Full Frontal For New Nicole Flick
Friday, September 29, 2006

By Roger Friedman




Full Frontal For New Nicole Flick

Nicole Kidman’s new movie, "Fur," is going to be remembered for many things but one in particular: lots of nude people. I mean, like naked men and women, full frontal the whole deal.

"Fur," directed by Steve Shainberg, is an imagined story about the life of legendary photographer Diane (pronounced “de-ahn”) Arbus. Arbus’ revered work included nude portraits of regular people, as well as many hundreds of sitting with irregular types: short people, tall people, and even a woman who used her feet for hands.

The film, which is simultaneously genius and bizarre, features the greatest selection of “freakish” characters since Woody Allen’s “Stardust Memories.” Whoever did the secondary casting deserves a prize.

But what will catch most attention when “Fur” is released on November 10th are the opening scenes when Arbus, played brilliantly I thought by Kidman, arrives to take pictures at a nudist colony. Right away, we are treated to what the British call “naughty bits” and plenty of them. Shainberg does not shy away from it at all. But believe me, there’s nothing erotic here. These are not models from a Madonna video.

Later in the film, Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. – who plays a kind of imagined hairy beast who lives above the Arbuses in their apartment house—have a sex scene slightly more graphic that we’re used to in a Kidman film. And later, when the nudist colony scene picks up, Kidman flashes one breast just long enough to be surprising (and not unwelcome). And of course, there’s more of the colonists.

It’s a little early to tell you more about “Fur,” except to explain the title. Arbus’ parents were very wealthy New York furriers, and there is a tie in thematically between the chinchillas and minks they sell and Downey’s hirsute recluse with whom Kidman’s Arbus falls in love. It makes sense, just wait and see.

This much I will tell you also now: “Fur” puts Nicole into the very hotly contested Best Actress race with Judi Dench, Kate Winslet, Renee Zellweger, *you know who* Cruz, Meryl Streep, and Helen Mirren. “Fur” will also garner attention for spectacular cinematography by Bill Pope (he did the “Matrix” movies) and an unbelievably good jazz score by Carter Burwell. I want the soundtrack now!

you beat me by a few minutes
this sounds really interesting, let's hope nic will be as good as they say

thanks!
ciao

I saw that Grace...we we're thinking alike at the same time. Sorry. I couldn't wait to post this article after reading it. It sheds some new light on this film...and the writer calls Kidman's portrayal "brilliant." The film gets more and more interesting the closer to its release.

no problem, when it comes to post exciting articles about nic and her films one cannot be fast enough
yeah, this article deals with some things previously unmentioned but very intriguing. wann see this film

Thank you, romantic.

Thanks romantic.

I thought what mattered most here was the "Played brilliantly by Kidman" bit (I just hope this is an honest opinion and Mr. Friedman isn't on the studio's dole in one way or another. You never can tell nowadays. Was this written to counter some of the negative comments that have been floating out - most of which seem to have come from people who haven't seen the film, or say "It's too weird, she won't get an Oscar" and that is somehow supposed to be sufficient reason to avoid the film? Please, spare me from the "made specifically to win awards and prestige" school of filmmaking.) But of course the sex/nudity got the bulk of the article. I wonder if that's necessary (I don't care for reviews that give plot points away - there's a reason that the filmmakers wrote it so she is seen being asked to "uncover herself" at the beginning but her response is not seen until the end.) Of course the writer knows this is going to catch attention.

And, unfortunately - it does. Full confession: I am more intrigued than ever. The trailer hints at the erotic but has such a clean, almost sanitized look to Diane's 1950's surroundings (definitely fairy-taleish, with a house that is "too" bright and everything "too" much in place - including Diane herself); the trailer hints that darker things are going on and this review confirms it - that Shainberg "goes there".

Not a film for some of our younger viewers perhaps - but then again, I am (perhaps unrealistically) shocked when I read posts from members who saw EWS at 13 or 14 - and "got it" and were not the least uncomfortable. (I guess I was more "sheltered" growing up than I ever imagined.)

Thanks,romantic!

Thanks romantic. A very intriguing article. I have to say that it makes me want to see it even more. I too hope that the 'brilliant performance' is indeed earnest feedback.

Wierd heading for an article But anyway, I knew it! If you search for my comment in the trailer thread, I said I can see strong nudity comming from Nicole in here...



