Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fur- First Review
Nicole Kidman United Board > Nicole > Film and Stage Archives > Fur
Pages: 1, 2, 3
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):


QUOTE


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/
coolnic
Thanks sylvia! clap.gif Martini.gif clap.gif


Much excitement and buzz around NKU! rollin.gif clap.gif rollin.gif 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!!!!!!!!!!! thumbsup.gif tongue.gif thumbsup.gif

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 eek.gif. 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.

happy.gif
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.) happy.gif clap.gif
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
QUOTE(skankyoldwhore @ Sep 2 2006, 06:16 PM)
I am loving these feedbacks we are getting.  I love that it seems to be shaking people up, getting the unexpected!

Thanks happy.gif
*



QUOTE(Oregon @ Sep 2 2006, 07:14 PM)
~~~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.  clap.gif  clap.gif  clap.gif

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. lol.gif )


QUOTE(Kensy @ Sep 3 2006, 04:22 PM)
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. lol.gif )

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.

QUOTE(Wiggleurnose @ Sep 4 2006, 02:48 AM)
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!
*



QUOTE(In Theory @ Sep 4 2006, 09:14 AM)
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.

happy.gif
*


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? lol.gif
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(NicoleFan17 @ Sep 4 2006, 02:25 PM)
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.
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.)
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(RedSatinDoll @ Sep 5 2006, 05:05 AM)
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.)
*

I posted on the forum about that and they didn't even respond.
scarlett
I'm amazed they've left the website devoid of any information so close to the release. Not exactly the way to advertise or drum up business. Maybe they aren't sure just how they want to promote it yet - or they are waiting till it premieres in Rome....just guesses.
marilyn
QUOTE(skankyoldwhore @ Sep 3 2006, 06:17 PM)
None of the films at Telluride have any major critics writing about them.
*


Skanky, the Variety has a full review of “Little Children” by Todd McCarthy after Telluride, but so far there isn’t a full review on “Fur” as if no one dares to be the first to write a complete review on it. Could it be that no one wants to “look stupid” OR “spoil the plot” as the movie seems to be a real surprise for everyone who has seen it whether he/she likes it or not? Personally, I have no interest in seeing “Little Children” after reading all the reviews on it, but I am definitely more intrigued than ever about “Fur” after reading the mixed reactions on it. Maybe I am indeed a “freak.” lol.gif
Kensy
QUOTE(marilyn @ Sep 5 2006, 09:43 AM)
Skanky, the Variety has a full review of “Little Children” by Todd McCarthy after Telluride, but so far there isn’t a full review on “Fur” as if no one dares to be the first to write a complete review on it.  Could it be that no one wants to “look stupid” OR “spoil the plot” as the movie seems to be a real surprise for everyone who has seen it whether he/she likes it or not? Personally, I have no interest in seeing “Little Children” after reading all the reviews on it, but I am definitely more intrigued than ever about “Fur” after reading the mixed reactions on it.  Maybe I am indeed a “freak.”  lol.gif
*

Thanks for your perspective on this Marilyn! Great post! You are definitely NOT a freak! LOL!

Kensy
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(marilyn @ Sep 6 2006, 12:43 AM)
Skanky, the Variety has a full review of “Little Children” by Todd McCarthy after Telluride, but so far there isn’t a full review on “Fur” as if no one dares to be the first to write a complete review on it.  Could it be that no one wants to “look stupid” OR “spoil the plot” as the movie seems to be a real surprise for everyone who has seen it whether he/she likes it or not? Personally, I have no interest in seeing “Little Children” after reading all the reviews on it, but I am definitely more intrigued than ever about “Fur” after reading the mixed reactions on it.  Maybe I am indeed a “freak.”  lol.gif
*

That's the only one so far and the festival is over lol.gif. I find it so strange, are they afraid to review it? lol.gif the reviewer at IndieWire confessed that he has to see it again before reviewing it because it wasn't what he expected despite expecting the unexpected so there ya go lol.gif or perhaps there is an embargo until the film shows up "officially" in Rome? BTW, Fur was rejected by the New York Film Festival.

