User reviews

Defying biopic clichés and overlapping reality and fantasy - so that the viewer eventually hardly understands what's real and what's not - "Fur" is definitely a provocative movie, not only another version of "The Beauty and the Beast". The odd subject is handled with impeccable effects and a stunning acting, the obvious question is asked by a HUGE metaphor - what's better between a man covered with fur and snobbish people wearing fur? Truly intriguing the film has some stasis moments that prevent it from being excellent, nevertheless it's about an interesting story, certainly worth viewing. Plus it gives a singular and also metaphorical finale showing Kidman removing her clothing along with her "social vestment".

Being lucky enough to have a free pass for the press this morning I attended the press screening of this film at the Roma Film Festival, which opened today. I would like to share some thoughts. First of all, this is far from being a biographical account of the photographer Diane Arbus. The film, with shows not a single of her works, just covers the few key months in which Arbus discovered to be an artist, leaving her well-to-do environment. One day ante litteram desperate housewife Arbus, married with the mild mannered advertising photographer Allan, looking outside the window sees Lionel, their new neighbour: this is the beginning of the most unusual of love stories, around which the whole film revolves. Lionel, which is an entirely fictional character, suffers from ipertrichosis, a pathological condition which makes his body and his face completely covered with hair. Lionel helps Arbus to discover herself and introduce her to the world of the freaks, like himself is, which would be the subject of most of her work. The title of the film states it is an imaginary portrait of the artist. It's more like a wild fantasy loosely inspired to her figure. Kidman's performance is good, but not mind-blowing. Robert Downey Jr.'s is more interesting: with his face completely covered with hair he manage to create a rather intriguing character, acting just with his eyes and his beautiful voice. I must say that after the screening the press audience was pretty harsh with the film. It's not really a BAD movie, one can say that in its way it has also a kind of weird charm. Steven Shainberg's direction is creative and interesting. Still, the film has many very weak points. There are really A LOT of unintentionally funny things, first of all the striking resemblance between Robert Downey Jr.'s character and Star Wars hairy fellow Chewbacca. Two or there meant to be serious lines made the audience (and me) laugh out loud. A few scenes were nearly ridiculous. If you are a fan of Kidman or Downey Jr. you can give a chance to this film: don't expect a serious work about Diane Arbus, but rather a very strange dream, and maybe you'll enjoy it. 6/10

This interesting mistake of a tribute to noted photographer Arbus would like to charm us with it's eccentricity and romanticize with unhinged love, but usually (and literally) drowns in pretension instead. This "imaginary portrait" is taken quite liberally, and a text introduction should be the first thing to clue viewers into that fact. The problem is, no matter what excess of strangeness comes from the freaky centerpiece relationship, it seems to have little significance in detailing a substantial portrait of this so-called artist, in actuality being a more resonant character study of her opposite. In focusing on Arbus's bizarre friendship with a human oddity, Fur means to plant the seeds on what gave this important photographer an inner logic that helped redefine her craft, though instead ends up wallowing in it's own superficial quirks and thematic bludgeoning. Behind the nuanced acting and artful direction lies a simple relationship film that does all it can to overshadow a lack of insight by feeling heavier and deeper then the script allows.

Coming across a Gillian-lite, director Steven Shainberg is more preoccupied with atmosphere and weirdness to realistically suggest what actually made this woman tick, while essentially being based on nothing substantially true. It is as if this ridiculously fictionalized account became so real to creators, they forgot to focus on why it was created it in the first place, becoming slaves to the concept instead of the cause. Thankfully, the miscalculated project was alluring enough to catch the attention of Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr., two leads who make the strained proceedings infinitely more agreeable simply due to their outstanding talent. Kidman knew why she wanted the title role here, even if she might not have known the material seemed unflattering at best. Her delicate sensuality, irresponsibly conveyed it may be, remains the glue around which to hang this frail portrait, and even if you don't like her character, you will still probably like her. Downey takes things refreshingly low-key and offers up an interesting perspective which could have served the film better, had his name been the imaginary title portrait instead.

