A Pele de Vênus

Venus in Fur, adapted from a play that couldn't be more made for a play originally than if it was just actors reading from a script (no wait, they do that here, don't they) is, frankly, good but minor Polanski. It's never less than entertaining, and it has engaging performances by the director'ss surrogate Matthieu Almaric (seriously, doesn't he look like him more than a bit?) and his wife, who is so incredibly spot-on at being seductive and crazy and smart as a whip and ahead of the game, Emmanuelle Seigner.

It also has an ending that is as unforgettably deranged as its brother movie ending from the director, The Tenant. And why is it minor? For me, it just felt kind of a shallow experience, not very deep, and the back and forth motions as to who is the Dom and who is the Sub (in sex but also power terms) moment to moment gets frustrating at times. And, yes, the cinematography of course is intense and this filmmaker is nothing if not a master of having a couple of people in a room and making it cinematic for an hour and a half and change. Perhaps it just reminds one of other, greater Polanski work a little too much.

However, certainly for fans of high heels and silk stockings it's really something!

The movie is set in an empty theater during a night storm. Vanda wants to audition for the female role in the play "La Vénus à la fourrure". Thomas, author and director, reluctant at first, end up being dragged by the ambiguous personality of the woman. She seems out of place: dressed inappropriately and easy-minded but she is just perfect for the role. Vanda and Thomas start rehearsing and they interrupt each other to discuss the characters and the storyline. Vanda repeatedly accuses Thomas to have chosen a sexist subject. The setting estranges both the two characters and the public, also with the help of the screenplay's rhythm, which alternates reality and the actual play.

It's a movie that opens up a great number of themes regarding the relationship between man and woman.

"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.