Fur Review(s) Options

[sylvia]

Link the Fur poster is there
Director:

Steven Shainberg

Cast:

Nicole Kidman .......... Diane Arbus
Robert Downey Jr. .......... Lionel Sweeney
Ty Burrell .......... Allan Arbus
Jane Alexander .......... Gertrude Nemerov
Harris Yulin .......... David Nemerov

Nicole Kidman looks haggard, a camera hanging off her neck as she sits in front of a portly naked couple. A few seconds later, she is told that she must remove her clothes before being allowed to take the portrait.

The opening scene of Fur: An Imaginary Portrait Of Diane Arbus is just as strange as the rest of the movie. Strange as a descriptor, however, is not always a bad thing, and it isn’t in this case. Presented as the imaginary biography of Diane Arbus, one of the twentieth century’s most revered photographers, the audience is immediately informed that the biography is one of an imaginary nature, as the following text appears on the screen:

This is a film about DIANE ARBUS, but it is not a historical biography. Arbus, who lived from 1923 to 1971, is considered by many to be one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century. Certainly, her pictures changed the face of American photography forever.

What you are about to see is a tribute to Diane: a film that invents characters and situations that reach beyond reality to express what might have been Arbus’s inner experience on her extraordinary path.

Let’s begin with the fact that the movie is definitely not an actual depiction of Diane Arbus’ life. Married photographers do not fall for their neighbors, at least not when the neighbor is afflicted with a disease which makes them look more like Chewbacca than an actual person to borrow sugar from. And while this film is certainly not meant to be a work of science fiction, clearly a suspension of reality is required to aptly understand what director Steven Shainberg and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson are going for.

Known for pushing the envelope, with his sexually-charged feature, The Secretary, Shainberg has said that the Arbus project is one that had a personal significance for him. His uncle was a friend of Arbus, and Shainberg grew up with her photos on his walls, which eventually led to him beginning his own collection of her photography. After approaching his Secretary colleague, Wilson, the pair decided that they would eschew the traditional biopic, choosing instead to blend fact with fiction and mix reality with the implausible, citing Arbus’ work of the same format as their muse.

The movie revolves around some actual facts about Arbus, including her privileged childhood in the family that owned Russek’s furrier store in New York, her marriage, and her work as an assistant to her photographer-husband. These are supplemented by forged experiences, including her entire relationship with the movie’s other lead character and Diane’s “neighbor” Lionel (Robert Downey Jr.), and her obsession with seeing what 2006 audiences would call freak shows. By combining the two elements, an adequate balance is definitely achieved and it is this complicated scale where Shainberg’s mastery truly is prevalent.

The story follows Arbus as she initially approaches the strange masked neighbor who moves in upstairs. Her adventures with him lead her into a deep examination into her own sense of self and so in a twisted way, it is a coming-of-age story. Although Arbus is there to simply to take a photograph of him, Lionel helps Arbus to discover who she really is. While she is there to capture his life in a portrait, she finds herself attracted to the freedom that he enjoys. She doesn’t just photograph his existence, she lives it herself.

While the title of the movie clearly comes from the Arbus family business, it is also a reference to Lionel and one could even say that Arbus has to shed herself before she is truly free.

While there is a noticeable and admitted influence of Lewis Carroll’s “Alice In Wonderland,” on the story (considering it was one of Arbus’ favorite books), it is in this regard where the movie will either gauge or lose interest with its audience.

While employing a fictional character in an integral role is risky, the relationship between Arbus and Lionel is the heart of the movie. It is precisely this element of fantasy that will make the audience question Arbus’ complicated machinations, and while she is the heroine, she is rippled, much like the movie itself.

Obviously, the acting in the movie is strong. While Kidman did not physically resemble the character, she was Shainberg’s first choice because of her ability to capture emotion, and she plays the role well.

Robert Downey Jr. is phenomenal as Lionel. Despite the ridiculous appearance of his character at times, his eyes are completely believable. The highest compliment that can be paid to an actor is when they are cast in a role that is completely fictional, and are still able to convince the audience that there is a degree of legitimacy in what they are doing. Downey Jr. makes Lionel real, even if it is only for 122 minutes.