In effect, no small part of Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus failures remain due to the title itself. By suggesting viewers, let alone fans of this woman's work, are privy to some factually-based docudrama attempting to recreate inspired moments in her life is a joke to her legacy. What's further, this exploitation goes to great unintentional length to wipe out any integrity the lady might actually have, turning beautiful intent into ugly reality with the flicker of a camera. The complete fictional translation of this insipid character study would have been most appreciated, at least taking away some of the bitterness associated with manipulating this person to a pathetic degree, and instead letting it be the indulgent romance it should.

'Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus' is itself like a beautiful painting. Starting from the photographic visuals, the artistic execution, the use of symbolism and metaphors, the superb camera-work, the incredible performances and stunning art direction, this is one film that is a poetic treat for the viewer. The background score gives voice to the unsaid feelings. Not only is it dazzling to look at, it's thought provoking and a fulfilling cinematic experience.

I loved the use of symbolism and metaphors. Some examples include: The association between the scene where Diane disrobing in the final sequence and the earlier scenes where she dresses up to her neck as part of social etiquette. Then there's the strong contrast between a furry Lionel and the high-classed women who were obsessed with fur and another interesting contrast between Lionel's dark fur and Diane's smooth translucent skin. There are numerous such intriguing symbolism that beautifully stand out. The references to classics like 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Beauty and the Best' and influences of Hitchcock and Kubrick are obvious and brilliantly used. The visuals too represent a strong ideas. They are not just there for mere beauty. The colour blue plays a key role on multiple levels.

Shainberg's direction is awesome but what I liked most was the way Diane felt more 'at home' with the people who were termed 'freaks' rather than her own family or her husband's social circle. Nicole Kidman is magnificent. Robert Downey Jr. too gives an equally subtle and heartbreaking performance. The two share a very passion-filled chemistry which only stresses on the fascination and attraction that draws Diane and Lionel towards each other. Their quiet love story speaks volumes about their internal desires and strong feelings for one another. I've mostly seen Ty Burrell in comedies like 'Out of Practice' and 'Back To You' but here he shows that he can pull off serious roles as well.

Not only is 'Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus' a plot driven film, it can be watched as a character piece, a mood piece, a love story and a period piece. A film that can be appreciated on so many levels, I fail to understand why it gained so little recognition.

There is not a great deal I feel I can say about this film, except that it is one of the strangest and most surreal film I have ever seen.

It was a film which made me constantly want to reach for the 'Off Button' on my remote but at the same time I felt compelled to continue watching it.

In the end I did see the whole film and was glad that I did.

I cannot 'hand on heart' recommend Fur..... as I feel it is one of those films that we simply love or hate. However in my case I simply can't decide and I feel I shall have to watch it again in order to decide which way I feel.

If you like surreal and/or the actors, give the film a viewing, thats the only way to decide how you personally feel.

Plutus

I actually admired the extreme lengths to which the film's creator went in exercising his freedom of artistic licensing in this totally fantastical and imaginative version- fictionalising the source of inspiration behind Ms Arbus's consequent journey into developing her art; to many it may suggest indulging ones-self to the extreme at the risk of inflaming the passions of her loyal fans, I can empathise with those hardcore admirers who were eagerly anticipating an homage to her life and work as the film must have been a source of immense disappointment, bearing very little resemblance to the physical or biographical realities of Ms Arbus and her life...though the title clearly alludes to the fact that this was never the intention. I really enjoyed the film, Nicole Kidman never fails to deliver and visually it was an absolute feast of colour, subtle surrealism, atmosphere and even humour albeit poignant and dark at times.

I particularly liked the harmonious balance in tempo, and rhythm as the story unravels, the subtle and sensitive balance between humour and tragedy, the exploration of the complexity of intimate relationships, the need to find ones own path or destiny however painful and incongruent that journey may be- with social expectation, preconceived values or personal responsibility.