I won't be surprised if it got the same reaction as Birth, a no go with critics looking for a "life story" so to speak but finding themselves going to wonderland.
ladysatine
i'm getting crazy with all these reviwes!!! I'm afraid of Nic not be nominated for an oscar.I'm reading in IMDB different reviews about Nic performance in Fur and the majority is saying the big star of the film is Robert Downey JR, and Nic did a good job but they think she will not me nominated.I'm so afraid of this, i was so optimistic while ago...

well but we all now the experts are in the academy so i hope they have a different opinion....and i my point of view the decisive time will be around december/nov...
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(ladysatine @ Sep 6 2006, 02:12 AM)
i'm getting crazy with all  these reviwes!!! I'm afraid of Nic not be nominated for an oscar.I'm reading in IMDB different reviews about Nic performance in Fur and the majority is saying the big star of the film is Robert Downey JR, and Nic did a good job but they think she will not me nominated.I'm so afraid of this, i was so optimistic while ago...

well but we all now the experts are in the academy so i hope they have a different opinion....and i my point of view the decisive time will be around december/nov...
*

I've been to IMDB and I can't find any reviews talking about performances, the only one that mentions RDJ is by Jeff Wells who hasn't seen the movie but was told it. Can you point me to the others that mentioned RDJ, please?
red@gold
So much info and wonderful comments ... thank you to everyone. rose4.gif I very much want to see this film because to me subtle is Nicole's strength so I liked this part in one of the reviews:

so don't expect to be blown away by Kidman's acting, which is appropriately subdued and reactionary

My favourite part of Birth was her sitting in the audience at the symphony and the camera capturing the most intimate moments in her eyes and on her face. I re-watched that so many times ... even though it was painful ... it was creepy, inspiring, awesome, heartbreaking ... so emotional. Nicole consumes her parts and connects on a level that overwhelms and shocks me many times ... and getting back on topic, I hope that is part of her FUR performance.
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(red@gold @ Sep 6 2006, 03:02 AM)
My favourite part of Birth was her sitting in the audience at the symphony and the camera capturing the most intimate moments in her eyes and on her face.  I re-watched that so many times ... even though it was painful ... it was creepy, inspiring, awesome, heartbreaking ... so emotional.  Nicole consumes her parts and connects on a level that overwhelms and shocks me many times ... and getting back on topic, I hope that is part of her FUR performance.
*

Aaaah, that was incredible. I never tire of remembering or seeing it happy.gif.
ladysatine
QUOTE(skankyoldwhore @ Sep 6 2006, 02:24 AM)
I've been to IMDB and I can't find any reviews talking about performances, the only one that mentions RDJ is by Jeff Wells who hasn't seen the movie but was told it.  Can you point me to the others that mentioned RDJ, please?
*



Go to the Fur page.the title is:" Nicole now front runner for Best Actress Oscar? "
nicfan22
read this:

Okay, now that I am done with the film festival and actually able to think about the film in depth, I wanted to write something up a little more. I don't think it is in any way spoilerish, just an overview of the plot and the performances a little more in depth.


The plot of the movie was Diane's transformation from a woman who was felt trapped in a life where she was the dutiful wife and mother to a woman who was inspired to pursue her own life and happiness through photographing people who the rest of the world considered to be "freaks" but she also saw as human beings. It all starts when Robert Downey Jr.'s character, a masked man named Lionel, moves into her building. Her husband, who is a photographer, encourages her to take her own photographs. As she is intrigued by Lionel from the moment she sees him, she goes upstairs and befriends him with the hope of taking his portrait. From there, the story follows their developing friendship and how they change one another and help to inspire one another.

I thought Nicole Kidman portrayed Arbus as a strong woman who was able to realize she was unhappy and trapped and to go out and pursue her own happiness. She pursued the relationship with Lionel, even though she knew it was not a conventional or acceptable friendship for the times, yet it was what made her happy and inspired her and she went for it. She realized she was not meant for the conventional life and went out into the world to find the life she was meant for.

Now, Robert Downey Jr. I thought did an amazing job too. I think his character really helps to push Diane and inspire her.

Both actors did wonderful convey emotions through just looks and you truly believed their friendship was affecting and changing both of them.

For the first 10 or so minutes, I was a little worried I was going to be bored by the movie because I did not have any knowledge of Diane and I worried it was going to be just another standard biopic, but as soon as Downey's character is introduced I was instantly hooked. The editing and directing just made the movie flow so beautifully that I could help but be drawn in. After seeing it, I intend to learn more about Diane as she seems to be an amazing and interseting woman.