This is a movie that will spur debate and it is worth a look if only for that reason. If you are trying to write a paper on Diane Arbus and want to watch a movie instead of doing the research, this is not the movie for you.

If you want to see original filmmaking at its finest and a unique take on the traditional definition of biography, Fur is the ticket.

[sylvia]

Kidman finds beauty in freakish, fantastic Fur

By Elizabeth Goetz
Friday, November 10th, 2006
Confession: When I took Media Aesthetics my first year, I was a little under-impressed by my experience with the class. The discussion wasn’t the best, and A Winter’s Tale was sub-par Shakespeare. But then came my Critical Perspectives English class this quarter, and my intrigue with the relationship between the signifier and the signified has been re-ignited. And then I saw Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, Steven Shainberg’s newest film, and all I want to think about ever again is the process we use to look at other people and things.

This movie succeeds because it is an example of much of what it describes. In this slightly fictionalized recounting of the photographer Diane Arbus’ transition from prop assistant for her husband Allan (Ty Burrell) to a photographer in her own right, we are drawn from the beginning to the way she looks at things. The environment in which Diane (played by a fantastic Nicole Kidman) lives is portrayed in pastels, with her bedroom neutral in tans and grays (an obvious symbol of the conformist roles into which her sex life with Allan fits itself); the clothes, accessories, and living quarters of the beguiling people she observes are shot in more dramatic lighting as contrasting colors show us the allure they hold for her. Facial expressions between characters are perfectly tailored, even down to the crevices of their features.

Kidman quickly shows us that Diane is as worthy of our curiosity as her photographs themselves. She is beautiful, and we often see her as an object, framed by the foreground in accidental portraits, reminding us of her lack of agency over her own life as her husband’s assistant. But Shainberg wants us to know that she deserves to be an agent herself, and we see Diane full of wonder and willing to act on her goal.

This film focuses mostly on Diane’s growing artistic relationship with Lionel (Robert Downey, Jr.), a man recently moved into the apartment upstairs and who is suffering from hypertrychosis, a disease that causes fur to grow from all parts of his body. He is the inspiration for Diane’s fascination with the freakish outcasts of society, and they form an odd sort of friendship.

Lionel plays the role of a child’s imaginary friend come to life for Diane: He lives in a neat-o apartment, he takes her on expeditions to strange new parts of New York, he presents an alternative point of view to that of her husband, just as a make-believe playfellow might do for a small child’s father. He shows Diane an alternative lifestyle, a surreal Wonderland of strange and unexplained circumstances where Diane is our Alice.

We see events through Diane’s voyeuristic eyes; the lens of a camera, and in some strange way the lens of the cinematographer’s cameras shooting this film, have become Diane’s own Rear Window through which she perceives the quotidian goings-on of her apartment building and the neighborhood around her.

Photography becomes a means through which Diane can experience a surprisingly un-trite awakening, and all we want is to watch her do so as she watches her neighbors out the window of her family’s apartment. This film’s stills could easily merit exhibition in any photo exhibit at the MCA; this is no quaintly touching Art Institute stuff, and Shainberg hopes that we will agree.

And like art at the MCA, you should see this film, if only to have an opinion on it, but ideally because you will agree that it is beautiful.

Link to review

[sylvia]

Nicole Kidman Elevates "Fur"


By Brian Orndorf

(AXcess News) Hollywood - A bored housewife and dutiful assistant to her photographer husband (Ty Burrell), Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) is starting to feel trapped in her life. When an enigmatic man (Robert Downey Jr.) moves upstairs in her apartment building, Arbus's curiosity cannot be contained. She seeks out this stranger, almost aroused by the mystery of it all, but finds something somewhat horrifying, somewhat fantastic behind his door: a gentleman, named Lionel Sweeney, covered head to toe in hair.

