I don't think it's just a bit of controversy. The article written by this person...who btw has not even seen the film himself...deliberately highlights and magnifies comments made by the reviewers that may be seen as slightly negative, whilst ignoring the positive. The news has now spread and is still spreading that Nicole's new film is a flop. Bad news travels further than good news...totally unfair! . And I agree with RSD...this film is in danger of going the way of The Human Stain and Birth.

ETA...and where is the Wall Street Journal's review? ...Anybody seen it?

We shall soon know more and til then I will not worry. Especially when the baddish review still speaks highly of the acting.

I do remember the negative articles for The Hours. Some were very bad. Yet the film, and Nicole, were acknowleged.

The Human Stain suffered for other reasons - eg. I do think maybe Anthony Hopkins did not give one of his better performances, and to me it was not a film that engendered that much interest.

Birth was shunned to some extent because of other issues eg the age of the boy.

If Fur is a good quality film, with excellent acting, then it will still find it's target audience despite the family wanting a different storyline.

Til, we start getting reviews out of Rome, and see it for ourselves, I would not start throwing accusations around (eg. the one about blaming Picturehouse now I think is a bit premature ..yes..I understand the web site was slow, but that doth not make the movie).

I think the Rome festival will put a whole new perspective on Fur and Nicole. I am a bit confused about all the negative press towards Nicole's performance in Fur. I didn't read any negative reviews about her performance.

There are no baddish reviews on Nicole's performance...this is the point I was trying to make...the article is totally unfair and damaging to not just Nicole but the whole film. I don't remember The Hours bad reviews being quoted parrot fashion by all the news sites around the world. In fact it was the opposite with Nicole's perfomance dominating headlines because the studio did a good job on promoting it very early on. It could easily have been all about the nose but those strories came a little too late to damage Nicole's Oscar hopes. I really don't care if Nicole is nominated for awards or not since I get my enjoyment out of watching her as an actress and she rarely fails to disappoint me, but this early negative talk could put a lot of people off from going to see the film.

Nicole has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately, e.g the David Thompson book, the Angelina Jolie comment etc.
It really pains my heart to hear people saying bad things about Nicole. She has been very generous to give interviews and I think she was taken advantage by the media, which are always trying to make a statement.

I really hope that Nicole will rise above the ashes with her stirring performance in Fur. I have high hopes of Fur. Her performance will speak for itself.

Nicole is not afraid to take risks, e.g. Moulin Rouge, which became the film that revives the musical genre. Fur will become the film that changed the way people look at biopics.

I really hope that Roger Ebert will do a review of Fur. When Ebert speaks, everybody listens. Hope he will give a glowing review of Fur and Nicole's performance.

I agree with these points.

here are the key dates for the oscar season, let's hope nic will be involved :

12.1.06
Official Screen Credits Forms Due

12.26.06
Nominations ballots mailed.

1.13.07
Nominations polls close 5 p.m. PST

1.23.07
Nominations announced 5:30 a.m. PST, Samuel Goldwyn Theater

1.31.07
Final ballots mailed.

2.5.07
Nominees Luncheon

2.10.07
Scientific and Technical Awards Dinner

2.20.07
Final polls close 5 p.m. PST.

2.25.07
79th Annual Academy Awards Presentation (Ellen DeGeneres)

oscarwatch.com

I think it is an very good idea to make Ellen host the show it will be hilarious

If Ellen is hosting I have GOT to watch these awards, Nicole or no Nicole. Ellen will be just perfect - I'm only amazed they didn't think to hire her sooner.

I totally agree wiv ya dere Red I Ellen she is so funny

~Viviana~

Yeah! I love Ellen! I'll watch it to see her!

Totally agree. Ellen is just super :).
I won't worry about Fur either, I still have a great feeling about this movie. So I'll just wait and see.

Yeah, I love Ellen! Finally she's going to host the academy awards!
I can't wait!!

I think probably the first detailed review of Fur by Emmual Levy...a reviewer I'm often in agreement with. Not good news this time...regarding the flm and also Nicole's performance. I think everybody has such high expectations from her that anything less than magnificent is going to be viewed as a disappointment :(.

http://emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=3336

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane ArbusC+

An original but severely flawed film, "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus," aims to illuminate the career of Diane Arbus, one of America's most celebrated photographers, by centering on one crucial encounter between the eccentric, disturbed artist (played by Nicole Kidman) and a fictional character named Lionel (Robert Downey, Jr.), a misfit who helps Diane express her demons and channels them into her art.

