Review of Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006) by Elvira B — 04 Apr 2009

Diane Arbus is a fascinating artist. A single one of her photographs can awaken and excite dozens of feelings, questions, curiosities going in all different directions. I remember seeing some of her photographs at the pompidou a while ago without even having heard her name ever before, and being very intrigued by them. Obviously, the writers of Fur understood the enigmatic character that permeates Arbus's work and came up with this imaginary biopic.

This is a fictional account of how Diane went from being a dissatisfied, restless housewife and assistant of her husband's photostudio, to an independent, bold artist. Die-hard fans of Arbus can either love or detest this idea. Personally, and in a very psychodynamic attitude of mine, I prefer to think of this all as a metaphor of an internal transgression of hers. I think it's evident that she, at some point, had to take a step to break free of convention and into the lifestyle that would become her signature.

A mysterious man moves into Diane's building, where she and her husband not only live but have a commercial photography studio. Diane is immediately intrigued by this individual. Her repressed tendencies towards the seedy and the freaky begin to surface. When she finally finds the courage to meet him, and surrenders to the pleasure of being frightened, she begins to change, to experiment, and surround herself with people and environments that make her happy, but which prove scary to her family, and of which they all disapprove.

I can't say much for Nicole Kidman. She plays in the same, generic soft spoken way that has become her habit. A few inspired moments are not entirely her responsibility, they just happen to fit into her mold. When, of course, she should adapt herself to the script. Robert Downey Jr. plays the mysterious neighbor: a character that could've been, and to a lot of people is, ridiculous. The fact that he actually gave a good performance, being both charming and obscene, through a cape of fur is admirable and it's one of the things I enjoyed the most about the film. The art direction, the cinematography, and the director's slow, contemplative pace benefited the film tremendously. I think the filmmakers had the necessary awareness of Diane Arbus's meticulous cool approach to translate it onscreen. The hushed, understated soundtrack, the warm/cold palette and careful composition also add visual charm that may, at times, make up for weak points of a story that lacks credibility (although we ought to expect that, since this is an imaginary portrait) and a strong lead performance.

I have seen Fur more than once and not because of Diane Arbus, but because of these outstanding visuals.

Fur was never going to be a commercial success. It wasn't. The director should've foreseen this and refrained from casting Nicole Kidman -assuming he did it to give his film more publicity and increase the sales-. A more versatile actress than Kidman, which could have been basically anyone, would've given this movie, maybe, the extra strength it needs. Unfortunately, without that push, Fur borders on mediocrity. Unless you are visually enamored with it like I was, or unless you find something in the fairy tale to hook you, you might be disappointed. Still, I think, it meant well, and as an exercise it's intereting enough.