As for the chances of awards, I will admit that sometimes stranger movies that are excellent are not always nominated, which I hope will change because this was one of my favorite movies that I saw at the Telluride Film Festival and one the better, more imaginative, creative and well acted films I have seen in a long time.

As for the rest of crowd, throughout the weekend in Telluride the crowd reaction was mixed. Many people liked, while others hated it I think it all depends on what you are expecting. Most that hated it I think just walked into the theater with no knowledge of the movie, what it was about or of Diane Arbus. So anyone who is here and has a prior interest and knowledge of Diane I think will love it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422295/board/...05112505#latest
skankyoldwhore
^^thanks happy.gif.

QUOTE(ladysatine @ Sep 6 2006, 03:48 AM)
Go to the Fur page.the title is:" Nicole now front runner for Best Actress Oscar? "
*


The only one that mentions performance in that thread is Jeff Wells and he hasn't seen it, just what he heard, last month he heard that NK was a standout lol.gif. What I was asking were the reviews that actually talked about performances.
RedSatinDoll
QUOTE(nicfan22 @ Sep 5 2006, 03:55 PM)
read this:
I thought Nicole Kidman portrayed Arbus as a strong woman who was able to realize she was unhappy and trapped and to go out and pursue her own happiness. She pursued the relationship with Lionel, even though she knew it was not a conventional or acceptable friendship for the times, yet it was what made her happy and inspired her and she went for it. She realized she was not meant for the conventional life and went out into the world to find the life she was meant for.

Now, Robert Downey Jr. I thought did an amazing job too. I think his character really helps to push Diane and inspire her.

Both actors did wonderful convey emotions through just looks and you truly believed their friendship was affecting and changing both of them.

For the first 10 or so minutes, I was a little worried I was going to be bored by the movie because I did not have any knowledge of Diane and I worried it was going to be just another standard biopic, but as soon as Downey's character is introduced I was instantly hooked. The editing and directing just made the movie flow so beautifully that I could help but be drawn in. After seeing it, I intend to learn more about Diane as she seems to be an amazing and interseting woman.

As for the chances of awards, I will admit that sometimes stranger movies that are excellent are not always nominated, which I hope will change because this was one of my favorite movies that I saw at the Telluride Film Festival and one the better, more imaginative, creative and well acted films I have seen in a long time.

As for the rest of crowd, throughout the weekend in Telluride the crowd reaction was mixed. Many people liked, while others hated it I think it all depends on what you are expecting. Most that hated it I think just walked into the theater with no knowledge of the movie, what it was about or of Diane Arbus. So anyone who is here and has a prior interest and knowledge of Diane I think will love it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422295/board/...05112505#latest
*


Thanks for posting, nicfan. Who wrote this review? It sounds terrific. I'm particularly glad to read "Nicole plays Arbus as a strong woman" - she seems sort of delicate and fragile in the trailer, so that's good to hear. And any film that inspires someone to think about it in depth later and then write about it is a good one, or at least an interesting one, in my book. And from the sounds of it the acting (NK and RDJ) are central to the film and its not all just about the visuals (as another reviewer implied).
kiha
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060905/media_nm/telluride_dc_2

QUOTE
Picturehouse's Bob Berney unveiled Steve Shainberg's "Fur" at Telluride in advance of its "official" world premiere at the RomaCinemaFest next month. An arty delicacy, the film got a mixed response. Instead of using Patricia Bosworth's biography of Diane Arbus to craft a conventional biopic, writer Erin Cressida Wilson and Shainberg created an imaginative portrait of the period in her life when Arbus stopped assisting her husband in his portrait studio and started taking her own photographs.

As played by        Nicole Kidman in tightly cinched '50s dresses, Arbus dives down the rabbit hole into a wonderland peopled by freaks, including a man completely covered with hair -- he's a fictional construct based on a real person whom Arbus never met -- played by        Robert Downey Jr. Many at Telluride wanted the movie to spend more time exploring Arbus' iconic photography.

"That would have been boring," Shainberg said at his Q&A. "You already know about that."
nicolefan19
Here's Variety's Full review:

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus


By TODD MCCARTHY
Variety

The subtitle of "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" serves as fair warning to unsuspecting souls expecting a full-fledged biopic about the late, now practically legendary photographer. A defiantly outre take on how the subject transformed herself from an upper-class New York housewife to a singular artist, pic is impressively crafted and acted but far too narrowly and benignly conceived to satisfy even on its own terms. Despite toplined names of Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr., Picturehouse faces a hard road pushing this beyond urban arthouses.