Take special notice of the "Imaginary Portrait" section of the title. "Fur" doesn't span the life of Diane Arbus; heavens, it barely pays attention to her legendary photographic career. Instead, "Fur" wants to slip into the crawlspace of Arbus's mind where her frustrations turned into obsession, nurtured by a very peculiar fellow who understood the sensitive eccentricities that Airbus was impulsively drawn to.

"Fur" is directed by Steven Shainberg, who previously explored the darker side of control in "Secretary" (a cheat of a film if there ever was one). "Fur" covers the same terrain thematically: a young, eyes-wide-open woman granted indoctrination into her heart's desires by a furry man's unusual patience and attention. "Fur" travels a more glacial, icy bend, and the seduction of artistic and romantic desires found here is a lot more interesting and, well, even considering the outlandish and fairytale-like story here, believable than anything served up in "Secretary."

This is a very calculated movie. Shainberg loves to dwell in the moment, and his symmetrical style of filmmaking draws in the viewer, effectively illustrating the need of Arbus to reach out and touch, smell, and observe her subjects. Finding herself in freak show surroundings, Arbus at last finds her place of comfort; set free to explore the voyeuristic sensibilities that would eventually define her life's work.

While the cinematography of "Fur" (by Bill Pope) is outstanding, using crisp close-ups to better expand on the observing nature of the script, it's Nicole Kidman who turns in convincing work that elevates the story when Shainberg gets wedged in the details. Kidman guides the audience through this saga of self-discovery with pliable reserve and a communicative face. She climbs into Arbus portraying a woman on the eve of her greatness, but afraid to step outside her comfort zone.

Downey Jr. certainly has the more complicated role. Buried somewhere under layers of brown fur (think Chewbacca meets Teen Wolf), the actor has the great challenge of making Sweeney not only a human being with a poorly bandaged, humiliated past, but also a confidant and romantic partner to Arbus in her time of need. With hushed vocal tones and typical panache, Downey Jr. pulls off the role with ease.

No, you won't learn any Arbus history by watching "Fur." The picture is simply a fantastical hypothesis attempting to bridge the gap in Arbus's life when she made a choice to flee her responsibilities and pursue her vision. It's not the truth as the world knows it, but by taking the story to an extreme, it explains more about Arbus's artistic whims than most photographic historians could muster. I rate this film "B".

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsectio...articleid=11893

[elegant_fan]

thank you sylvia

[katekidman]

thankyouuu soo much ffor them sylvia !

[consuelo]

WOW! These are awesome reviews. Thanks Sylvia.

This post has been edited by consuelo: Nov 11 2006, 01:46 PM

[skankyoldwhore]

Thanks .

[kiki]

thanks! good to know there are critics out there who can appreciate something different . i've been frustrated by some especially when they say it doesn't say anything about diane arbus or her work or her life or her art ... the title says it all. and it seems to focus on the earliest stages of "diane's life" so that artistic drive they're looking for would obviously be absent ... it isn't traditional and those who are expecting it to be one might not as well review it. i do agree how she's so communicative with her face. i've always found her to be great in it and in being subtle.

This post has been edited by kiki: Nov 11 2006, 06:57 PM

[skankyoldwhore]

thanks! good to know there are critics out there who can appreciate something different . i've been frustrated by some especially when they say it doesn't say anything about diane arbus or her work or her life or her art ... the title says it all. and it seems to focus on the earliest stages of "diane's life" so that artistic drive they're looking for would obviously be absent ... it isn't traditional and those who are expecting it to be one might not as well review it. i do agree how she's so communicative with her face. i've always found her to be great in it and in being subtle.

kiki, don't get me started. I said elsewhere that the reception will be like Birth's. I went googling about 2 days ago and people are still discussing Birth some 2 years later, what it means, how it made them feel, some sites even went and blamed critics for putting them off the movie . I've watched that clip over and over, if this is what she and the actors do in the movie then I can't wait to see it . And the sound is something else, you can hear EVERYTHING.