The biographical inaccuracies seem insignificant within the greater framework and although I was hitherto unfamiliar with the specifics of Ms Arbus's life, I still felt that valid insight was gained into the perplexing struggles endured by this artist searching to become true to herself amidst the parental social/emotional pressures and expectations. I was able to recognise an unconfident and yet courageous and strong, empathetic, sensitive woman, uniquely lacking in prejudice given the era and social background from which she came. For the open-minded viewer who appreciates the complexities of life, it is a thought provoking and challenging story which does not stray unforgivably far from a kind of truth.

"Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" is a peculiar little film.

On its surface the film intends to buck conventional wisdom by creating a biographic film made up of fabricated material. This is done in an effort to understand the inner-vision of photographer and photojournalist Diane Arbus whose most famous work was of societal outcasts.

Nicole Kidman plays her in the film, quietly submitting to the oppressive attitudes of the late-1950's. She supports and assists her husband in his photo studio, although she clearly yearns to explore her own artistry. When a mysterious man who conceals himself under an elaborate mask moves in upstairs, she becomes obsessed with him and begins a quest to capture his portrait for herself.

As directed by Steven Shainberg, of "Secretary" fame, "Fur" is a dreamy, visual treat, with a subtle erotic pulse. It's a strange and off-putting film with deliberate pacing and devoted performances by Kidman and Robert Downey Jr.

In order to enjoy 'Fur - An imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus,' Stephen Shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the American photographer, Diane Arbus. Paradoxically, it's the very use of Diane Arbus' name and knowledge to her life and work, that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale.

What becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful WASPish and glamorous Nicole Kidman as the anti-glamorous Jewish Diane Arbus, is that Shainberg didn't get Arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to Arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks.

What follows is a kind of pretty and trivial Beauty & the Beast fantasy biopic with Robert Downey JR as Kidman's hairy fictional love interest. However, it's not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film, but the director's misogynistic stance that Diane Arbus, one of the art world's most singular and original woman photographers, was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. While his previous film 'Secretary' was a study of female masochism, his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely - and flys in the face of the real life Diane Arbus' courage, tenacity and fearlessness in single-handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders.

Imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star Madonna's life with Guy Richie as her Svengali, the man behind her career, and you'll get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is: It can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or just choose to ignore all the facts.

It's a shame because once you remove all reference to Diane Arbus, this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to Secretary. 4/10

Had I taken to heart what the movie reviewer in my local paper had written about this film (and his 2.5 star rating) -- I would not have gone. Fortunately, I checked out IMDb and read that someone had compared it to Jean Cocteau's avant-garde "La Belle et La Bete." Enough said. That commendation, and armed, as I was, with the knowledge that Nicole Kidman has done some exceptional films in recent years (particularly "The Hours," "The Others," and one of my all-time favourite psychological thrillers, "Dead Calm"), I was off to the local art film theatre to join the sparse (perhaps a dozen?) audience of viewers.

In short, this film has set the bar extremely high re: all other films I will see in 2007. One finds not only the influence of Cocteau in the film, but also of Kubrick, Hitchcock, and even of Maya Deren. (ie: there is a stunning image of Kidman/Arbus crawling out of the sea -- a few moments of sheer poetry -- that are reminiscent of Deren's "At Land.") (Also, perhaps a little Jane Campion with the underwater shots near the end.)

This is a decidedly painterly film, with everything from Arbus's dresses to the evocative interiors of Lionel's museum/carnival-like apartment and the film's textures worthy of commentary in both film classes and post-film chats with friends. Contrasts are integral to this film. The paint-peeled walls provide an interesting contrast with the elegant satins and aristocratic dining accoutrement (tea pot, cup), and parallel Lionel's declining health. Arbus's smooth skin vs. Lionel's fur. The staged symmetry of Arbus's husband's white-washed, commercial photography vs. the brilliant chaos in Lionel's apartment. Arbus's wealthy, "proper" parents vs. Lionel's menagerie of "freaks". Many of the shots are framed in interesting, geometrical or architectural ways, or echo camera apertures. The use of the colour blue in some scenes is breathtaking.

Great line -- (not verbatim): Allan Arbus -- "I'm a normal guy, now I have a hole in my ceiling and freaks coming through it."