Well, I have some wild imagination but can't imagine what could be more "graphic" than those black/white flashbacks Tom was having of her and the sailor in EWS, the kinky sex she had as a Russian mail bride or that love scene from Cold Mountain in which she had to wear a patch of fake hair on her... ehm "lower body" because of the explicit filming angle

Anyhow, she is acting smartly as usual, I believe her plan is to make Fur her last effort at eroticism and nudity which she did -cleanly and classy- more frequently than any other A list actress except maybe for Charlize. Now she's married properly in Church and turning 40, she'll start a new chapter as a new, more conservative Nicky (weird coupling of smilies but I'm happy for her yet will miss naughty Nicole )

Dear Satine, this is due to the internatinal nature of this board and the varaity of censorship laws worldwide. In Netherlands, Sweden and France they show uncut movies to 12 years olds that was rated R (US) 18 (UK) after being cut!!! UK censors are more open to sex and nudity than the US ones, but very strict when it comes to violence. So we see the "group fun" scene of EWS playing unedited in UK but edited in US, while in the mean time "Last House on the Left" is available unedited in the US but Banned in UK.

Every country has it's sensitivity; Holocaust, sex, religion, violence, Royals, Minors etc..

Here everything is banned, so by the time I was 9 I had already seen everything but using backdoors. And that is why I think censorship is stupid and only adds to confusion. You do not see more sexual crime rates from the censorship free Scandinavia and sure rate of violent crimes in UK is not lower than Netherlands or Spain.

Did I give you any roses this week? Here is one to be sure

Just when I thought my interest couldn't get ANY higher....Thanks romantic! As Red said, there was an erotic undertone in the trailer but this actually goes further then what I was expecting. Were going into EWS territory here. And to tell you the truth, that is one of my favorite aspects about Nic. That she isn't afraid to go there.

I'm going to be there the first chance I get but I can't help but feel sorry for our younger(but still vastly mature) members who may miss out.

I won't assume that it's her "last effort at eroticism" Adrian, if I may respectfully beg to differ? We won't know that until her life and career are over ("It ain't over 'til it's over"), and I certainly don't know what her plans or intentions are.

I'm not sure why her being married and turning 40 should mean the end of "erotic" roles. She did erotic material whilst married before (and a mother, and a Catholic, if not always a practicing one); and why must "turning 40" mean she has to switch gears? Male actors are not expected to cease doing erotic roles or love scenes - they just keep demanding younger and younger actresses. The great myth in our culture that modern (primarily American) cinema contributes to is the notion that women after 40 cease to be "women" in the fullest sense, and cease to be sexual beings and have an active sensual lives and imaginations - if indeed they are allowed to exist onscreen at all. I assure you nothing is further from the truth. (My personal view is that we don't really to begin to enter our womanhood, our sense of ourselves, until we start approaching our mid-30's to 40's.)

There's been a great deal of hair-tearing from all quarters about Nicole approaching 40, as if that were some sort of tragedy, for which we must prepare the eulogies. ("She has a great career going - and then she turned 40. Such a shame.") It's coming from everyone's pens and tongues except Nicole's own. We don't fuss over male actors turning 40 - they just keep going in their careers. They same should be true of Nicole - I think we're going to see continued layers and depths and surprises from her (if she decides to keep acting and there are well-written roles that interest her and visionary directors that excite her). The future may or may not hold more overtly erotic roles for her (and erotic as we know does not necessarily mean "nude" or "explicitly sexual"), but no one (including the critics such as David Thomson, who claims to be a 'concerned stranger') not put any barriers or prohibitions on what work she may or may not do as an actress - indeed, what she may or may not do in any part of her life. The choice is her's and her's alone.

It is never about her being less "sexy" or "erotic" once she hit 40. But it is more the perception of people who -while we may think are being silly- are the ones who pay money to watch a film. Look at "Basic Instinc 2" by one of the biggest Icons of Erotica. 8 of each 10 negative reviews were nothing about the film itself, rather ridiculing Sharon's age in a manner that seemed very childish from some critics.

I can understand that you, being at the steps of 40 yourself, would not accept any implication that this would make you less sexually desirable by men, but this is not waht I'm saying! I'm watching movie viewers' perception of over 40 actresses as erotic figures and predict that Nicole, as smart as she is, will not put herself in a position to be exposed to such criticism, and I have always been good at predictions



My view too. My best relation ever was with a 42 woman when I was 25. Security, maturity and enough experience to avoid any stupid behaviour or fall outs and of course this reflected itself on intimacy, taking it to levels like nothing I've experienced before. It only ended because society pressure was too big for us to handle.