This post has been edited by skankyoldwhore: Nov 11 2006, 07:05 PM

[kiki]

^ i know what you mean ... after two years, birth is still in discussion whilst the other ones which were "praised" have vanished ... i also keep reading about this performance being compared to the one in birth and that if it is as good, she'll be nominated ... i thought her performance in birth was one of the best ever ...critics can be so harsh and pointless sometimes... sometimes, it takes someone with no obligation of profession to really see the beauty of a film.

[skankyoldwhore]

^ i know what you mean ... after two years, birth is still in discussion whilst the other ones which were "praised" have vanished ... i also keep reading about this performance being compared to the one in birth and that if it is as good, she'll be nominated ... i thought her performance in birth was one of the best ever ...critics can be so harsh and pointless sometimes... sometimes, it takes someone with no obligation of profession to really see the beauty of a film.

It is the lot of Nicole Kidman, I think. She got bulldozed when Portrait of a Lady happened and then some 6 years later, the same critics who dismissed her performance in the movie reversed and praised it, go figure, I guess they went and read the book after some time .

I think her chance of being nominated is very, very low. She wasn't nominated or featured during the award season that year apart from the Golden Globes but as we've both noticed, the works being discussed of the movies released that year isn't high perhaps Eternal Sunshine is another that gets discussed often! If members of AMPAS actually see the movie then perhaps but as we know, it is the people who start getting the critics awards that will probably get noms, if you are not included in the group or come out of the blue like Adrian Brody did in 2003 then there is little chance, the critical support is just not there.

This post has been edited by skankyoldwhore: Nov 11 2006, 07:18 PM

[kiki]

^ true but in all honesty, i figure they don't know any better anyway. tons of great performances have gone unnoticed. i just take comfort, if i may say that, in the fact that at least nicole's secured her place and is admired for her courage in choosing roles i think most actresses cannot accomplish. by now, people already have an idea who's going to win that oscar.

[Grace Margaret M...]

^ true but in all honesty, i figure they don't know any better anyway. tons of great performances have gone unnoticed. i just take comfort, if i may say that, in the fact that at least nicole's secured her place and is admired for her courage in choosing roles i think most actresses cannot accomplish. by now, people already have an idea who's going to win that oscar.

i don't expect much on the award side for Fur, it gets too little attention from the press and when it gets it mainly negative. the only thing I could perhaps imagine is a nomination at the golden globes, since the HFPA always liked her. I am not sure about the independent spirits awards, since they tend to ignore her... as for the oscar race this year, Helen Mirren ("The Queen") seems to be a frontrunner, together with *you know who* Cruz ("Volver"), Kate Winslet ("Little Children") and Meryl Streep ("The Devil wears Prada").

[kiki]

^ off topic (sort of) but you know who i'd love to see win as well or at least get recognized? naomi watts for the painted veil ... that's a movie i cannot wait to see as well ...

[Grace Margaret M...]

^ off topic (sort of) but you know who i'd love to see win as well or at least get recognized? naomi watts for the painted veil ...    that's a movie i cannot wait to see as well ...

yeah, she certainly deserves it, too. but since the pic is not yet released, i guess no predictions

[janjan]

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/11/10/film...ng-artsy-films/

Film Clips: Fur, Perfume, and Promoting Artsy Films

by Kim Voynar

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait Diane Arbus opens today in limited release, and I have to wonder how many people have even heard of it. I hadn't really planned on seeing Fur at Telluride; at least, it wasn't on my radar as a "must see" film. Then I heard so many people buzzing about it, I decided to add it to my schedule at the last minute. It was one of those polarizing films with very little middle ground: People were either very Pro-Fur or very Anti-Fur -- so I had to see it. About a third of the way into the film, I was thinking to myself, "This film is not going to play well to mainstream movie audiences, but I love it." Then again, I'm the sort of filmgoer who actually likes weird. I enjoy having my expectations turned on their ear, and Fur definitely does that.

Another upcoming artsy film that leans sharply toward the bizarre is Perfume: Story of a Murderer. I caught a screening of Perfume, helmed by Run, Lola, Run director Tom Tykwer, the other night. Perfume opens in limited release at the end of December, with a wider release slated for January. Like Fur, Perfume is a dark, almost hallucinatory film with the air of a fable about it. I thought when I saw Fur that I'd seen the most curious film I was likely to see all year; Perfume managed to surpass it -- in a really good way.


