User reviews

"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.

"Venus in Fur" is Roman Polanski's mostly successful screen version of the hit Broadway play with a dynamite conceit. A cocky playwright and director is auditioning actresses for a new play. In comes a flighty eccentric who he at first dismisses but who over the course of the story teaches him a little something not only about the character he wrote but about women in general. It's sort of a nightmare version of the Pygmalion myth, in which the creator's creation comes to life, but this time she's not willing to be submissive.

The film's biggest flaw is that Emmanuelle Seigner, despite giving a terrific performance, is just too old for the role. This wouldn't necessarily have to be a detriment by the time the play ends, but it doesn't make sense that she's as old as she is at the beginning before some of the play's twists have fallen into place. And Polanski opts to change the ending, doing away with the simple but effective ending of the stage version and instead leaving things on a much more ambiguous note. I preferred the more simple ending, and think it would have gone farther toward making Seigner's age less of an overall issue.

But aside from those criticisms, "Venus in Fur" is a fun romp of a movie, and probably about as cinematic as a two-character play set entirely on an empty stage could be.

Grade: A-

Since I had not been able to fully appreciate the recent Polanski works, this movie has been for me a big surprise. I especially disliked "Carnage" because I found it predictable, and therefore boring – and I know very well I was quite alone in my opinion, but still. For this reason, I was biased towards another movie from the same director featuring just a couple of characters secluded in an interior. But, eventually, I found "Venus" surprising and exciting (and please don't misunderstand: excitement entirely came out of surprise).

The script, apparently simple, is a jewel with many shining facets, a brilliant movie translation of a witty stageplay inspired by a meaningful and modern book. It is like a very complex choreography, a delicate and fragile thing, very easy to spoil unless the execution is perfect. But the great work of the director and of the actors have produced a real masterpiece that maintains a high level of tension and interest throughout his whole running time.

Thanks to the brilliant connections between literature, stage and reality, and thanks to the many things that remain unclear about the character's real identities and motivations, this movie sounds much more like a question than like a an answer: some kind of Rorschach spot to test the opinion of the audience about the relationships between a man and a woman, between the lover and the beloved one. Go see it with an open mind, and you won't be disappointed: even in a worst case scenario you will find an interesting piece of conversation, so anyhow your time will be well spent.

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.

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

Venus in Fur is the new film from famed French director Roman Polanski. The film tells the story of Thomas, (played by Mathieu Almalric) a playwright who has decided to try directing because as he says, "other directors always get it wrong." He choose to adapt the novel Venus in Fur, written by Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch, (the founder of machoism) but is struggling with finding an actress to play Vanda, the lead female character. Just as he's about to leave, one final actress, whose name happens to be Vanda, (played by Emmanuelle Seigner) shows up to audition for the part. Very quickly Thomas decides that Vanda is perfect for the role, and they start to go through the play acting scenes out, discussing the play, discovering things about each other and the lines between reality and fiction begin to blur.

Venus in Fur is adapted from a play, which makes it Polanski's second play-to-film adaptation in a row. (The previous being Carnage.) If you told me I was going to be watching a Polanski film about machoism, this is not what I'd expect. I mean this is the guy who brought us Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby. But instead of being a dark twisted psychological horror film, Venus in Fur is instead a subtle subdued film that studies the relationship between author and subject matter, and how art imitates life and life imitates art. A concept that was, unfortunately for Venus in Fur, explored much better in Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman a film released only a year after Venus in Fur. That's not stay that Venus in Fur does a bad job, the film raises several interesting questions about how much of themselves authors put in their work, and how the audience interprets that work.

If you somehow knew that the two leads in Venus in Fur also play the two leads in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly just by reading their names and recognizing that they were both in it, then good job because that is some serious name recognition skill. Both actors, like in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, do great work in Venus in Fur. The characters conflict with each other perfectly, I don't mean that they completely disagree on everything, I mean that they disagree on a certain number of things and they agree on a certain number of things for their characters to have great chemistry. The entire film relies on these two characters being good and the actors being good, and luckily both of these things are true. Venus in Fur is at heart a teleplay and while it's no 12 Angry Men, it's still pretty good. Venus in Fur can be a little dull and tedious at parts, but never for to long, and the ending is far from satisfying. Besides these two things, I don't really have any other issues with the film.

Venus in Fur is not the best Polanski film, and if you haven't ever seen another Polanski film before in your life I would recommend checking out Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, or Chinatown before watching Venus in Fur. I'd like to end by saying that the film feels like one that you would put on a rainy Sunday afternoon, a very calm slow film that lets you soak in the atmosphere and style while never forcing any dark heavy stuff at you, Very comfy.

6.8/10

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.