P.S. when you make posts without any smilies I get the feeling that you want to punch me on the nose

This is indeed getting interesting but we're right back where we were some threads ago talking about the opportunities that over 40 actresses have and the impression of society - and critics -that their careers or that 'part' of their lives are over. Maybe not the exact discussion but still relevant.

I thought that I was going against the grain at the time thinking that the underpinnings of society still go against the woman over 40. I think we all agree it's a slanted view, but it still persists in one fashion or another. Nicole doesn't seem to be sweating it but it's still discussed as a milestone of sorts. I'd love to see her prove them wrong...she has plenty of fantastic roles left in her...whatever she so chooses. Of course in my view, she need not prove anything...

And what can be more Graphic than " Birth"! I prefer to see Nicole with all her clothes, but I don't think that would happen.

Thanx 4 da article Romantic 41 days til November 10th Even tho it will probs b shown in da UK later on

~Viviana~

Birth was conterversial, but not graphic.



I have no idea what does this mean? You can skip movies with nudity, I believe!

Thanks romantic.

thank you so much romantic. lol.
I was thinking of taking my mom to see the film with me;
now i think im having second thoughts lol....
but im excited that nicole will have another "serious, deep" movie
i think those are the best ones she makes

thanks for the article. i don't particularly care if she's naked or not. i think that kind of limitless notion helps in understanding the character more instead of "oh nicole's naked again" or the like. plus, it fits with the dark mood reminiscent of and a nod to diane arbus' work. i can't wait for this! i just wish that article didn't spoil those details. it'd be nice to be shocked/surprised. and i agree, "birth" wasn't graphic. if it was, i can only imagine what one would call "irreversible" or those european art house films.

Excellent movie, love how realistic it was.

thanks romantic! i really cant wait to see this movie... nicole will be amazing as usual.

I just happened to catch "Birth" on TV last night. I think the sex scene between Anna and her fiance may be considered graphic.

No, it may not

Not the right place to define "Graphic sex/nudity", but it certainly isn't some guy's butt and 2 seconds of Nicole's bare breast !! You must be very innocent to consider "Birth" so

I didn't say I considered it graphic. I just said it may be considered so since somebody here brought it up.



back at ya fella

No, here you go

definately I'm not taking my mom to see Fur with me.

I remember when she was watching Cold Moutain and she was like: "If I knew this movie had a scene like that ( the hot one ) I would never let you buy it" and I was like " Mom, come on, I'm 16". I didn't tell her I have Eyes Wide Shut.

thanks for the article romantic! I was expecting it after reading all those reviews.

Punch that adorable buss? Oh goodness me no! I was simply answering a strong opinion with a strong opinion - we can certainly disagree and still respect one another, oui? (Besides, I am a pacifist, you know.)

Here you go:



As I recall I was too much of a chicken to step in on that earlier thread, scarlett and I ought to apologize. I DO think you have a point about the women over 40 having a difficult time finding well-written roles (never mind lead roles). As an example, I was reading People Magazine this week, and it had an article about Karen Allen (Raiders of the Lost Ark, In the Bedroom); and she said she found more recently that when she tried for roles the casting directors wanted "a younger Karen Allen." (Interestingly, she went back to school, studied textiles and discovered a love of knitting, opened "Karen Allen Designs" in Great Barrington Massachusetts - a very pretty, touritsty area in the mountains - and has a shop selling her handmade custom knit sweaters, and has celebrity customers. So it IS possible to enjoy a second life after acting!)

The point remains, however, that there seems to be a "wall" up around actresses of a certain age, although I know skanky would disagree. Here's hoping Nicole and her collegues (Cate, Kate, Julianne, etc) can change that.

edit: well, I'm reading into the thread you are refering too right now and I might re-think some of that stuff!!

oh i love you guys! anyway,the sex scene in birth i thought had purpose. notice when she started telling him about the boy, his pace begins to increase and he took her hands (and controlled them). it's the insecurity of man and the nature of creatures (naked, in every sense of the word). it's not vulgar nor graphic - but all's relative.

Adrian, in my opinion those words are the mark of a mature human being!



Now I've GOT to watch that film. Thanks for the detail, kiki - exactly the sort of thing that film critics ought to be watching for and don't.