Though admirably defying the conventions of Hollywood artistic biopics, with all the clichés that go with it, even on its own terms "Fur," as directed by Steven Shainberg and scripted by Erin Cressida Wilson, is deeply unsatisfying on many levels—call it an honorable failure (emphasis on both words).

To begin with, the narrative is vastly under-populated (it’s basically a two-hour two-character drama) and too narrow in scope to truly shed light on Arbus' metamorphosis from an upper-class housewife (a married woman and mom to two young daughters) to an idiosyncratic artist, haunted by lifelong anxieties (many of which sexual) that might have shaped her work.

Making things worse is central performance by Nicole Kidman, who's in each and every scene. Truth to tell, she is miscast. After a long creative period of interesting and versatile performances, Kidman shows her limitations, exacerbated with being misguided by helmer Shainberg's conception. Though capable of changing physique, with short black hair ("Birth"), or long dark hair here, a level of sameness and repetition has defined her interpretations. (More about Kidman below).

That said, on a visual level, "Fur" is sumptuously crafted, indicating some progress of Shainberg in the technical aspects of filmmaking, after the inept noir "Hit" and the more successful but modest "Secretary." Shainberg no doubt benefits from the picture's bigger budget than that allotted to his previous endeavors. He's greatly assisted here by the brilliant cinematographer Dick Pope and equally brilliant composer Carter Burwell, resulting in a film whose visual look and production design are impressive and haunting-- if only the narrative, characterization, and acting matched that level of execution…
Since "Fur" is a conceptual work the faults lie with the limited, unsatisfying script. ("Secretary, which was well-acted by Maggie Gyllenhaal and Kyle MacLachlan, suffered from the same problem since it was also written by Erin Cressida Wilson).

A title card informs that "this is not a historical biography" of Diane Arbus, which helps those viewers in the theater. Question is, how does the entrepreneurial Picturehouse convey this notion to potential viewers who will naturally assume that "Fur" is a biopic of sorts.

Narratively speaking, "Fur" comes across as another variation of the mythic fable, "Beauty and the Beast," a yarn that has been done by French (Jean Cocteau's 1946 poetic black-and-white version is brilliant) and American filmmakers, from the various adaptation of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," all the way to Disney's 1991 animation feature. Here, Arbus-Beauty is played by the tall and regal Kidman, and the "Beast" is embodied by Robert Downey Jr. as a man, whose whole body is covered from hair, suffering from genetic deficiencies. As such, "Fur" brings to mind David Lynch's "The Elephant Man," which was also a variation of the "Beauty and the Beast," set in Victorian England.

Conceptually, it must have been intriguing to view the film as a modern version of "Alice in Wonderland," with Kidman's Arbus, running up and down the staircase, from her upscale Manhattan apartment to the wonderland that Lionel's milieu represents upstairs in his attic. The filmmakers use peeping, the looking glass, the door hole and the key, the secret ladder that connects between the two levels (and worlds), and even a rabbit as recurrent visual and verbal motifs that make explicit allusions to Lewis Carroll's seminal literary work, which continues to inspire artists.

Much as an actual Arbus photograph transport us into strange and unfamiliar worlds, "Fur" aims at traveling through the looking glass to explore the transformation of a shy woman into a powerfully visionary artist. However, if the inspiration for the film is impressive and its goals clear, its storytelling and characterization leave a lot to be desired.

Shainberg and Wilson have conjured "Fur" not as a biopic, but as something more original and more mysterious, intertwining real aspects of Arbus' life with invented characters and imaginary text. In theory, it's an innovative way of approaching the portrayal of a historically important person. In practice, however, "Fur" strives but doesn't succeed in paying tribute to a brilliant artistic talent who challenged the notions of what's beauty and ugliness in art, thus forever changing the medium of photography through her eccentric subjects and radical techniques.