Like her suicidal contemporary Sylvia Plath, Arbus has tempted filmmakers for years. Director Steven Shainberg and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson, who previously teamed on the not entirely dissimilar "Secretary," have hatched a fantasy centered on a single issue: What enabled a 35-year-old wife and mother in 1958 Manhattan to abandon a life devoted to fulfilling others' expectations and locate her hitherto undiscovered artistic self?

It's a resonant subject, one boldly but oddly cast here in a beauty-and-the-beast format that provides the film with far more metaphorical weight than dramatic force, creating a sense of stasis that impeccable technique and impressive acting cannot overcome.

Eye-catching opening has the beauteous Arbus (Kidman), whose first name is pointedly pronounced "Dee-ann," arriving at a nudist camp to shoot some pictures. An entirely naked middle-aged couple welcome her warmly but insist she disrobe as well.

Cut to three months earlier, when Diane is hosting a fashion show put on by her wealthy furrier father (Harris Yulin). Although not overly rebellious or resentful, Diane is clearly discomfited with her role as obedient daughter and assistant to her commercial photographer husband Allan (Ty Burrell, quite good).

Conveniently, the key to Diane's true self awaits in the form of her mysterious new upstairs neighbor. The viewer's curiosity is made to match Diane's own, as she dares to investigate the premises; once she meets the hooded and masked occupant, he asks her to take something off -- that is, to remove some vestment of propriety.

Then it's the neighbor's turn to reveal himself. Lionel (Downey) is afflicted with a rare disease that has covered his entire body with hair, or fur, as the title insists. The flowing locks cascade magnificently on and around his face, courtesy of a superior job by the Stan Winston Studio. The thick pelt requires Downey to communicate only with his eyes and voice, which he does to a mesmerizing degree, making credible Diane's fascination and willingness to follow him over to the "dark side," where her talent lies.

Diane and Lionel finally reach a point where they can literally reveal their entire naked selves to one another. But the film makes this a curiously prosaic achievement, one without palpable pain or price. Given what actually happened to Diane Arbus five years later, it would have seemed incumbent on the filmmakers to have at least planted a seed to indicate the real-life downside to the subject's choice of artistic self-fulfillment. As it stands, this is a Diane Arbus film with a happy ending, assuming a nudist camp is a preferable destination to a morgue.

That's not to say that "Fur" does not remain intriguing much of the way, nor that Shainberg has failed to realize exactly the film he wanted to make. The images are precise and often bracing, with Bill Pope's camera ever on the prowl through the mysterious wonderland of production designer Amy Danger's set for Lionel's apartment, which contrasts in its strangeness to the more familiar trappings of late '50s Gotham.

Sporting dark brown hair, Kidman responds with quicksilver subtlety to the progressive stages of her character's journey. But since "Diane" is a largely reactive role, Downey, playing the character calling the dramatic shots, in addition to boasting a far more spectacular hairdo, is able to dominate the picture while speaking his lines with a calm, low-pitched self-confidence and with sparkling eyes that provide the focal points for a great many scenes.

Carter Burwell's frisky score, with its inventive orchestrations and strong sense of movement, is a big plus.
NicoleFan17
Thanks nicolefan19. And this does sound very erotic, lol. But I have no problems with it. It does seem that Downey Jr. does steal the film but I am glad that the reviewer did notice that Nicole brought "quicksilver subtlety" to her part which, in my opinion, she does best. I'm very glad for Robert though. He is one of our great American actors who, sadly, is still oscarless. Hope that can change.

And is that a good or bad review, he seemed to like it but something he said in the top half there made me wonder.
archer
Thank you nicolefan 19.

QUOTE
The subtitle of "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" serves as fair warning to unsuspecting souls expecting a full-fledged biopic about the late, now practically legendary photographer.
A defiantly outre take on how the subject transformed herself from an upper-class New York housewife to a singular artist...


QUOTE
this is a Diane Arbus film with a happy ending, assuming a nudist camp is a preferable destination to a morgue.