The article is very interesting. I cant wait to see this movie. I must say that I dont particular like nude/sex scenes in films. They make me a little uncomfortable. But I guess if it is part of telling a story, I am ok with that. For instance, EWS was cleverly done and I really enjoyed that movie. The sex scene between Nicole and Robert might be just like the one in EWS, we will have to wait and see. Anyways, I think the important thing is that the article mentioned that Nic is terrific in this role and I cant wait to see it. Even a Oscar buzz...hope Nicole wins another Oscar.

I'll repeat something I said exactly one year ago when we were hoping for a nod for Birth; since she did Dogville Nicole was marked with a big red X by the academy members. Even no more nominations.

I hope I'm proved wrong but anyway to hell with them and their politics, Nicole is the best actress in the history of cinema and we don't need them to tell us

I don't know if she was consciously marked with an X by the academy, adrian, but I agree with you that we don't need them to tell us how good she is.

She got her "crowning" (Oscar, Golden Globe, etc etc etc) for The Hours (and the The Others, etc), and since then there's been a bit of a critical backlash but no matter. She is still sought after and still one of the hardest working actors in the industry.

At any rate, very few people have been recipients of numerous Oscars for "Best Actor/Actress" and Nicole already got her's (which most likely is on her mum's mantel at the moment.) And she's got lots of other paperweights in her house. That she is sought after and working is far more important (and preferable to being critically lauded and awarded - and then disappearing from view.)

I have no problem with the notion that she mightn't get another one - she is forever "Academy Award-winner" whether she wins one or ten of them.

The Academy does not traditionally award "edgy" "weird" or "erotic"; there seems to be a comfort zone from which films and perfomances cannot stray if they want that little golden man. And you can still do everything "right" and not get one. C'est la vie.

I know a lot of early reviews and buzz have spoken favorably about Helen Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth II in "The Queen." Now I dare say I'm more fallable than you in these matters adrian but my gut tells me she'll be the one to beat this year - IF she can overcome the Academy's preference these past few years of going home with younger women. Certainly the other women whose names have been bandied as possible contenders this year are all worthy, and it wouldn't bother me to see it go with any of them. (Especially Mirren.) I'm a great believer in "sharing the wealth".

I hope you are wrong Adrian and that Nicole wins the Oscar for the second time or at least get a nomination. Nicole is the best actress in my opinion. Do you mind me asking why do you think she was marked with a big red x adrian?

Have you seen Dogville and got what they were trying to say? This is one of the biggest anti-american films ever, and it does this with such a craftsmanship that its effect is unforgettable on the long term. An odd individual will tell you the film is about humanity and not the USA specifically, but just tell him that the trilogy is called U (Dogville), S (Manderlay), A (Washington). Let alone the end song "Young americans" with pictures of suffering Americans who are -in the director's view- like Grace were chewed and enslaved by America then spit on the sidewalks.

The academy is known to give the awards with poloitical motivations, like how after 9-11 they gave best actor and actress to two black people just because of it and how they denied an excellent movie like "Brokeback Mountain" the award and gave it to that meaningless mixture of "Magnolia" and "House of Sand and fog" called "Crash"!

NOw, now, don't hold back on our account, adrian - tell us what you REALLY think!

I disagree somewhat with your sentence about "An odd individual will tell you that the film is about humanity and not the USA specifically..." Then I guess that makes me "an odd individual" - along with Glenn Kenny, who reviewed it for Premiere Magazine (March '04) here in the US, calling it von Trier's "first masterpiece":

" 'But is it anti-American?' That's the rap it got in Cannes, largely because of some comments von Trier made there, the kind of bait the filmmaker can't resist dangling before observers who are never going to get him - Jekyll or Hyde - anyway. For Dogville's end credits, Mr Hyde comes out to play and throws more chum in the water, offering a montage of disturbing photos depicting real poverty in real America, cheekily scored to a vintage pop hit. Weirdly enough, this cheap shot doesn't cheapen the film so much as throw another light on it - here is a case where von Trier's Jeykll and Hyde sides have a common cause...Dogville isn't so much Anywhere, USA as anywhere."

And as an american myself (U.S. citizen, born and raised) I agree largely with Mr Kenny's review. There was quite a bit more to it, of course. (The ending credits did not strike me personally as a "cheap shot" when I saw it - I was sitting there nodding my head in agreement - every lyric of "Young Americans" suddenly had new relevance in relation to the film, especially "Give every woman a sock on the jaw". I went with a friend who later said "I wish he'd left the enclosed studio" and I pointed out that von Trier did, in the form of the photo montage at the end.)

