sep 4 2006, 02:30 PM

[coolnic]

Thanks sylvia!


Much excitement and buzz around NKU! Hip! Hip Hoorah for Nicole Kidman for being gutsy and daring with all her different characters in diffferent movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The world needs a actor who will experiment and explore..............................that's the fun of acting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Can't wait to see the movie but good to see that she has a GOOD movie coming out and may the reviews for Fur and other movies keep getting better!!!!!!!!!!!

FUR............FUR....................FUR.......................oh...........it's so exciting when you can see the trailer! You lucky guys and gals!

[Wiggleurnose]

Fur is definetely going to be one of mixed reviews....I've already seen one blog where the person that projected the film at Telluride described it as 'ugh' and said it's not worth reviewing . The other thing is about Nicole's performance....while no doubt it's good, Jeffery Wells says:

"I *do not like* to be the bearer of bad tidiings as far as Bob Berney and the fortunes of Picturehouse are concerned, but the Telluride consensus so far is saying we should all forget about Nicole Kidman being any kind of Best Actress contender for her Diane Arbus performance in Fur. if there's a standout performance, they're saying, it belongs to Robert Downey, Jr. "

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/20...dman_is_out.php


I'm not getting my hopes up for another Oscar nom for Nicole because this year is one of the most competitive for Best Actress and there have been many excellent performances....Kate Winslett is getting great mentions for her role in Little Children. Jeffery Wells had Nicole as BA contender since yesterday but today he has removed it. I don't know if he's even seen Fur. I think he's just going on what he's heard from Telluride. Let's hope he's heard wrong!

[In Theory]

Well I'm not surprised people feel she won't be nominated for her performance while they call it a good one.

The problem is with the "kind" of performance that it is. The director calls it a "metaphoric" one rather than a "literal" one. This means it is not "showy" and therefore not obvious. I feel this was the problem with the performances in Birth and Dogville. Though they are sublime they are not what gets they attention of the nominating committees. Does this mean that these kinds of performances are beyond the reach of the academy? Maybe. (I'm not saying she's beyond the reach of the academy but this kind of performance is regardless of who is doing them.)

I'm just very glad she's taking risks and doing work different from the mainstream.



This post has been edited by In Theory: Sep 4 2006, 11:16 PM

[scarlett]

Nicole is the type of actress that wants to adhere to the vision of the director. I think that is sometimes rare in Hollywood and many larger stars want to levy their influence on the way a film is shot/produced, etc. I admire her for taking the risk and holding true to his vision - an imaginary tale. Sometimes 'mimicry' of a person is distracting anyway. This may allow the audience to become absorbed in the imagined world. If RDJ is a stand-out - good for him. Nicole is a generous actress.

[gracie]

Well, many actors and actresses work very hard and give their all when they make movies. Not everyone can get nominated and only one actress in a year wins an Oscar. There are many wonderful performances that don't get noticed. Not everyone will like every film.
I'm just glad that Nicole has made what some consider a beautiful and innovative film. As she has often said, her reward is in acting. And I'm glad that we fans will get a chance to see this wonderful film in November (hopefully in a theater in/near our hometown.)

[elegant_fan]

i can not wait! for this movie!!!!!!!.... me and my mom have already planned on what we're doing the whole day.............

[RedSatinDoll]

I am loving these feedbacks we are getting.  I love that it seems to be shaking people up, getting the unexpected!