Loosely inspired by the book, "Diane Arbus: A Biography," written in 1984 by Patricia Bosworth (who's one of "Fur" producers), the film is book-ended by Diane Arbus' visit to a nudist camp. After a brief prologue, the tale flashes back to a crucial period in 1958 to find Diane as a devoted wife and mother, whose innate talents and dark obsessions are profoundly at odds with the conventional life she leads in Manhattan's Upper East Side with her husband Allan (Ty Burrell)

As the story opens, some wealthy furriers gather at the Arbus Family Photography Studio and home for a fashion show of the latest furs from Russek's, the posh Fifth Avenue fur and department store run by Diane's father. It proves to be a stressful event for Diane, a housewife who works as an assistant to her husband, a fashion and advertising photographer.

The delicate, gold-leafed chairs must be neatly aligned, the models must be styled to perfection, and Diane and her daughters must be immaculately turned out for the occasion in their best dressers and Ruussek' furs. The correctness of the Arbuses behavior is appraised not only by the snotty crowd, but also by Diane's parents, Russek's proprietor's Gertrude (Jane Alexander) and David Nemerov (Harris Yulin).

The Nemerovs employ the Arbuses to photograph the store's ads, but it is a barbed form of patronage. They raised Diane to be part of their privileged class, and observe everything she does with a critical eye, commenting on any mistake or breach of protocol. (To have a distinguished actress like Alexander in the cast and to turn her into a stereotypically shrill, castrating mom is inexcusable).

Though trying her best to disguise it, Diane is as uncomfortable and restless. It's an unease that lies just beneath the surface of her orderly, respectable life, ready to be unleashed. And indeed, something crucial happens that night, while the rich furriers examine the new fashion line. Diane observes a team of movers uploading a large truck, and then carry some odd furniture and possessions inside up the stairs of her building. Diane's eye is caught by a strange-looking red mask, the size of a man's head, who turns out to be her new neighbor Lionel. He is bundled up in coat and hat, his face obscured by a scarf and mask. Only his intense eyes are visible, frankly returning Diane's intriguing gaze. An immediate bond is established between these two outcasts.

Most of the narrative is set during a short period of time—two weeks—during which Diane becomes first keenly interested, then downright obsessed with Lionel's comings and goings, his footsteps on the stairs, the music playing from his attic apartment. Assuming the courage of a bold visitor, the eagerly voyeuristic Diane dashes upstairs. Through a series of encounters, some of which rather dull, she becomes a dramatically changed woman.

I wish Shainberg had gone deeper and darker into his story in depicting the perverse, decadent, and freakish milieu. A director like David Lynch, who's better suited for such material, would have done it effortlessly. As it is, I detected the influence of Fellini (around the time of "Satyricon," "Roma," and "The Clowns") on the film's visual aspects, from the production design to the very last scene, set on a beautiful day by the ocean, with Lionel and Diane down to their white underwear.

Not a particularly sensitive director, Shainberg makes a number of gross errors in his mise-en-scene. Surprisingly, for a director who pulled off tricky erotic (S&M) material with ease and charm in "Secretary," he stumbles with the staging of most of the sexual scenes. In a climactic encounter, Lionel asks Diane to shave his hair, but what should have been erotically charged becomes tedious.

And I think he has misdirected (or at least not helped) Kidman, an elegantly detached, self-contained actress to begin with, who has always had problems with projecting erotic appeal and ripe sexuality. Thais was the problem of Kidman's interpretations in Jane Campion's "Portrait of a Lady, Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut," in which shockingly there's was no rapport between her and then husband Tom Cruise, and it's a problem in "Fur."

Since sexuality, dark, perverse sexuality--as a girl and mature woman, Diane likes to expose and touch herself by the window--is a major part of the story, the whole film suffers. The unconventional sexual scene, anal intercourse, between Diane and her husband is another misfire.
Finally, Shainberg resorts to a kitschy, borderline risible scene, when Diane and Lionel go to the Ocean (another Fellinieque touch?) on a beautiful day to execute a fateful act (that can's be disclosed here) at the end of which Diane in a cleansing, cathartic mood, lies on the beach and caresses the water; I wish these preposterous shots could be excised.

Playing an extremely demanding role that call for psychological, physical, emotional, sexual challenges, Robert Downey Jr. is the best thing in the film. Downey Jr. is utterly credible as Lionel, the enigmatic, sickly new neighbor who launches Diane on her journey to becoming the artist she is meant to be.