I also felt the chemistry between the principal characters (a rarity), and believe the pacing greatly attributed to the overall success of the film. The framing -- with the nudist camp -- underscored the change/growth in the protagonist.

As my 20 year old daughter said upon leaving the theatre -- "This is the kind of film that really makes you want to live the life you were meant to." Here here. "Fur" gets five big, bold, blazing stars. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Please, tell your friends.

In 1958, in New York City, the upper class Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) is a frustrated and lonely woman with a conventional marriage with two daughters. Her husband is a photographer sponsored by the wealthy parents of Diane, and she works as his assistant. When Lionel Sweeney (Robert Downey Jr.), a mysterious man with hypertrichosis (a.k.a. werewolf syndrome, a disease that causes excessive body hair), comes to live in the apartment in the upper floor, Diane feels a great attraction for him and is introduced to the world of freaks and marginalized people, falling in love for Lionel.

"Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" is a weird movie, actually a bizarre romance with characters that recall "The Beauty and the Beast". Nicole Kidman is impressively beautiful and gives an awesome performance together with Robert Downey Jr. The director Steven Shainberg from "Secretary" presents another unconventional love story – probably his favorite theme. While I loved "Secretary", a love story between a masochist and a sadistic, I did not like the idea of a "pseudo-biography" of a real woman disclosed in "Fur". I have never heard anything about the photographer Diane Arbus, but I believe that if she was my ancestral, I would not like to see in the movie theaters or on DVD an "imaginary portrait" of her. If this romance is not true or biographical, in my opinion the screenplay should have considered a fictional character. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "A Pele" ("The Fur")

I thought that this film was awful, like stunk on ice awful. Kidman can certainly carry off the doe eyed innocent, but she can't make it interesting. Even RDJr, who is generally worth sitting through almost anything, except this, could not save this or make it worth the 2 hours and change of my life that I will never get back.

Ty Burrell was nice to see in a non-silly role, completely unlike his TV persona.

The movie was painfully boring, pretentious and self conscious to the point of being unwatchable. I must admit, I threw in the towel about 45 minutes in and watched a documentary on PBS. Time better spent.

I saw Fur this afternoon. I went to the 1:30 pm matinée and we were only three in the theater. That's OK… I felt like it was a private showing. From the very start of the making this film, the whole story got my attention, more than any other. It wasn't simply an opportunity to see Robert work – it was my kind of film. I love the unusual, the weird, the unique and all of these elements were in this film. When Lionel tells Diane that he's "been waiting for a real freak" I knew just what he meant. Diane has been forbidding her own self to be true and she suffers from it. Lionel is her liberator, it's a love story of the most spiritual kind since "…there are only two sins; the first is to interfere with the growth of another human being, and the second is to interfere with one's own growth." I thought the chemistry between Nicole and Robert was right on, both of them being seekers of truth. If you believe that the eyes are windows to your soul then you will be unable to take your eyes off the screen. Their journey is in their eyes – you see in them the curiosity, the fascination, the fear, the pain, the joy, the love and finally the liberation of their souls. When the photograph is finally taken, Robert has your heart in his hands. If any of you have gone through that "soul transformation" experience, you will recognize it. If not, it's still a great fairy tale.

I love the sets, the music and the photography because they served the story so well. And all I have to say about the love scene is Oh. My. God. This is a film I want to see again, and again.

As for the mix reviews, maybe, just maybe, if they had not used Diane Arbus' name, the critics would have been kinder and they would have been willing to have more of an open mind. The writer and director used Arbus' claim to fame to explore the spark, the birth if you will of creativity. In any case, those who got it loved it and those who did not get it, smothered it. I guess I don't have to tell you I loved it.