QUOTE
Downey, playing the character calling the dramatic shots, in addition to boasting a far more spectacular hairdo, is able to dominate the picture while speaking his lines with a calm, low-pitched self-confidence and with sparkling eyes that provide the focal points for a great many scenes.
RedSatinDoll
QUOTE(NicoleFan17 @ Sep 6 2006, 01:35 AM)
Thanks nicolefan19.  And this does sound very erotic, lol. But I have no problems with it. It does seem that Downey Jr. does steal the film but I am glad that the reviewer did notice that Nicole brought "quicksilver subtlety" to her part which, in my opinion, she does best. I'm very glad for Robert though. He is one of our great American actors who, sadly, is still oscarless. Hope that can change.

And is that a good or bad review, he seemed to like it but something he said in the top half there made me wonder.
*


My impression is that he liked several elements of it but ultimately found it unsatisfying. I don't know what his expectations were going in, so that can have a lot to do with it.

He faults Shainberg for not implying what happened to Diane later, for not giving a hint of the unhappy ending - but Shainberg and Erica Cressida Wilson were both very clear that they were not going for a traditional biopic. (Just because a person ended their life unhappily does not mean that every minute of their life was unhappy or that their life is "fated" to end a certain way. Nor would those people, I think, want to be remembered for their deaths rather than their lives.)

It's a fair and balanced review overall I'd say, and it's certainly not going to keep me away. The comments about Picturehouse having a "hard sell" beyond urban arthouses is puzzling - I assumed from the get-go that's exactly the venue this film was intended for. Was McCarthy expecting this film to show up in the mainstream cineplex to compete with the likes of War of the Worlds?
janjan
Thank you to everyone for the reviews. It seems a lot of them are confused or don't really know what to think about the film. Maybe I'm just slow but I sit here wondering if I've just read a good or a bad review. lol.gif

QUOTE
I'd heard interesting buzz on Fur. No one seemed to know quite what to say about it, which intrigued me enough to make it my last film here at Telluride. Now that I've seen it, I understand where people were coming from, because I don't even know where to begin in describing it. The film is a fictionalization about photographer Diane Arbus, who was best known before her death by suicide in 1971 at the age of 48 for her stark black and white photographs of people on the fringes of society. Her most famous photograph, "Identical Twins," was mirrored by Stanley Kubrick in The Shining, when Danny meets the ghosts of the twin girls in the hallway. The film is most decidedly not a historically accurate account of Arbus' life; rather, it blends reality and fantasy to try to take the viewer inside Arbus' head at the time in her life when she was chafing from being nothing more than her photographer husband's assistant, yet fighting against the current of the 1950s, when it was a woman's job to stand by her man.


http://www.cinematical.com/2006/09/05/tell...dabyne-and-fur/
skankyoldwhore
QUOTE(NicoleFan17 @ Sep 6 2006, 03:35 PM)
Thanks nicolefan19.  And this does sound very erotic, lol. But I have no problems with it. It does seem that Downey Jr. does steal the film but I am glad that the reviewer did notice that Nicole brought "quicksilver subtlety" to her part which, in my opinion, she does best. I'm very glad for Robert though. He is one of our great American actors who, sadly, is still oscarless. Hope that can change.

And is that a good or bad review, he seemed to like it but something he said in the top half there made me wonder.
*

Downey Jnr. cannot steal a movie if he already had the dramatic part resting solely on his shoulders, he said in a previous interview that Lionel held Diane's life in his hands and is moulding it in the movie and that's what RDJ did, if NK sleepwalked through the movie then he might have stolen it lol.gif and if NK had shifted her characterisation in order to be "noticed" then the dynamic would have changed or be different, I think. These are 2 great actors who know how to serve a film, now this is the question, will they ignore both of them or just NK for not being showy?

This might turn out to be NK's most interesting project, yet. She's been missed in these kind of films. It just occured to me that NK is probably the Christian Bale of actresses, otherworldly movies with great to sublime performances with quite little acknowledgement especially in Bale's case.
scarlett
QUOTE(skankyoldwhore @ Sep 6 2006, 01:38 PM)
Downey Jnr. cannot steal a movie if he already had the dramatic part resting solely on his shoulders, he said in a previous interview that Lionel held Diane's life in his hands and is moulding it in the movie and that's what RDJ did, if NK sleepwalked through the movie then he might have stolen it lol.gif and if NK had shifted her characterisation in order to be "noticed" then the dynamic would have changed or be different, I think.  These are 2 great actors who know how to serve a film, now this is the question, will they ignore both of them or just NK for not being showy?