Thanks

~~~Tonight the discussion was about Fur, the Diane Arbus biopic starring Nicole Kidman in another daring career choice. As one of the voices in the darkness said on the gondola ride, Kidman has "guts." ~~~ 

I like this.  Nicole does have great amounts of courage.     

Can't wait to see the film.  ebony

Agreee, agree ladies. What I find funny is how viewers - not fans, but general viewers and critics seem to be constantly surprised by the fact that Nicole makes "brave" and "surprising" choices. If Nicole's in it, doesn't that go without saying? (It's when the film isn't particularly surprising that I'm surprised. )

In my opinion, I think this is a GOOD thing! I think celebrities, and entertainers would rather have full-on, passionate fans, rather than those people who are "half there" or "in the middle"

I know Keith Urban has mentioned this before.

"Fur" seems to be in a way, slightly like "Moulin Rouge!" You either love it or strongly dislike it.

"MR" is my all-time favorite movie (I saw it for the first time 1 month ago) and the rest of my family absolutely dislikes it.

When I get older, I hope to see "Fur" and have the same feeling and emotions as "Moulin Rouge!" as far as TOTALLY LOVING IT!!!

Kensy

Baz Luhrmann spoke in interviews (including Charlie Rose as I recall) that he deliberately made MR in such a way as to get people on one side of the fence or the other very quickly: "Either you're for us or against us". And you're certainly not alone, Kensy - I've seen it (or my favorite parts of it) 50 times, my sweetheart saw it once or twice and pronounced it "insipid". (I still love her anyway, though. )

And I totally agree on your first point, Kensy. Far better in my opinion to make an incredible work of art OR the most interesting failure anyone has ever seen, than a financially successful mediocrity. It's the "failures" that oftentimes stick with you the most - or even become classics over time a la "Citizen Kane" - because they risked something.

I'm not getting my hopes up for another Oscar nom for Nicole because this year is one of the most competitive for Best Actress and there have been many excellent performances....Kate Winslett is getting great mentions for her role in Little Children. Jeffery Wells had Nicole as BA contender since yesterday but today he has removed it. I don't know if he's even seen Fur. I think he's just going on what he's heard from Telluride. Let's hope he's heard wrong!

Well I'm not surprised people feel she won't be nominated for her performance while they call it a good one.

The problem is with the "kind" of performance that it is.  The director calls it a "metaphoric" one rather than a "literal" one.  This means it is not "showy" and therefore not obvious.  I feel this was the problem with the performances in Birth and Dogville.  Though they are sublime they are not what gets they attention of the nominating committees.  Does this mean that these kinds of performances are beyond the reach of the academy?  Maybe. (I'm not saying she's beyond the reach of the academy but this kind of performance is regardless of who is doing them.)

I'm just very glad she's taking risks and doing work different from the mainstream.

Wiggleurnose and In Theory, I have a feeling you are both right re: the Oscars. Having watched the trailer a couple of times, the first words that come to my mind are: strange, stylized, metaphorical, complex, and EROTIC - even if Nicole never does take off her clothing completely, there's more implied eroticism of the clip of her baring her throat and chest, or stroking RDJ's furry hand - not to mention stroking the haircoat against her face on the beach - than in many a movie that gives us the full monty.

But I digress - my point is, traditionally the Academy does not seem to be comfortable with films that are weird (ie experimental), metaphorical or erotic. (A shame, too, since sex, sexuality and love are central facets of human existence. We wouldn't be here without it.) The Academy likes meat and potatos - keep it simple and straightforward. (Nicole doesn't ugly up for this film - another strike against her in the Oscars.)

Frankly, I'll be just be happy for a good film and if it keeps people talking so much the better. And I agree that Nicole can be incredibly generous in her performances, letting other performers steal the show, so to speak, and that has rarely been recognized. Again, no one gives out awards for "most generous performance" - but Nicole really doesn't really need any more paperweights collecting dust on her mantel now, does she?

[skankyoldwhore]

Skanky, I was under the impression that Anne Thompson was pretty big? I always see her on tv every now and again.

She is but the reviews that Hollywood Reporter usually publishes doesn't always come from AT, she has her blog, she does write reviews but usually it is written fully if it fell to her to do the review for HR (am I making sense?). Usually, when HR publishes reviews they just do it analytically, they write about the movie, production, performances in full, they don't do blurbs and then come back and then do a full review at a later date. This is what they are doing for the Venice reviews and what they will do for Toronto and Rome. All the movies AT saw at Telluride will be reviewed fully by Kirk Honeycutt or someone else.

The reported rection at Telluride has been quite confusing. Some claim everyone loved Little Children, some claim the reaction was mixed.

According to Jeff Wells, the consensus is that RDJ is the standout but unlike all the reviews we read of Little Children picking out Winslet, there isn't one yet that mentions RDJ as a standout, all the write-ups on Fur has been about the movie and how it works and there are just 3 reviews out there. Simply because RDJ is the standout doesn't mean he is the only one that has a chance of being nominated (something that will be good for him since he's one of the greater actors we have), a subtle, restrained, intense, emotional performance can also get through but I doubt it. Rome will determine if RDJ can swing a nom when we start getting the reviews. Just a month ago, Wells claimed he was told by someone whose judgement he trusts that NK was the best thing in Fur, it is an opinion. According to one site, the consensus in Telluride is that Fur is a "love it" or "*do not like* it" film but then Anne Thompson claimed it played well there. If Wells removes her from his balloon, it doesn't mean it won't happen, he doesn't vote or select the nominees, what happens when Wells sees the film and believes NK should be nominated? he puts her back. Heath Ledger got all the pre-Oscar accolade in Brokeback Mountain because he was the standout, it didn't stop Jake a nom, too.

The argument that NK will not get nomed because it is a competitive year is not one I can understand, why shouldn't she be nominted if her performance is superb even if it is competitive, can't she measure up to Winslet or whoever is being crowed to win? To me, it means she only has a chance of getting in with a sub-par performance if the year is weak, do we think she was sub-par in The Hours to win or MR! to be nominated? or that great performances like Dogville and Birth weren't good enough for their years. This competitive argument was also used then. It is not the competitiveness that isn't getting her nomed, it is the nature of the films and roles. They are not mainstream and even as indies, they are not easy to watch or swallow.


The only established performances that have been seen and raved about are those of Mirren, Cruz and Winslet, Streep (who was not the Lead in Prada and Praire), everyone else is simply guess work. I haven't read any key reviews on Fur that talk about the performances to determine how it will play out.

I never thought Fur will be up to AMPAS' alley but Rome is where we will know what will happen. Even though Birth/Dogville failed to get her a nomination, her performances were ranked in the top 20 by various critics' polls and I believe it will happen again.

This post has been edited by skankyoldwhore: Sep 5 2006, 05:37 AM

[RedSatinDoll]

I just checked out the official Fur website from Picturehouse and...nothing, nada in the way of updates. What is it with these folks? (they do offer a link for the picturehouse newsletter for updates - I fail to see the point in signing up for updates from a company that fails to update its website.)