This is another fairly ambitious film by a young American director that fails due to a certain lack of generosity. "Fur" is a brooding, single-note study of a sad young woman's cheerless world. But is it the world of Diane Arbus? The script is very good and the acting top-notch. But the assembled film is the director's film. And it's long and a bit dreary. The great soul-exploring films employing visual poetry - Fellini's "Juliet of the Spirits", Peter Medak's "Ruling Class", and Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man!" - are successful because no matter how dark the terrain, their inventiveness and spirit is wonderfully entertaining. They're fun to watch. Unlike those films, Steven Shainberg's "Fur" is more like Woody Allen's "Interiors". (Harris Yulin and Jane Alexander seem to have stepped into the roles played by E.G. Marshall and Geraldine Page.) "Fur" and "Interiors", both more from the head than the heart, create a psychologically-thick/spiritually-thin atmosphere where a stifling elitism is the order of the day. I suspect Shainberg, like Allen, is unhealthily in love with his youth.

For anyone who cares to know something about the real Diane Arbus, or who values psychological veracity, this film is abysmal. Arbus was a brilliant, talented, restless, and troubled person, but this film depicts her as completely self-involved, and truly bizarre in her taste and judgment. Kidman portrays her as wan and vague, whereas she was someone who knocked people over with her charisma. The totally fictional relationship that is central to the film is quite unbelievable, and Robert Downey is truly annoying in his smirking portrayal of someone who seems to think he's superior to the rest of the world simply because of his affliction. The film depicts this encounter as being the source of Arbus's interest in "freaks," which is a truly banal explanation for the inspiration behind some of the greatest photographs of the 20th century. The mystery to me is why people of some talent and intelligence chose to be involved with this film in any way.

Any instance in which a filmmaker attempts to blend ideas of fact with fiction - especially when that particular fact is fairly well known and tied to an iconic historical figure - they're going to have problems in maintaining a connection with certain factions of their audience. Just look at some previous examples of this same stylistic device in other films; such as Dreamchild (1985) for instance, in which an elderly Alice Liddell reflects on her time spent with Lewis Carroll and his obsessive compulsion to nail her character to the very pages of his most celebrated work. Even more polarising was David Cronenberg's adaptation of the cult novel Naked Lunch (1991), in which elements of the author's life and works were blended together to create a torturous, darkly-comic and highly homo-erotic trek through the damaged psychological territory of a Burroughs-like bug exterminator. A similar approach was also used by director Steven Sodebergh and screenwriter Lem Dobbs with their coolly expressionistic merging of the fantastical and horrific writings of Kafka (1991), with the more mundane, everyday-like tedium of his real life and work.

Fur (2006), which makes its intentions clear with the subtitle "an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus", takes on a similar approach to the films aforementioned; blending elements of personal fact and actual biographical detail with a story that is pure, fairy tale fabrication. Having watched the film just a few days ago, I browsed the Internet for previous reviews to get a sense of how other audiences had approached it. In doing so, I was quite shocked and surprised to see just how violently some viewers had reacted to the film; citing everything from the liberal approach of the film's script, the central performance from Nicole Kidman, and the fundamental message that seems implied by the film's very tender sense of emotional drama as reasons why this film was worthless or simply not good. This surprised me for two reasons, firstly; that these intelligent and well-versed viewers were unable to separate the elements of fact surrounding the real life Diane Arbus and her extraordinary body of work from the quite clearly fabricated depiction of grotesque beauty that the filmmakers create through the imagined relationship between our caricature of Diane and a character named Lionel; a mysterious former carnival performer. Secondly, it surprised me that these viewers felt that Arbus's life would be better served by a routine, by the books Hollywood biopic in which all the facts and back stories are simplified, and we end up with a very simple film about the triumph of the little guy against all odds.

Do people really want bland, cookie-cutter, connect the dots cinema; a struggle over adversary and all the usual nonsense that comes with those A-Z, biographical features, such as Walk the Line (2005) and Ray (2004)? Sadly, it would appear so. What happened to audiences craving imaginative, free-thinking cinema? Something that attempts to deconstruct a greater truth in an intelligent, imaginative and emotionally captivating way that is genuinely suited to the visual, metaphorical capabilities that cinema presents. For me, everything you would need to know about Arbus is here and everything you would need to know about her art is divulged in a number of interesting, highly imaginative visual quirks. You just have to scratch beneath the surface. Read between the lines and you'll see with this film the very psychological impulse and motivation to create something beautiful from the seemingly mundane; to capture that all too fleeting moment and preserve it on film forever. Fur, for me, took us inside the psychological world of Arbus, with none of the black and white moralising or textbook type tedium that often plagues this particular genre; but instead, showing us some of the potential ideas and imagined situations that came to instill her work with such a grotesque sense of beauty.