As noted, "Fur" should be considered an honorable, ambitious failure. What should have been a scarier, touching, and deeply disturbing tale of self-discovery, both artistic and personal, is reduced to a series of intimate and intense encounters between two sexually repressed misfits that ultimately don't shed light on Diane Arbus as a fascinating woman or artist, driven by a mysteriously profound need to create idiosyncratic art and explore alternate lifestyle than the one allotted to her by a conservative mainstream society.

Considering his missives on Birth, PoaL and EWS, Emanuel Levy gets a B grade from me as a critic. I am sure when NK makes a movie where she breaks a plate repeatedly, he will like her again .

I am sure a few people won't like her performance, it's pretty much par for the course but here are a few more:

But whatever the historical mettle of The Last King of Scotland, it is surely greater than that of Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (B). The title says it all: this isn't a biography of the famous photographer but rather an imagining of the way her life might have been. Needless to say, I think this is the right way to go about it; after the film, director Steven Shainberg lamented the prevalence of boring, worshipfully accurate biopics that inevitably begin with an alcoholic father and end with triumphant redemption. Famous people don't always make interesting stories. Even interesting people don't.

And so Fur earns points for its approach, and also for audacity. Not satisfied with simply coming up with a plausible account of Diane (pronounced "dee-anne") Arbus' formative years, the film invents a very hirsute love interest -- a man afflicted with a genetic disorder that covers him in hair from head to toe. Played by Robert Downey, Jr., Lionel brings about Arbus' (Nicole Kidman) artistic awakening as he struggles with myriad issues of his own.

Conceptually, this is of course awesome; the execution is adequate, occasionally hit-or-miss. The tender romance that blossoms between Arbus and Lionel is interesting, and I liked the way Lionel gradually makes Arbus more comfortable in her own skin and with her artistic instincts. But there are times, too, when Fur doesn't seem to know what to do with what it's cooked up, and certain scenes sort of languish and play out without much conviction. And the resolution is a bit overdone even given the already out-there premise, making us sadly aware of the film's fanciful artifice.
http://www.filmblather.com/review.php?n=telluride06day2

Fur - Further Thoughts…
September 8th, 2006

As per requested, some thoughts on Fur…

There is the difficulty whenever focusing one’s film on self-consciously ‘eccentric’ elements that you’ll end up getting the sort of inane ‘independent spirit’ horsepucky that trades on character’s quirks as a signifier of the film’s own uniqueness of vision. I can think of at least a dozen films that work as substantive proof of this tension, and you probably can too - I’m not going to bore you by crapping on the names of any offending directors who do this besides Tim Burton.

That said, FUR, the new film directed by Steven Shainberg and written by Erin Cressida Wilson (the team responsible for the excellent SECRETARY), despite its panoply of carnival freaks, stylized performance (and indeed, at times overly obvious critique of postwar femininity), is a successful one, because its exploration of quirks and outsiders is entriely in keeping with its ideological project: to create a blithely unique tribute to Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman), an artist whose work appears to emerge from without in its at times breathtaking exploration of figures outside hegemonic notions of Americana.

The film’s chief conceit is to place its inquiry within the realm of fairytale, with stunning art direction and cinematography (uh oh… creeping into Burton territory here…) in service of character (shew!) and attempting to explore the liminal space between Arbus as public figure and Arbus as woman within unique sociological constraints. That the film supposes a upstairs neighbor, Lionel (Robert Downey Jr.), as the unique medium by which Arbus is able to fully realize her own potential would in any other film be eye-rolling in its deterministic misogyny; here, from the pen of the unique Wilson, it serves as a fascinating companion piece to SECRETARY, which turned on its head traditional conceptions of dom/sub relationships. Here, Arbus and Lionel reconstruct each other, their relationship both exploring the difficulties of gender representations and transcending them. Much like the work of Diane Arbus, FUR offers us hope for a place beyond traditional dichotomous depictions of human relations - we’re given insight into two humans, one real, one imagined - but each fully rendered. A unique treat.
http://myfiveyearplan.net/

Thanx 4 da reviews Wiggle & Skanky
Ohhh I really hope we start gettin some more positive reviews

~Viviana~

me too. it's probably because of some issues the academy didn't want to deal with. anyway, i hope nicole gets recognized for this work. i also think that we all should've gotten used to her being ignored (the most recent one for birth was one of the major slips that i'm still so disappointed with). if she gives a great performance, then it should be good. i get tired of these negativities so soon. i'll just wait until it officially comes out.