Fur and Perfume are what Anne Thompson referred to as "smart house" films. They're in a class all to themselves, even among art house cinema; they make you think hard, both while you're watching, and for days later, as the aftermath of imagery and layers of meaning unfold in your head. The films are very different from each other, and yet, they should have a lot of cross-appeal; if you're intrigued by one, you're likely to also be intrigued by the other. Anne Thompson wrote the other day on her Risky Biz blog about the PR nightmare facing Picturehouse, Fur's distrib, noting that stars Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey, Jr, and even director Steven Shainberg (who did, at least, show up to intro the film at Telluride) haven't exactly been out pounding the pavement promoting the film.

This is a strange, brave, artsy film, and the talent ought to be out there endlessly promoting it if they want people to get out there to see it. Thompson notes that Kidman did attend the film's Rome premiere, but canceled other appearances after her husband, Keith Urban, went into rehab, so we can cut her some slack. But Downey, Jr, aside from a junket appearance, hasn't really made the circuit in support of the film, and Shainberg reportedly hasn't shown up for every PR opportunity either. Why is anyone's guess; they haven't, though, and because they haven't, the film's box office is bound to be affected.

Fur explores the imagined transition of Arbus from repressed 1950s housewife to independent artist (stopping well short of her tragic suicide at the age of 48), bravely taking on the challenge of exploring the psyche of a visual artist without being able to actually use any of Arbus' photography in the film. It's a challenging film to watch if you're used to getting your information spoon-fed to you; Shainberg gives you what he imagines as what might have been going on inside Arbus as she grew into being an artist, and asks you to suspend disbelief and use your own imagination as you go along for the ride with him. It's full of symbolism and imagery, and it's a tough sell without the benefit of its stars backing it up.

Perfume also delves inside a mind -- in this case, of a sociopathic young man, marginalized by society, who, being gifted with a remarkable nose, becomes addicted to amassing collection of scents. When he realizes that he himself has no personal scent, he becomes obsessed with capturing the scent of beautiful young women and creating the perfect scent that will make him feel fully human and able to feel emotion. It's a smart, clever, brilliantly constructed film that weaves visual imagery and symbolism, music and mood to draw the viewer in; the storyline is somewhat bleak and depressing, but Tykwer hasn't made a bleak or depressing film out of it. Rather, he's taken this shadowy tale and crafted a film from the perspective of the twisted protagonist that shows us the view of a sociopathic personality from the inside out better than any film I can think of in recent memory. I'll have a full review out around the film's release at the end of December, but suffice it for now to say: This is one film that art house cinema fans should be on the edges of their seats to see.

Audiences bemoan the lack of originality coming out of Hollywood, yet time and again, they don't support true creativity with their wallets at the box office. Outkast's Idlewild, which, while not a perfect film, definitely pushed the envelope of creativity in filmmaking, hasn't made back its $15 million budget yet. Fur, with it's estimated budget of almost $17 million, is going to have a hell of a time making that back if Picturehouse can't figure out how to successfully promote the film in the absence of support from its stars. If the enormously popular boys from Outkast haven't been able to rake in even $15 million to date with their huge fan base, it's hard to imagine Fur making back its bank without some serious PR to generate awareness of the film -- and "wow, that film was really ... bizarre" probably won't rate with the average filmgoer.

Perfume, on the other hand, will come out of the gate in the States with a huge box office advantage. It's based on a hugely popular German bestseller, and it's already opened in Europe and taken in an estimated $74.5 million over there. Whatever it makes in the US is gravy, but Tykwer has a pretty solid art house following, and the presence of Hoffman and Rickman -- both well-known to American audiences -- will likely draw people to see the film. If Tykwer, Hoffman and Rickman really promote the film well, it could play quite well here. Both films, though, deserve support from all those moviegoers who moan and wail about how Hollywood churns out dreck, because whatever else these films may be, unoriginal and boring they most assuredly are not.