It has a long been said; "every picture tells a story". That's what this film is about. Anyone can read a book about the real life Arbus; but how on earth is that enriching the cinematic medium? I personally don't look to cinema to find something that is readily available to me at my local library. This film takes us inside Arbus' world and gives us a beautifully told and imaginative back-story that blends elements of real-life fact with references to Gothic literature, fairy stories, history and the subjective power of the art itself. The creative spirit of this film is exactly in tune with Arbus's creative vision. To give us something like the Rocky (1976) of photographer-themed biographical pictures would, to my mind at least, have been a much greater insult to the unique and continually captivating universe that this particular artist created through her work. You may disagree with the approach, or fail to see the appeal of the story, but for me, Fur is the kind of film that I feel I could go back to again and again and still find a number of things worth raving about.

Like one of Arbus's iconic pictures, Fur presents us with something seemingly drab, seemingly bizarre, and allows us to take the time to see the inherent beauty behind it. Like the work of Diane Arbus itself, you can choose to see it as something unfeeling or exploitative, or alternatively, you can see it as a gateway into understanding the enormous amount of empathy that Arbus had for her bizarre and often extraordinary subjects. The direction manages to create a mood and an ambiance that is halfway between the aforementioned William S. Burroughs and the antiseptic 50's Americana of The Bell Jar, with the otherworldly danger and mystique of a film like Pan's Labyrinth (2006). Alongside these stylistic elements we also have continual references to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and the notion of Beauty and the Beast, and all tied together by the fine performances from Kidman as the shackled, stifled Arbus and Robert Downey Jr. as the mysterious and sympathetic Lionel.

I loved Robert Downey, Jr. and the way he moves, the way his eyes express feelings and the way his voice is quiet, assured and gentle but firm. I loved Nicole Kidman's quiet, mousy voice that was seeking to find who she was as a person and subtly challenging the boundaries that have always kept her in. The "freaks" were different and yet portray a part of society that we forget, after all we are Americans and the things that are not "normal" are to be shoved in a corner and forgotten. Obviously, I disagree with that notion. I think looking at the abnormal is alright. To accept these people as some kind of "normal" is probably all they want in their lives too. What is wrong with that? Aren't we suppose to look beyond the physical and into the spirit and soul of a person to judge how they fit in our lives? I loved the way the Lionel new what Arbus was going to do and/or think, how he was gentle with introducing her to this world he new and she didn't. He let her make her own decisions and then proceeded along the course of her decisions. I liked this movie, the set, the costumes, the audio, the make up, and the characters.

Once I realized that this is an imaginary portrait, and not a real biographic portrait, I felt better about Nicole Kidman playing Diane Arbus. Before watching it I was ready to contact the casting director with a list of suggestions of who would have been more appropriate to play Arbus, including, but not limited to, Claire Danes and Lili Taylor.

Once I understood that this was a take-off on the great photographer's life, I accepted that Kidman could do this role. Her big blue-eyed stare, breathless voice, and willowy beauty could fit into this fairy tale portrait of a woman who voluntarily (or not) stepped into a world very different from the one she was born into. If anything, her beauty made her that much more different than the so-called freaks she was attracted to.

As a portrayal of a woman fascinated by people outside the norm, I found this film quite gripping. I would like to have seen Arbus, played by Kidman, getting into the photographic relationships she wound up having with her freaky subjects.

Let me start off by saying, I love any and all kinds of movie, I can go into any theatre with an open mind.

That said, what were they thinking? I asked myself this question many, many times. The movie begins in an interesting enough way, with Arbus visiting a nudist colony that she would photograph. The film then jumps back three years to before she was a photographer, and she was nothing more than a half-alive house wife in Manhattan.