p.s.

i think that because of nicole's elegance and class off camera (which transcends through film as well), it's hard for some people to associate her with sexuality. it's unfair to be criticised for that i think. it's all individual perspective. they should give an award to a controlled, subtle performance for once and not a flamboyant, "magnificent" acting most of these critics seem to adore. blech!

now at least am getting the picture of why some find "fur" a failure and some were won by its approach of arbus.
apparently some of the reviewers would want an insight as to why arbus despite her brilliance seemed not to have found contentment with her art(and the premise of nicole's movie was arbus self discovery of her gift with the lens & her idiosyncratic choice of subjects). as the director has emphatically emphasized this is not to be a standard biopic since ms arbus life or the majority of it is a public knowledge. rather i think the approach was what might have pushed arbus to be her own woman and produce some of the modern era's fascinating artistic endeavour and uniqueness. and the period is only three months of her life preceding her capitulation to fame. i will not expect that arbus or nicole will have any dramatic change(this will entail covering most of her life since she became a renowed photographer) knowing how repressed ms arbus was in real life both as a result of her upbringing and the era she was living in.unless the reviewer has knowledge of the specific period the film is covering and understands that this is an imaginary interpretation of the writers as to how arbus emerged and found her own identity we will be getting this kind of negative reviews.
again nicole is in a movie that is drawing opposite reactions. i did hear her say that she'd rather have her movies talked about and discussed by differing opinions. what else is new huh?our girl is intriguing!!!

Emanuel has liked a few of her performances but every now and again you will catch him saying(as in this review) that she is very limited with what she can do. Which, lol, I obviously don't agree with. So seeing what sort of movie it is, I'm not faded at all by Emanuel's review seeing that it was actually semi expected.

Telluride Review: Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus

Posted Sep 16th 2006 5:03PM by Kim Voynar
Filed under: Drama, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Telluride, Mystery & Suspense, Theatrical Reviews, Festival Reports

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, is a beautiful, elegant, poem of a film, and yet, like Arbus (Nicole Kidman) herself, it's so strange it almost defies description. Arbus (whose first name is pronounced "Dee-Ann") is simutaneously one of the most celebrated and controversial photographers of our time. Arbus grew up in a wealthy Jewish family, amidst a life filled with privilege that she viewed largely as a prison. Overshadowed by her older brother, who grew up to become the famous poet Howard Nemerov, Arbus chafed against the expectations her family had for her to be an obedient, compliant child and, later, an equally socially accecptable wife and mother.

Fur is not an historical portrait of Arbus; rather, as the title suggests, it is an imagining of what might have been going on inside Arbus' mind at the time she broke free of the constraints of 1950s wife-and-motherhood to fully realize her own potential as an artist. Arbus and her husband Allen (who later became an actor, most famously playing the psychiatrist on M.A.S.H.) owned a photography business, which made much of its income shooting advertisting campaigns for the fur company owned by Diane's wealthy parents.

Diane's husband Allan was the photographer, and she was his assistant. Although he always gave her credit for the creativity she brought to their mutual work and the contributions she made, for a woman of vast intelligence and creativity, with the heat of rebellion and passion churning inside her, one can imagine, as this film does, how restrained Arbus must have felt being relegated to a mere assistant.

Fur explores, by crossing and blurring the lines of fantasy and reality, Arbus' transition from assitant to artist. In the film, she meets and befriends her upstairs neighbor, Leon (Robert Downey, Jr.), who is himself one of the freaks to whom she has always been drawn. Through this relationship (whether it's real or imagined, we are never given to know, and it doesn't seem to matter), Arbus frees herself from the societal conventions that have restrained her for her entire life, and taps into the creative free spirit that had been trapped dormant inside her for so long.

Arbus' body of work, which largely focused on people on the fringes of society -- transvestites, giants, midgets, and other people who might have once populated the freak sideshows of touring circuses -- has been called brilliant by some and degrading by others. One of her most famous portraits, Identical Twins, was paid homage by Stanley Kubrick in The Shining, when he recreated her portrait of identical twins standing, shoulders touching, one with a half smile and one almost frowning, as ghosts met by young Danny in the creepy Overlook Hotel. Although Fur doesn't explore the later development of Arbus as a photographer and artist, it does give us an imagined window into the perspective that made her work so unique.