*

I hope not. Lionel seems the catalyst for her transition. The film would be ill-served if she didn't allow him to guide her through the transformation. Anything but a subtely exploring performance would have been inconsistent with the role and the intent of the director. They are wonderful actors who will play well off one-another and give and take in balance.
RedSatinDoll
QUOTE(skankyoldwhore @ Sep 6 2006, 01:38 PM)
This might turn out to be NK's most interesting project, yet.  She's been missed in these kind of films.  It just occured to me that NK is probably the Christian Bale of actresses, otherworldly movies with great to sublime performances with quite little acknowledgement especially in Bale's case.
*


Excellent comparison, skanky, I never would have thought of it. Which reminds me - I'd love to see the two of them together on screen again (in a more substantial way than POAL, though that film probably made a Christian Bale fan of me. His best performance? Perhaps not, but his intensity when he shouting through the iron bars "Will he think me rich enough now?" won me over.)
ladysatine
hei guys look at this: (this is a major site about oscars and they say Nic will be nominated)

http://www.theoscarigloo.com/Actress.html
Kensy
QUOTE(ladysatine @ Sep 8 2006, 05:13 AM)
hey guys look at this: (this is a major site about oscars and they say Nic will be nominated)
http://www.theoscarigloo.com/Actress.html
*

Thanks!!! She is under "the predicted five" category, I don't even know who the other four woman are!

There is also two other categories: "don't count out" and "also in the competition." The website is predicting Kate Winslet is going to win for "Little Children."

This is what the site said about Nic:
"Nicole Kidman, Fur: Despite favorable reviews, nothing points out she is close to be a lock yet."

My fingers and toes are crossed!!! When are the Golden Globes, and Oscar nods annouced???

Kensy
RedSatinDoll
Kensy, do you mean you don't know the characters or the actresses themselves?

Last week she wasn't in the top five on that site, so this is good to see. This does look to be a competitive year for women THANK GOODNESS. How many years have gone by when the Academy has trouble scaring up even five female performances to nominate?

The irony of course being that not one of these films has been released widely yet, so this is all festival buzz and pre-buzz. (Anyone else who is tired of waiting until the end of the year for all the good films - or watching the Oscars when the films nominated haven't even been released anywhere except NYC and LA - raise your hand. )
nicolefan19
QUOTE(RedSatinDoll @ Sep 8 2006, 08:13 PM)
  (Anyone else who is tired of waiting until the end of the year for all the good films - or watching the Oscars when the films nominated haven't even been released anywhere except NYC and LA - raise your hand. )
*


:raiseshand:

I know, I constantly tire of waiting till the end of the year to get all the good films. And even then I don't get to see a lot of them, since many are limited releases. At least The Visiting and HDM will be wide releases.
Samantha Stevens
QUOTE(RedSatinDoll @ Sep 9 2006, 03:13 AM)
The irony of course being that not one of these films has been released widely yet, so this is all festival buzz and pre-buzz.  (Anyone else who is tired of waiting until the end of the year for all the good films - or watching the Oscars when the films nominated haven't even been released anywhere except NYC and LA - raise your hand. )
*


As far as Helen Mirren is concerned, her film is in competition at Venice Film Festival and everybody's saying she's going to win the Golden Lion. Tonight we'll see...
ciao
kiha
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ndliving/movies


Arbus, Capote, Iwo Jima -- and Mark Ruffalo!
Sunday, September 10, 2006; Page N18




SLUG: sa/film10 INPUTDATE: 2006-08-24 17:45:32.163 CREDIT: Abbot Genser/FROM_PHOTOPOST/Picturehouse LOCATION: x, , x CAPTION: Ty Burrell and Nicole Kidman in FUR. Sent by: Rachel Beckman Photo Editor


The groundbreaking 1960s photographer Diane Arbus -- whose haunting portraits of American families, freaks and misfits inspired a generation of artists -- has been a tantalizing subject in Hollywood for years, with Diane Keaton at one point mentioned as the actress most likely to play her. But Nicole Kidman got the part, and before you say, "Huh?" remember what people said when they first heard she was going to play Virginia Woolf.