Now the fun begins. A mysterious masked man moves into the top floor of the Arbus family apartment building, and Diane is immediately fascinated by him. Who is this strange visitor? None other then Chewbacca! straight from Star Wars Episode III for your viewing pleasure. He seems to have learned English pretty well for the movie.

Actually, it's just a man named Lionel with a disease that makes him grow hair all over his body. He and Arbus become fast friends, being drawn to one another's unconventionality. We are led to believe that Lionel is the one who introduces Arbus to the world that would one day become the subject of her photography.

My question is; didn't Arbus have a fascinating enough life that there was no need to make up this ridiculousness? When I saw the "imaginary" part of "Fur: An Imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus" I thought, well they probably filled in a couple of blanks in her life to make the movie flow better. Don't make my mistake, the story is completely ridiculous and just plain scary at parts. I can only imagine that somewhere, Diane Arbus, like myself and many others, is going "what where they thinking?"

What were they thinking when they made this truly TERRIBLE film?

Arbus, one of the most important photographers and women of the Twentieth Century, had a fascinating and dramatic life. What possessed anyone to make this film, which explains her unique artistic vision, as being the result of an (imaginary) affair with a grotesque, yet charismatic hairy freak (played by Downey)?

In real life, Arbus broke out of a traditional marriage and woman's role to express herself. In this movie, Arbus is an ultra-dreary Nicole Kidman whose inspiration is all attributed to a "Beauty and The Beast" devotion to an interesting man.

For this reinvention, the film is truly shameful. Independent of that, it is also just dopey and dull.

I found this to be an incredibly interesting film with fine performances all round, and beautiful cinematography, art direction and a lovely score amongst other things. Kidman is very convincing though she does seem to be 'acting for an Oscar' at many points through out the film. When I saw the film I did not know very much about the photographer Diane Arbus, those disappointed that the film is not more of a biopic shouldn't be because the film creates such an intriguing portrait of the photographer that I for one was compelled to learn more about the artist. This is definitely a film to see in the cinema rather than one to watch on DVD.

I wanted so much to find Fur: An Imaguinary Portrait of Diane Arbus a great movie that it slightly pains me to only say it's a pretty ambitious if faulty affair. It's a wondrously designed picture, dark and moody and cold and with the kinds of "freaks" that Tod Browning left behind for their lack of enthusiasm. It also has a strangely affecting performance of sorts from Robert Downey Jr who for the bulk of the running time is covered from head to toe in hair (his get-up makes one think back to both the Lion in Wizard of Oz, not simply his name being 'Lionel' and Chewbacca with extra soul and melancholy). What gets in the way of the potency of the message about escaping into a netherworld to create is the meandering tone for a lot of the picture, that for all of the surreal tricks up director Sheinberg's handle a lot of the time Diane is just hanging out with Lionel and his group of circus folk.

There's also a cold tone to the picture that for all its moments of inspiration can't quite shake off. Nicole Kidman is integral to this facet of the picture as the title character, who in the late 50s broke away from her conventional portrait photographer husband who had a successful business to find herself in artistic expression. Her performance is effective but nowhere near as much as her male counterparts (her husband, played by Ty Burell as well becoming a shell of person as the film goes on in bearded form), and maybe because she has that same sullen, whispering-sounding voice that is meant to show us she's breaking bit by bit from her cocoon of 50s complacency, and it's sometimes oddly one-note. Sheinberg does what he can with a careful and quietly inventive mis-en-scene, and like Secretary is intuitive to that unspoken facet to people who just can barely connect out of their shells (there's also one of the best scenes, and most erotic, where Diane cuts Lione's hair off for the portrait).

It's not that the picture is entirely too strange, or that it is entirely ineffective, or even that the performances don't strike a chord. But there's something about Fur that loses its way, where we get led astray from the curious corridors early on- not to mention Lione's 'WTF' apartment of wonderment- into something that feels familiar in a creepy way. It is, in a word, dreary.