I do recall visiting the Dogville website far in advance of the film's release, reading interviews on the 'net with Mr. von Trier, etc and early on he talked about how his film was inspired partly by the more restrictive immigration interviews that had been recently been passed into law in Denmark. He spoke of that quite often in fact, before the film was released, and in more general terms of "man's humanity against man", the song "Pirate Jenny" from The Threepenny Opera, that touched upon such issues, etc. It was only after the film was first screened and the critics started howling "anti-American" that THAT became the exclusive focus.

And no doubt the "anti-american" charge made for better copy, more publicity and bigger headlines than an "anti-Danish immigration policies" tag would have. (In any case, the charge did not hurt Nicole's chances with the Academy that year - Dogville is the sort of film that hasn't got a chance of any sort with the Academy, period.)

I see how the film applies to US policies (have you ever read John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, adrian?) but watching it I could see how it could be applied to other times and places as well. In fact, I thought that was part of the purpose of the soundstage setting - the audience has to participate in the making of the film, connecting the dots and seeing the scene in their mind's eye, while at the same time implying that with a slight change of props and costumes this could have been done in another era, another country, etc.

And really for me the film is not so much about GOVERNMENT (in fact there is no "government" in the film except the law of mob - whoever has the most firepower wins) as about the indivdiuals - how each person wants to see themselves as good, but so easily casts other people as "other" and non-human to maintain their own comfort level and self-image. What the film said to me when all was said and done was that none of us are exempt from this - and no one gets out of here alive.

Forgive the digression. I'd best add a - I wouldn't want you to think I want to punch you! Believe me, I find these civilized conversations most stimulating.

As usual, very well composed argument by the lovely Satine But maybe missing my point just a bit; yes, it applies to lots of people and lots of countires and the way they treated the poorer and less fortunate, but the director's intentions were to make a film that is 100% critical to a specific country, even if he later made some interviews with a different tune to east things on Lions Gate who took the missiong of distributing it in America. The USA tells you about his intentions,and this is why Nicole is being marked for it.

If you saw Manerlay, you'll see how my take is substantiated, if there was some "maybe" in Dogville, Manderlay makes it clear and visible that it can't be anywhere but America, the unique history of Afrian slavery, the real life rules that governed their lives up to the late 1920s and if not anything, the lynching pictures in the end song too. (Real lynching where a mob took two black people, cut off parts of their bodies then lynched and set them on fire!!)

The director's intent can't be missed, and intent is what they are marking the cast for. Wasn't it a hint that Nicole pulled out after the first part?

By the way, I'm trying to explain why I think this movie is hated, not that I agree with many of the stuff in it. Unlike the director I have read the history of nearly all the world and I know that injustice and unequality have been praciced everywhere and to degrees much worse than whatever he accuses america of doing!

Here is your Monday rose

Adrian by what you are saying it would stand that Bryce Dallas Howard will never receive an Oscar nod because of her participation in Manderlay.

Last winter I bought book called "Dogville vs Hollywood" by Jake Horsley. Subtitled: The war between independent film and mainstream movies.

It is the authors contention that Dogville was not anti-American but anti-Hollywood. There are only a couple of chapters that speak about Dogville specifically. In these the author gives his reasons for saying it is more specifically about Hollywood. The rest focuses on a number of directors and how the Hollywood machine effects independent movie makers.

I'll admit I haven't seen Manderlay yet, adrian, so maybe I'll do so now that I'm home more. I can see your point. When I saw Dogville there was no Manderlay yet and the earlier interviews (about Danish policies and so forth) were still fresh in my head - tending to be more lucid, and less "on the offensive" than the Cannes interviews. (His talk about the film at Cannes reminded me of why an artist - regardless of the medium - should allow their work to speak for itself. It seemed to me at Cannes he was very defensive and at the same time almost surprised at the reaction to the film. That's trying to have it both ways - knowinging making a potentially challenging, provocative film that is sure to offend some people, and then tsk-tsking when viewers are challenged, provoked or offended.)

I don't quite understand your point about the USA theme and Nicole. She had wanted to work with von Trier, and certainly he (and his producers) knew that having Nicole in the lead would gain the film much more attention than it would have than any number of provocative, challenging films made in other countries that win a few awards and polite applause and unfairly disappear from sight. She's an international star - her involvement got the film international attention long before it was released. That's part of what having someone like Nicole does for a film. (The downside of that is that it's harder to stay secret and private and release a film that not too many people have heard of but has a chance to stand or fail entirely on its own merits, either critically or at the box office, and perhaps even become a "sleeper" hit.)

