Venus in Fur (2014)

One of my all time favorites.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Venus in Fur is the new film from famed French director Roman Polanski. The film tells the story of Thomas, (played by Mathieu Almalric) a playwright who has decided to try directing because as he says, "other directors always get it wrong." He choose to adapt the novel Venus in Fur, written by Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch, (the founder of machoism) but is struggling with finding an actress to play Vanda, the lead female character. Just as he's about to leave, one final actress, whose name happens to be Vanda, (played by Emmanuelle Seigner) shows up to audition for the part. Very quickly Thomas decides that Vanda is perfect for the role, and they start to go through the play acting scenes out, discussing the play, discovering things about each other and the lines between reality and fiction begin to blur. Venus in Fur is adapted from a play, which makes it Polanski's second play-to-film adaptation in a row. (The previous being Carnage.) If you told me I was going to be watching a Polanski film about machoism, this is not what I'd expect. I mean this is the guy who brought us Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby. But instead of being a dark twisted psychological horror film, Venus in Fur is instead a subtle subdued film that studies the relationship between author and subject matter, and how art imitates life and life imitates art. A concept that was, unfortunately for Venus in Fur, explored much better in Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman a film released only a year after Venus in Fur. That's not stay that Venus in Fur does a bad job, the film raises several interesting questions about how much of themselves authors put in their work, and how the audience interprets that work.If you somehow knew that the two leads in Venus in Fur also play the two leads in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly just by reading their names and recognizing that they were both in it, then good job because that is some serious name recognition skill. Both actors, like in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, do great work in Venus in Fur. The characters conflict with each other perfectly, I don't mean that they completely disagree on everything, I mean that they disagree on a certain number of things and they agree on a certain number of things for their characters to have great chemistry. The entire film relies on these two characters being good and the actors being good, and luckily both of these things are true. Venus in Fur is at heart a teleplay and while it's no 12 Angry Men, it's still pretty good. Venus in Fur can be a little dull and tedious at parts, but never for to long, and the ending is far from satisfying. Besides these two things, I don't really have any other issues with the film.Venus in Fur is not the best Polanski film, and if you haven't ever seen another Polanski film before in your life I would recommend checking out Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, or Chinatown before watching Venus in Fur. I'd like to end by saying that the film feels like one that you would put on a rainy Sunday afternoon, a very calm slow film that lets you soak in the atmosphere and style while never forcing any dark heavy stuff at you, Very comfy.6.8/10

With his last two films, ""Carnage" and now, "Venus in Fur", Roman Polanski proves that he is a master of the intimate, the theatrical and a terrific director of actors. Of course, on both occasions he's had really good source material from which to work; both plays won the Tony. "Venus in Fur", of which we are concerned here, is a two-character piece based on the play by David Ives, who co-wrote the script with Polanski. It's set in a deserted theatre where Thomas. (Polanski lookalike Matheiu Amalric), is trying to find an actress to play the heroine in his adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel "Venus in Fur". He's had a fruitless day when in walks Vanda who just happens to know his play inside out and has the same name as the character she aims to play.What follows is a case of art imitating life as director and star move effortlessly into their roles with devastating and devastatingly funny results. Here we have a film about a sado-masochistic relationship as well as a film about putting on a play, though fundamentally this is a film about role-play and the art of acting and both Amalric and especially Emmanuelle Seigner as Vanda are superb and not in the least in a theatrical way; they play not to an audience but to the camera and I luxuriated in their company. Here, too, is a movie that is sharp, smart and very funny and one which will rank with the very best of this director's work.

"Venus in Fur" is Roman Polanski's mostly successful screen version of the hit Broadway play with a dynamite conceit. A cocky playwright and director is auditioning actresses for a new play. In comes a flighty eccentric who he at first dismisses but who over the course of the story teaches him a little something not only about the character he wrote but about women in general. It's sort of a nightmare version of the Pygmalion myth, in which the creator's creation comes to life, but this time she's not willing to be submissive.The film's biggest flaw is that Emmanuelle Seigner, despite giving a terrific performance, is just too old for the role. This wouldn't necessarily have to be a detriment by the time the play ends, but it doesn't make sense that she's as old as she is at the beginning before some of the play's twists have fallen into place. And Polanski opts to change the ending, doing away with the simple but effective ending of the stage version and instead leaving things on a much more ambiguous note. I preferred the more simple ending, and think it would have gone farther toward making Seigner's age less of an overall issue.But aside from those criticisms, "Venus in Fur" is a fun romp of a movie, and probably about as cinematic as a two-character play set entirely on an empty stage could be.Grade: A-

"She taught me the most valuable thing in the world." Thomas (Matthew Amalric)"And what did she teach you?" Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner)" That nothing is more sensual than pain. That nothing is more exciting than degradation." ThomasRoman Polanski's Venus in Fur, adapted from Leopold Van Sacher-Masoch's novel, Venus in Furs, is a two hander with a first-time stage director and adapter, Thomas (Polanski), and an actress (Seigner, Polanski's wife) trying out for a part in his play at an old Parisian theater. It's as raw a film as it is delicate. He's at the end of a long audition day with women who don't fit the part, and she straggles in when he's ready to go, in no mood for her tardiness or her lack of sophistication, much less her bondage outfit with dog collar. This time pain hardly seems sensual, until Vanda pulls out all the personality stops by eventually auditioning him.As in the play of life itself, nothing is as it seems; as in Polanski's other worlds, identity is a matter of power. She challenges him about his misconception of her talent (she's made for the part—even has the character's name) and proceeds to take a dominant role in acting and interpreting. In other words, the tables turn while woman takes the traditionally male aggressive role and he becomes her slave and even takes her part. When she ties him to a gigantic phallic cactus, the absurdity is painless, a testimony to imaginative stagecraft and pleasant Freud.Polanski, never afraid to deal with strong women in his films (Tess and Carnage come to mind immediately), as well as the real-life tragedy of his wife's murder, places Vanda prominently in each of her frames; his surrogate, Thomas, even looks like Polanski's younger self. Thus, the film becomes a convoluted feminist tome while it also comments on the relationship between actors and their directors. Whatever it all may mean about Roman Polanski's personal relationships with women, it is a witty 96 minutes of repartee and gamesmanship, where roles are fluid, both with characters and actors.The pain of his self revelations, which she forces him to see, turns out to be a pleasure for a playwright directing for the first time and facing an actress gifted and formidable. Both actors, by the way, are exemplary."It's 'a little love' you suggest? No, it's the power that interests you." Thomas