La Vénus à la fourrure (2013) Reviews

• a movie in furs, but smooth as silk

  Iwould2013-11-21

  Since I had not been able to fully appreciate the recent Polanski works, this movie has been for me a big surprise. I especially disliked "Carnage" because I found it predictable, and therefore boring – and I know very well I was quite alone in my opinion, but still. For this reason, I was biased towards another movie from the same director featuring just a couple of characters secluded in an interior. But, eventually, I found "Venus" surprising and exciting (and please don't misunderstand: excitement entirely came out of surprise). The script, apparently simple, is a jewel with many shining facets, a brilliant movie translation of a witty stageplay inspired by a meaningful and modern book. It is like a very complex choreography, a delicate and fragile thing, very easy to spoil unless the execution is perfect. But the great work of the director and of the actors have produced a real masterpiece that maintains a high level of tension and interest throughout his whole running time. Thanks to the brilliant connections between literature, stage and reality, and thanks to the many things that remain unclear about the character's real identities and motivations, this movie sounds much more like a question than like a an answer: some kind of Rorschach spot to test the opinion of the audience about the relationships between a man and a woman, between the lover and the beloved one. Go see it with an open mind, and you won't be disappointed: even in a worst case scenario you will find an interesting piece of conversation, so anyhow your time will be well spent.

• Wow, what to say....

  punishable-by-death2014-04-02

  The short plot synopsis for this film is so misleading. But you know it is Polanski, so naturally something, probably strange, will begin to transpire. And strange it is. This actress arrives covered in rain, hours late, and is not on the audition list. Yet, with much persuasion, the director, reluctantly, agrees to do some lines with her, and after she starts he begins to take her seriously. He stops thinking she is a lunatic. Suddenly he picks up the script and they are engaged in the lines. But as they rehearse the lines, they argue over trivial matters like the placement of one of their characters, to the actresses' perceived misogynistic take on the book. But as they argue, something pulls them back into the story, and they are suddenly and instantly back in character. It really is a trip. From this point on, there this a story within the play unfolding, and it begins to get very strange as you watch them rehearsing, then suddenly you realise they have actually been arguing for the last minute! It keeps you guessing constantly, and as they explore the subject matter further, the blurring of the play and reality increases as they both become more passionate about the subject matter. And into Polanski territory the film goes. This movie is easily the best film he has made in the last 30 or so years. It reminds me of The Tenant, it has that sorta of weird, surreal and creepy vibe. Kudos to Polanski, who, much like in Carnage, makes full use of the single set, in this case a small theater, with the final act of the movie actually taking place on the stage of this theater itself, which adds to the visual niceties. The camera is constantly moving around the theater, not once was I bored as the dialogue was so intriguing, funny in a dark way at times, but also pretty effed up, which I guess is due to the original text, and who does effed-up films better than Polanski? I'm not sure of the running length, but this film felt like it was an hour long. The ending was incredible, and because of the deft handling of the dialogue, the switching between play and reality, this is something I want to watch again immediately. People think he has gone senile? This is easily his best movie since The Tenant. www.epilepticmoondancer.net

• Bitter moon improved.

  gpreciat2013-11-16

  One thing that movie fans should be reminded is that Roman Polansky is not everyone's cup of tea. In fact Roman Polansky is no newbie in exploring the dynamics of being dominant and submissive in a relationship. As if you have seen "Bitter moon" you must already know that. And if people found boring "Carnage" (which is one of my favorites by him) because it had just fours actors and one scenario, then they are going to find this one even more boring by having just two. To me that is the magic of Polansky, he can keep us in trance with an old theater and just his favorite actress and a Polansky look alike two thousand years younger old actor. I must confess I have never read the original book or watch the original play which this is based to, I don't think it is necessary to do it to really grasp what is happening here. The thing here is that, there is a woman and a man, in different hierarchies, they are no equals. He is a writer who will stage his adapted play and she is an actress looking for a job. In fact during the whole movie/play they never reach equality, there is always one on top and one who is submissive, but who is playing which role is for the audience to interpret. I must admit that when I saw the trailer and saw that Emmanuelle Seigner was in it, I had my doubts that she could pull once again the sensuality that is due to the role, after all she is already fifty, she doesn't have anymore that innocent and sensual look that she had when she was twenty years younger. But not only she pulled the role, she made it hers in my point of view. It is really intriguing to see how she takes this stranger and changes him and manipulates him with just her sensuality. In fact I found it a little bit scary the power that this woman had. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend to any fan of Roman Polansky or to people who is interest in the dynamics of human relationships.

• All that can be said...

  cguldal2014-07-04

  There is a lot in the book that is never said or explored. Perhaps the repressed nature of the time and place, of the characters, of the situation is what makes it such compelling material. The play, and the film, bring out all that can be said, and more. The blurring between the modern day actress auditioning for the play as the director/writer reads the male part and the actual play based on the book is done exquisitely. Seigner is an excellent Jackal and Hyde; she basically plays three different women, and a fourth hidden one that comes out in the end. Amalric is a superb choice for this role with his mousy, intellectual temperament a perfect complement to Seigner's looks and physique. Both actors deliver a mesmerizing performance. What was most surprising for me is how much we laughed during the film. It was really hilarious, and the whole theater laughed throughout the film. The contrast between the modern day woman and the character in the book/play, the helplessness of the director against the force of the exquisitely lower class actress, the phone conversations with his "fiancée," and the list goes on... Of course, the film is not without its serious moments. In fact, I'd say it is the see-saw nature of the whole thing that really captivates, where one moment you are laughing at the name of the fiancée's dog, and the next you witness the director reading lines on his knees asking to be enslaved unconditionally and the next the actress and the director are having a yelling match about the sexist nature of the book/play. Recommended for those who are not afraid of the intellectual analysis of art combined with the absurd and ridiculous juxtaposition of the modern and the outdated, the philistine and the intellectual, male and female.

• Mesmerizing and Compelling

  3xHCCH2014-06-11

  "Venus in Fur" is one mesmerizing film, the latest by controversial director Roman Polanski. This is despite having only one setting -- an old Parisian theater on one stormy night. Furthermore, it has only a cast of two -- Emmanuelle Seigner and Mathieu Amalric. There is something so vital about their one hour and a half long conversation that that is simply compelling. Amalric plays Thomas, a stage director conducting an audition for lead actress for his play entitled "Venus in Fur." Seigner plays Vanda, an down-on-her-luck actress who arrived very late for the auditions. Vanda convinces Thomas to still give her a chance to audition. Thomas will soon discover that he will get more than what he bargained for. Amalric and Seigner worked so well together with an electric chemistry that transcends language barriers and subtitles. I would have imagined a younger actress to play Vanda, but I must admit that the 48-year old Seigner still manages to be as sexy and seductive as Vanda should be. Amalric's character was enthralled, and so will you. Of course, director Polanski will not make his wife look bad. This film is based on a play by David Ives, and this was obvious in the way the dialog of the characters went. It was fascinating, and at times confusing, how their conversations moved from within the play's script into reality seamlessly. For people who love the theater, this film that will grab them from the get go all the way to its unpredictable climax.