I recall von Trier provoked Nicole - it was on film at a press conference - into stating that she was going to do his next film. What could she do except say "You know I will?" That she pulled out may say less about the film itself (when has Nicole ever shied away from difficult material?) and, I suspect, more about her relation with the director and the treatment she received from his production company (snide comments were released about her to the newspapers from the head of the production company before she even signed on, abated a bit during production, and then resumed when she did not sign for Manderlay (which starred Bryce Howard, who IS American - the daughter of Ron Howard, of "Mayberry" and "Happy Days" fame, for goodness sake. You don't get any more apple-pie American than that. )

Interesting, In Theory; it sounds like a book I'd enjoy reading. For me, the thing about "art" (and it doesn't have to be "great" or "good" art whatever that means, it doesn't have to be flawless or universally loved or even liked) is that it leaves room for interpretation by whomever is experiencing it.

I promise you she'll never Ont bit of well known trivia to prove my point, read this too Satine: all the black cast in this movie were British except for two because African American actors rejected the parts fearing the backlash in America (check it in IMDB Trivia)



Do watch it! But careful because they actually kill a poor donkey on the set , and there is a great deal of Graphic male and female nudity/sex in it. I know you fast forward these stuff



Yes she wanted, but it is very obvious that she regret this and pulled out of the project which lead to; a change of Grace (no director wants this, imagine if they'd got another lead to play Frodo in LOTR or replaced Keira in PiratesOTC 2), Manderlay was no where near Dogville quality and the third part "Washinton" is put on hold and there is a probability it will not be done.

The situation with Nicole is similar to that of Peter O'Toole's with "Caligula" (1979) or that of Christopher Lee with Jesus Franco's "Eugenie" (1970)! Both are big stars who were lured to participate in those two movies without really realizing what was going on, then later when they dicovered these were soft porn films they screamed their lungs out that they were fooled by the sneaky directors !! Nicole is still in limbo now but she WILL scream it some day



(edited out)

Now, I have mentioned examples from Cinema history and provided samples of similar arguments and trivia bits I bet you did not know. If all of this, and the fact that the trilogy is called "U.S.A. The land of opportunity" aren't enough to convince you he is an anti-american director, then I rest my case ! (Happy to rest it in front of lovely Satine, it's as good as getting beaten up by Nicole )

Oh, did you know that Dogville was #99 on IMDB all time top #250 until it was released in the USA, then american voters took it out in one of the fastest exits I've seen on IMDB since I went there in 1998-99 ??

Adrian, love, before we get a scolding from Foxy, the goddess of all things Kidman - I think you and I have wandered into dangerous - and for this board - inappropriate territory. Please PM if you feel free, but I have a feeling that the discussion regarding Mr Gibson is especially out of bounds.

The comparison with Caligula is odd - whatever it's faults, Dogville is not pornography, and whether or not she ever works with von Trier again, it is not a film she need ever be ashamed of. (And its a risk that Nicole is certainly willing to take time and again, given that she often accepts projects long before there is a script, because she wants to work with certain directors.) And my impression was that you were praising Dogville for its strong stance - now to compare it to some rather unsavory films seems an insult to it.

And it has not been unheard of btw for sequels to have a different actor or actress playing the part than in the original, throughout cinema history. I can point to a recent example - Julianne Moore taking on the role of Clarice that Jodie Foster won an Oscar for in Silence of the Lambs, when Foster dropped out. (I believe Moore was displeased by the script and dropped out at the last minute, but that's hearsay or what I can recall from an interview with Anthony Hopkins.) Usually it is the actress who is considered more "replaceable" than the male actor in such situations.

I took out the Mel Gibson criticism parts, you're right, we should not attack anyone here. Was just giving an example of previous directors who were "surprised"

Dogville is not pornography, I am giving examples of how big stars can do some movies without knowing the director's real intents.

I love Dogville! I'm a fair guy, can't just say a movie was bad because I disagree with the director's views! It's like how I disagree with Godfather's portrayal of crimes and criminals as something mystical and beautiful but I'd be a hypocrite to deny it was a masterfully made flick.

Of course it was done before, but I'm saying it never was a good thing; Hannibal was never on par with SOTL, not critically, not awards-wise and not even at the box office.

To sum it up, I hope she gets all the awards in the world, but she is marked since Dogville, a huge mark indeed that they rather give Paris Hilton an Oscar but not her

On the other hand expect lots and lots of European awards for her and Fur. Europen awards are still about art, not politics