There are many reasons to look forward to "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus," the movie about the photographer's early life and career that will arrive in November. One, surely, is to see whether Kidman can successfully morph into yet another famously complicated, troubled woman (Arbus took her own life in 1971). But another is director Steven Shainberg, whose 2002 "Secretary" starred Maggie Gyllenhaal as a masochistic clerical assistant. The film -- funny, scary, provocative and finally kind of sweet -- was a small triumph of formal virtuosity and tonal control. With Shainberg at the helm, "Arbus" promises to transcend the usual formulaic tripe of the Hollywood biopic.
BabyNick
Thanx ladysatine 4 da link and thanx Kiha 4 da article huggle.gif I really really really hope Nic gets nominated 4 an Oscar praying.gif She deserves 2 win clap.gif clap.gif

tongue.gif ~Viviana~ tongue.gif
Kensy
Thanks Kiha!!! Like always you are on the ball with posting news today, I have seen two news articles that you posted today and I have only looked through 2 topics!!!
Where do you find all this stuff???

Kensy
friendlyfox
Ah well. Cannot win them all. I assume this is not here (looking at the date) but let me know if it is.
(Btw. My thinking is there is absolutely no need to focus on the suicide. There may be some reasons for objecting on other reasons, but that one seems silly).



The Sunday Times - World
The Sunday Times September 10, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2350521,00.html

Kidman's bid for Oscar is not a pretty picture
Tony Allen-Mills, New York

Critics savage 'fantasy' film of doomed American photographer


SHE was considered a safe bet for her third Oscar nomination, but Nicole Kidman’s 2007 hopes took a tumble last week with the first public showing of her controversial new film Fur, based on the life of the late American photographer Diane Arbus.
Having won the 2002 best actress Oscar for her portrayal of Virginia Woolf in The Hours, Kidman appeared to have landed another dream role when she signed up to play Arbus, a tormented genius who became famous for photographing human freaks and who committed suicide in 1971.


Yet Fur’s early promise, which was further enhanced by a row between rival European film festivals over where it would receive its premiere, has been severely dented by a rash of poor reviews.

The film’s unconventional treatment of Arbus’s life — including an imaginary character whose skin is completely covered in fur — has also stirred concern in photographic circles that the artist’s legacy will be tainted by Kidman’s portrayal. The film shows little of Arbus’s photography and makes no attempt to explain her suicide.

The Wall Street Journal listed Fur as one of the “stinkers” of the Telluride film festival in Colorado. Variety, the Hollywood newspaper, said it carried “far more metaphorical weight than dramatic force”. Anne Thompson, the influential deputy film editor of The Hollywood Reporter, declared: “Fur is not an Oscar contender.”

The film is based on a 1984 biography by Patricia Bosworth, a former model who was photographed by Arbus. The book angered members of Arbus’s family by alleging that she slept with some of her subjects.

Bosworth immediately sold the film rights to the MGM studio, which originally intended to cast Diane Keaton as Arbus. The project then hovered in Hollywood limbo for almost 20 years, until a new director, Steven Shainberg, took over.

To many Hollywood insiders, the project seemed a certain winner for Kidman, whose name had until recently been circulating alongside Dame Judi Dench (for her role in the film of Zoe Heller’s novel Notes on a Scandal), Dame Helen Mirren (for The Queen) and Kate Winslet (for Little Children) in early lists of Oscar predictions.

Arbus was an extraordinary character who became one of America’s most innovative and distinctive artists. Starting as a fashion photographer, she became fascinated by human abnormality and began to turn her lens on dwarves, transvestites and circus freaks. Among her best known work, shot mainly in black and white, were such iconic shots as “Jewish giant at home with his parents in the Bronx”; “Mexican dwarf in his hotel room”; and “Albino sword swallower at a carnival”.

Yet Shainberg decided at the outset that he was not interested in making a conventional “biopic” that traced Arbus’s life up to the moment she slit her wrists and swallowed sleeping pills before dying in her bath. He produced a new screenplay that he described to Bosworth as “a leap into fantasy”.

Shainberg decided to focus on a three-month period in Arbus’s life when she was making her transition from commercial photographer to artist. “Basically, in 1958, after working in her husband’s photography studio for 15 years, Arbus strikes out on her own,” Shainberg said.

To dramatise the change, the director invented a character — a mysterious neighbour, played by Robert Downey Jr, who suffers from a rare disease that covers his skin with fur. Shainberg described the character as “metaphoric and a literal freak — all the people she went out and photographed, rolled into one”.

