[review] of Fur- an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus

Skip to the bottom line, worth seeing? Yes. Is this a movie about

photography that a photographer might learn from or marvel over Diane's work?

Nope. Actually, none of Diane's work is even in the movie, which was kinda

surprising. Although the characters she photographed are throughout the

movie, just being themselves. Is this a movie Nicole Kidman did to stretch

her acting skills and resume? Absolutely. And Robert Downey jr. did it, just

to further enhance his odd-character wierdness. His character is the

imaginary part of the portrait of Arbus. To me, it is more a glimpse into her

artistic mind on the verge of mild insanity moving towards suiside and leaving

the 'good life' behind.

 

Considering the talent involved in the movie, this is a cheapie artsy film

with a very short run. It only ran 5 days here. And on the 5th and last day

when I saw it, only 12 people were in the theater. However, this is extremely

well filmed, no surprise. Half way through the movie, I'm thinking, this

would be great in B+W, but it has a nice 60's color feel.

 

Could the movie of been done differently, to further enhance the Arbus

legacy and promote (her) photography? Maybe, but 10 million people didn't

show up to see it anyway, not knowing this wasn't a great photography movie,

about wonderful creative photography. Obviously, people who make still

pictures don't automatically swarm moving pictures about still pictures.

 

This is a movie about character study. If you liked Kirk Douglas portraying

Van Gogh, you will love this, for what it is.

Some interesting information as to the economics of the show.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=fur.htm

I saw "Girl with a Pearl Earring" the other day, and was similarly surprised that they didn't

even use good copies of the original Vermeer paintings in the movie. As to the Arbus

Legacy, when I saw the big show at the V&A in London recently. I was disappointed to not

be able to buy any postcard of the photos - apparently Arbus' daughter, who controls the

estate, is incredibly strict about releasing copyright on any photos and they weren't

allowed to use any images for the shop. I sure hope when they have my posthumous

exhibition in the V&A my heirs allow people who pay $20 to see the exhibition to take

home a postcard or two for the memory.

 

Not sure about FUR - saw a trailer recently and was interested because of the subject, but

not convinced it was going to be a great movie. Glad you enjoyed it.

 

Would you recommend we go see it ?

Yes. Because its a good movie and very well acted. And, because its about the dark side of artistic thought and passion.

 

I may have to see it again for one reason- although there were no Arbus photographs in the movie, one of the still photographers listed in the ending credits was - Mary Ellen Mark. Sometimes "still photographers" help frame scenes for the movie camera, or maybe, some of Mary's pictures hung on a wall somewhere, would have to look closer.

Read the book it was based on: Diane Arbus, a Biography, by Bosworth...the book is great!

I could never see a movie that had Nicole Kidman playing Diane Arbus, especially after I saw her do the hack job in Cold Mountain.