Venus im Pelz

"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.

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

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.

I loved this movie. It opens with the "adapter" telling his fiancée on the phone that "all the candidats are pretentious who speak like : "oh, it's like, you know, just awesome, real f** stylish or something (oh c'est genre grave stylé quoi...)" The heroine witnesses the scene by the cracked door and decides at that moment -at least that's what I thought- to teach him a lesson. He who believes in his superiority will soon understand that it's not the case. This is a movie about words, "intellos", gender issues, artistic creation and interpretation, masochisme and so on...

Polansky has turned a shoestring-budget production shot in a single location with just 2 second-rate actors (one of whom is the director's wife) and a skeleton crew into a timeless masterpiece.

Lars von Trier should watch this and learn how a theatrical drama shot on a small stage with nothing more than stage lights and a bit of fog can become a feast for the eyes. Before I watched this film I liked von Trier more than Polansky. Not any more. I just watched it a second time and am still mentally savoring the delicacy and artistry in every single shot, the painterly lighting, the fascinating expressions that Polansky got out of his missus, and the beautiful exterior tracking shots at the beginning and end of the film.

The mystery of who exactly Wanda is keeps getting bigger until it reaches deific proportions, but not in the post-Victorian, anemic sense of the word. In Latin, Venus and venerari (worship) come from the same root, which means sexual lust as well as religious worship. And that's exactly what Bacchanalia are - heavenly and earthly at the same time. See the movie and you'll understand.

Needless to say, as Wanda's character shines, Thomas keeps getting tinier. In fact he's little more than a prop for Wanda in the whole movie, which is of course the idea, but it could have been done better. I suppose if Mathieu Amalric is as far as your budget goes, his effort in this movie is still more than your money's worth.

Finally, I thank and congratulate Polansky for conjuring this little marvel at such an unexpected point of his career and during such a seemingly endless doldrums for movies in general. I suspect that Mrs. Seigner has more to do with this little alchemist's jewel than just acting in it and that Thomas has more than a little Roman in him. If indeed Roman's Venus is the muse behind it all, then maybe it's time for Mrs. Polansky to get off her ass and start directing.