Fur is based on the book Diane Arbus: A Biography. Access to Arbus' work and life has been tightly controlled by her older daughter Doon since Arbus committed suicide in 1971; it is only recently that Doon finally allowed an exhibit of her mother's work to be curated and presented to the public. Through Fur, we get a peek at what Arbus might have been like at this pivotal point in her life. Kidman and Downey, Jr. give spectacular performances; Kidman, in particular, captures the pent-up passion that drove Arbus; this may well be my favorite performance from her yet. The film is visually spectacular, overlapping worlds of fantasy and reality until we're never quite sure what's real and what's not. Arbus, as a character study, is a fascinating artist to examince more closely. Director Steven Shainberg (Secretary) , who grew up surrounded by Arbus' photographs in his parents home (although he never met her himself) struggled for some 15 years to get permission to make a film about Arbus. And with Fur, he has done a fine job paying homage to this intriguing and enigmatic artist.
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/09/16/tell...of-diane-arbus/

Thanks Skanky for that fantastic review

Very good review! Thanks Skanky,

thanks skanky! now that makes up for my disappointment with the first "negative" reviews! thank you so much!

wow that was an impressive review . let's hope more critics are able to share this view. for the generall perception of the film i think it will be really important what the overall reviews from rome will be like...

Make that a D from me. For the umpteenth time Mr. Levy, EWS was about a strained relationship between Bill and Alice. If they had shared a steamy rapport, how in blazes would we believe that their relationship had lost its fire?

And this deserves an unequivocal F grade: Isabel Archer with erotic appeal and ripe sexuality? I want to weep. Henry James is probably already weeping buckets in his grave. Please Mr. Levy: say all you want about Nicole Kidman, but please don't alter the character of Isabel Archer. She is too precious for that.

End of Rant. Yet another "Well Duh" moment.

To be honest I had only read the few positive reviews by Levy.... The fact that he's done plenty of "well duh" reviews of Nicole's performances and movies in Skanky and Polaris's opinion, makes me feel a bit more optimistic about Fur. As Skanky and many others have mentioned many times....this looks like a love it or *do not like* it movie and I'm glad to see this may be the case going by the last few reviews posted by Skanky .

Wow great that the movie having some really good positive reviews for the show can't wait to see it too! But will it be out in Aus, or just the US? >< :/

thanks skanky.

Thanx 4 dat gr8 review Skanky Lets hope we can get loads more like dat one

~Viviana~

His grave is now an Ocean.

Thanks for the positive - or at least interested - reviews, skanky! Keep 'em coming!



Polaris, one of the most erotic moments in any film I have ever seen is in POAL when Isabel touches her cheek in memory of the kiss/touch of Caspar Goodwood, and brushes the canopy fringes against her face. Perhaps it was just a "girl" thing, perhaps I identified (overmuch) with Isabel at that moment, but the shiver of pleasure and recognition was palpable in me. Campion's films have a way of doing that for me, taking me by surprise with a moment of unexpected erotic pleasure that somehow I recognize as my own as well.

So that particular statement of Mr Levy's was the least bothersome for me.

Here is something I find very odd and extremely tiresome - why is it that every time a new Nicole Kidman film comes out, we hear the same old complaints from critics and no-nothings - that she has a limited range, that she is not "sexy" on film (as if the primary criteria for any female actress is still whether she is able to get the critics hot and bothered or not. Perhaps all these male critics need to stop blaming Nicole for their inability to "get it up"? Maybe there's something in the "butter flavored popcorn" that's affecting them and they need to leave off the snacks in the cinema.) Blah blah blah. I for one am tired of the critics that do not know how to actually CRITIQUE a film objectively - and who give away every surprise and plot point in their reviews - but who cannot help themselves from digging little daggers into Nicole's talent, performances, and then by implication her fame and success. I don't know if it's a jealousy quotient, but why the constant amazement that Nicole can act and that there are fans of her work? So the attack is not only on Nicole but on all of us who are apparently "bamboozled" by her, whereas the "critic" apparently holds himself above all of us because only he can "see" that she cannot act, and that she is apparently (in his opinion, which is the only one that matters to him) overrated.

Now that's the end of MY rant. But God knows, come the next Nicole Kidman film down the pike, we'll hear it all over again...and again...

Beautiful scene and enchanting music ( Wojciech Kilar) !