[janjan]

http://reporter.blogs.com/risky/2006/11/fur_pr_nightmar.html

Fur PR Nightmare

Poor Picturehouse. They're trying to promote their movie Fur. They backed the overtly arty Diane Arbus biopic—a daring script which confounds audiences expectations. But stars Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey, Jr. aren't available to fully support it, and director Steve Shainberg hasn't always turned up for every PR opportunity either, my sources tell me. Here, he sounds off on the movie's many critics. Shainberg is fortunate that he got to make his movie his way, and should bear up under any criticism with dignity (is he really surprised?) and do whatever PR Picturehouse asks him to do. And Kidman and Downey, who give terrific, brave performances in the movie, should also be promoting it. (UPDATE: Kidman went to the movie's debut in Rome, where she did a Vogue cover, and was planning to attend the New York premiere and junket when her new husband, Keith Urban, went into rehab, at which point she cancelled. She had done some print but no TV. Downey did the junket but no TV.)

I applaud this movie, even though it takes a debatable sharp turn its third act. It resolves the issue of not being able to use Arbus's photos quite inventively. It's clear, though, that fall movies that don't move into the class of Oscar contenders are unduly slammed as outright failures. Fur may not be a crowd pleaser, but when it opens Friday it deserves some support from smart-house audiences who say they're tired of getting the same old same old. This is definitely not that. It's a feminist fable about a woman who makes the transition into being an artist.

Kidman's marquee value is an interesting question. Certain actors are compelling and brilliant but don't draw you in with warmth and sympathy. Jude Law also comes to mind in Anthony Minghella's Breaking and Entering. They're beautiful and fun to watch (I just viewed Jonathan Glazer's Birth on DVD as well) but do we love and care about them? (I want to read David Thomson's unauthorized Kidman biography, even though it has a lousy 44 rating on Metacritic; the NYT called it a "weird and unseemly mash note.")

[skankyoldwhore]

Thanks for that articles. Anne Thompson talking about the problems facing Fur, SHE certainly didn't go out of her way to help this movie, she was quoted by Tom O'Neil of Envelope i.e. LA Times that it wasn't Oscar-material or worthy, did she think that kind of talk would have helped the movie? Where is HER review of this movie she liked so much. Movies like this are rarely helped by promotion, film-writeups, spotlighting them actually help alot more. Brilliant, terrific and brave performances, such a unique movie but "oh, dear, not Oscar-worthy", yes Anne, that was a big help.

[BabyNick]

Thanx Sylvia and JanJan 4 da reviews

~Viviana~

[skankyoldwhore]

'Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus'
*Photographer Diane Arbus' life is seen through a filter that distorts her realities in favor of glossy fantasy and conjecture.

By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer

Creativity is one of life's true mysteries, but that hasn't stopped people from attempting to analyze and trivialize the source of the artistic impulse. Yet the mystery always triumphs, as it does in the simplistic but strangely poetic "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus."

"Fur" stars Nicole Kidman as Arbus, one of the 20th century's signature American photographers. "Her startling portraits of dwarfs, transvestites, freaks and nudists," wrote biographer Patricia Bosworth, "redefined people's notions of normal and abnormal."

Despite Bosworth's presence as a co-producer, "Fur" is not an attempt at a conventional biopic but what it calls "an imaginary portrait." Directed by Steven Shainberg and written by Erin Cressida Wilson (the team that brought you the bondage-friendly "Secretary"), "Fur" has an unusual aim.

"What you are about to see," an opening title card reads, "is a tribute to Diane: a film that invents characters and situations that reach beyond reality to express what might have been Arbus' inner experience on her extraordinary path."

Which is a fancy way of saying that "Fur" is on one level a facile cause-and-effect gloss on Arbus' life, a complete fantasy that reductively reduces the complex drives that go into the creation of an artist to a relationship with an unusual man. It's the cinematic equivalent of the questionable theory that El Greco painted the way he did because he had astigmatism and simply couldn't see the world any better.