The film, due to be released in America in November, looked set to become one of the most talked-about of the year when Kidman was invited to open a new film festival in Rome in next month. An row promptly broke out between Rome, Venice and Cannes over which festival was securing the best films. Venetian officials sniffily suggested that Rome was getting the films that Cannes and Venice had rejected.

Yet the early word on Fur has dampened expectations and persuaded critics to place their bets on Winslet and Beyoncé Knowles, the singer and actress whose performance in Dreamgirls is said to be a revelation.

Most critics agreed last week that while Kidman had far from disgraced herself in Fur — Variety described her acting as “quicksilver subtlety” — it was Downey who dominated the film.

Nobody seemed to like the director’s reworking of the beauty-and-the-beast theme. “Kidman and Downie did what they could, but [the film] is as lifeless as it is pretentious,” declared the Wall Street Journal.
mss_diane
In my opinion, Picturehouse is the one to blame for Fur's demise due to its sloppy handling of the publicity for this film.

While a nomination for Kidman's performance in Fur would be nice, I think that she will be better off next year in the Baz Luhrmann epic Darwin or the Noah Baumbach comedy Sisters or the Chris Weitz's The Golden Compass.

Helen Mirren will win the Best Actress Oscar for The Queen.
nicfan22
it's not good...
i'm sad.... sob.gif
tulipa
I have the highest expectations on this movie! thumbsup.gif
In Theory
While these people are critisizing the movie for being different there are critics quoted in reviews earlier in this thread that are thankful it isn't the usual biopic.

Wouldn't want to see someting a little different now would we.

happy.gif
NicoleFan17
I find it funny how in that article foxy posted, they make it seem as if Anne Thompson's words on the film were negative when in fact she really liked it but thought it was a bit too wierd for the Academy. It seems her words were taken out of context to fit with the mood of the article.
In Theory
QUOTE(NicoleFan17 @ Sep 11 2006, 03:03 AM)
I find it funny how in that article foxy posted, they make it seem as if Anne Thompson's words on the film were negative when in fact she really liked it but thought it was a bit too wierd for the Academy. It seems her words were taken out of context to fit with the mood of the article.
*


Yes, I think that's exactly what is going on in this article.
RedSatinDoll
You know, it's like the stock market - if enough media ink is spilled that Fur is bad, that's what people will believe. (The same happened to The Human Stain - a pity too, because I saw it at the theater and had an amazing experience.) Yet all the initial reactions we read called it intriguing, weird, certainly a conversation-generator, and there were some people who did not like it especially, but when the heck did the reaction become "bad"? "Demise"? Nonsense.

And since when was the point of making or being in a motion picture simply to win awards, rather than to create and communicate? (Oh, that's right, it's the film INDUSTRY. Silly me.)

Tarnish Diane's legacy? More nonsense. Most people - I'm sorry but this is true - have no idea who the heck Diane Arbus is. (Trying saying her name aloud at your next family gathering or in a mixed crowd and see what happens.) But maybe one or two will check her work out for themselves because of this film.

There's only one other thing to do - check out the movie for ourselves.
In Theory
QUOTE(RedSatinDoll @ Sep 11 2006, 03:40 AM)
Tarnish Diane's legacy?  More nonsense.  Most people - I'm sorry but this is true - have no idea who the heck Diane Arbus is.  (Trying saying her name aloud at your next family gathering or in a mixed crowd and see what happens.) But maybe one or two will check her work out for themselves because of this film.

There's only one other thing to do - check out the movie for ourselves.
*


This is precisely why I thought the "imaginary" or "metaphoric" approuch was the right idea.

I plan on checking this movie out for myself.

sunny.gif
friendlyfox
A bit of controversy over a film will not hurt it at all so do not worry. Just because one article (or even more) mentions the word 'demise' it does not have to be true.

The Hours suffered from almost exactly the same sort of reviews in the lead up to the Oscars. Some in the Virginia Woolf's family were unhappy about various aspects.

I think it would be hard to have someone make a film about one of your family members, especially if the family is not contributing.

Even if the family were involved, I imagine there would be disagreements between the family members. Thinking of my family, if they did a film based on my sister's life, for instance, I know my parents would portray her differently than I would. I would be right of course lol.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.