Yet, and this is where the mystery comes in, the certainty Shainberg and Wilson bring to the project — and the sophisticated acting by Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. as that mysterious man — forces us to take this film more seriously than it otherwise deserves. It remains simultaneously too far-fetched and thesis-driven to be convincing and too feelingly done to be ignored.

"Fur" opens with Arbus fairly radiating happiness as she sits on a bus headed, it turns out, for a nudist-colony photo shoot. Smiling and confident, she looks over a list that reads "hunchbacks, slaughter houses, albinos." It's an inventory that wouldn't bring a grin to all faces, but that's the point: We are meant to recognize an artist discovering herself.

The bulk of "Fur," however, is spent, in a flashback that begins three months earlier, when the Arbus we see is so repressed and stifled that the first image shows her buttoning her buttons all the way up to the top.

This Arbus is a careful mother to her two children and a dutiful daughter to her overbearing, high-society parents, David and Gertrude Nemerov (Harris Yulin and Jane Alexander), proprietors of the Fifth Avenue fur emporium called Russek's.

She is also wife and assistant to Allan Arbus (Ty Burrell of "Friends With Money"), a photographer who speaks up for his wife's camera dreams, though he himself does sterile commercial work.

Although "Fur" takes pains to paint Diane's husband as loving, concerned and decent, it's clear that working in this atmosphere has not done wonders for her. This constraint is signified, in typically unsubtle fashion, by a scene of Arbus standing on a balcony and unfastening all those carefully buttoned buttons.

But hark, salvation is at hand. A new tenant named Lionel (Downey) is moving into the Arbus' building, a man whose face is always masked and whom Diane feels unaccountably drawn to.

After a brief horror film-type buildup that emphasizes his strangeness, Diane goes up to Lionel's apartment, which looks like the lair of a fairy tale wizard, with the idea of discovering his secret and taking his photograph.

Lionel's secret is that every inch of him is covered in rich, luxurious hair (the veteran Stan Winston Studio gets credit for the remarkable design). He looks, in fact, quite similar to the Beast in Jean Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast," an admitted influence, and, like the beast, he turns out to be the most charming of men.

More than that, Lionel liberates Diane's hidden voyeur, becoming her tour guide to the universe of people who may look different but really are the nicest folks in the world. No Lionel, "Fur" insists, no great photographs.

Obviously, this is all supposed to be taken metaphorically, but "Fur" undercuts that aim with a series of all-too-literal maneuvers. For one thing, husband Allan, clearly threatened by Lionel's charisma, grows a thick beard. For another, those familiar with Arbus' work will notice that the people she meets tend to look exactly like the subjects of her most famous photographs. How convenient.

Most irritating of all, "Fur" falls back on a cop-out ending that undercuts its message about the unimportance of surface differences in favor of a glib finale that tries to have its cake and eat it too.

Yet whenever you get too irritated at "Fur's" pretensions, the remarkable acting of its two stars pulls you back in and keeps you watching.

Kidman, the most consistently daring of today's top stars, is exceptionally convincing as someone whose interior process plays out in front of us. And Downey, for the most part using only his soulful, yearning eyes and a silky, urbane voice, creates a man no one could resist. Separately and together, they make us believe the unbelievable.

kenneth.turan@latimes.com


'Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus'

MPAA rating: R for graphic nudity, some sexuality and language

A Picturehouse release. Director Steven Shainberg. Screenplay Erin Cressida Wilson. Inspired by the book "Diane Arbus: A Biography" by Patricia Bosworth. Producers William Pohlad, Laura Bickford, Bonnie Timmermann, Andrew Fierberg. Director of photography Bill Pope. Editor Keiko Deguchi. Running time: 2 hours, 2 minutes.

Exclusively at Laemmle's Sunset 5, 8000 Sunset Blvd. West Hollywood, (323) 848-3500; Playhouse, 673 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, (626) 844-6500; Monica, 1332 2nd St., Santa Monica, (310) 394-9741; Town Center, 17200 Ventura Blvd., Encino, (818) 981-9811.
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-f...e-more-channels