The Austrian author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's controversial erotic novel "Venus in Fur" has been filmed on a number of occasions, but by no means all those versions are faithful to the original. The last one I saw was Jesus Franco's from 1969, which is (at best) only very loosely based on the novel, keeping little except the title and the name of the heroine (Wanda). Roman Polanski's version, "La Vénus à la Fourrure", is not based directly upon Sacher-Masoch's book but upon a French translation of a play by the American playwright David Ives. It is set not in the 19th-century Austro-Hungarian Empire but in contemporary Paris. Thomas Novachek, a theatrical director and author is putting on an adaptation, written by himself, of Sacher-Masoch's "Venus in Fur" and auditioning actresses for the role of Wanda. One evening, just as Thomas is about to leave the theatre, an actress named Vanda Jourdain arrives and begs him to let her read for the part The film observes the classical unities of place, time and action; there is no attempt to "open the story up", as is often done with films based upon stage plays, or to bring in more characters. Thomas and Vanda are the only two people we see, although we do occasionally hear Thomas talking on the telephone to others. We learn that Thomas is married, but Madame Novachek never puts in an appearance. Our attention is therefore focused upon these two individuals and the way in which their relationship progresses. At first Vanda comes across as a rather uncultured and unpromising young woman, but as the reading progresses she begins to show a greater intelligence and insight than Thomas had originally thought her capable of. Thomas finds himself attracted to Vanda and their relationship gradually begins to mimic that of Wanda and Severin in the original novel.

The film is centred upon sexual politics and relations between the sexes, something highlighted by Thomas and Vanda's contrasting views of Sacher-Masoch and his novel. Thomas, whose own sexual tastes and preoccupations seem to be those of Severin and his creator, regards the book as a great classic of European and world literature. Vanda has read it, but dismisses it as a nasty piece of sado-masochistic pornography. In her view sado-masochism is all about acting out male fantasies and is therefore an expression of male power over women, even when the woman nominally plays the "dominant" and the man the "submissive" role.

Given that Emmanuelle Seigner, who plays Vanda, is actually married to the director, it is interesting that the film critic of the New York Times described Amalric's performance as Thomas as "very close to a Polanski impersonation". I can't really comment on that- I don't actually know Polanski personally- but there is certainly a strong contrast between the two characters. As played by Seigner, Vanda comes across as a volatile, energetic and aggressive personality, whereas Mathieu Amalric makes Thomas quieter and more passive. (Perhaps it is not surprising that he should identify with a character like Severin). Both actors are excellent- Amalric is much better here than the last time I saw him, when he was giving a feeble imitation of a Bond villain in "Quantum of Solace". Perhaps he finds it easier to act in his own language than in English.

The story unfolds in real time within the confines of the theatre, and this can make the film seem rather claustrophobic. I do not, however, necessarily regard this as a fault. Indeed, it seemed to me that Polanski was deliberately trying to evoke this sense of claustrophobia in order to focus our attention on the "battle of the sexes" being played out between Vanda and Thomas, without the distractions of changes of scene or the introduction of other characters. This is not a film which will appeal to everybody; those allergic to sexual references or bad language should give it a wide berth. (Those who wish to increase their knowledge of the earthier elements of French vocabulary will, however, probably be richly rewarded). In many ways, however, it is an absorbing drama which takes a provocative look at aspects of human sexuality. It is certainly a lot better than Franco's dreadful version which rarely, if ever, rises above the level of nonsense. 7/10

In Paris, the unknown actress Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner) arrives late for the audition of a play that is an adaptation of the 1870 novel Venus in Furs by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch written by the director Thomas (Mathieu Amalric). He is ready to leave the theater and complaining on the phone about the quality of the actresses, but Vanda convinces him to read part of the play with her. Along her performance, she knows the lines by heart and questions aspects of the characters entwining performance with reality.

"La Vénus à la fourrure" is a theatrical movie by Roman Polanski with an adaptation of a play. The sexy Emmanuelle Seigner and Mathieu Amalric, who have recently worked together in the lead of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", have great performances. Unfortunately the screenplay is a pretentious and boring mess and in the end it is impossible to say what all is about. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

"She taught me the most valuable thing in the world." Thomas (Matthew Amalric)

"And what did she teach you?" Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner)

" That nothing is more sensual than pain. That nothing is more exciting than degradation." Thomas

Roman Polanski's Venus in Fur, adapted from Leopold Van Sacher-Masoch's novel, Venus in Furs, is a two hander with a first-time stage director and adapter, Thomas (Polanski), and an actress (Seigner, Polanski's wife) trying out for a part in his play at an old Parisian theater. It's as raw a film as it is delicate.

He's at the end of a long audition day with women who don't fit the part, and she straggles in when he's ready to go, in no mood for her tardiness or her lack of sophistication, much less her bondage outfit with dog collar. This time pain hardly seems sensual, until Vanda pulls out all the personality stops by eventually auditioning him.

As in the play of life itself, nothing is as it seems; as in Polanski's other worlds, identity is a matter of power. She challenges him about his misconception of her talent (she's made for the part—even has the character's name) and proceeds to take a dominant role in acting and interpreting. In other words, the tables turn while woman takes the traditionally male aggressive role and he becomes her slave and even takes her part. When she ties him to a gigantic phallic cactus, the absurdity is painless, a testimony to imaginative stagecraft and pleasant Freud.

Polanski, never afraid to deal with strong women in his films (Tess and Carnage come to mind immediately), as well as the real-life tragedy of his wife's murder, places Vanda prominently in each of her frames; his surrogate, Thomas, even looks like Polanski's younger self. Thus, the film becomes a convoluted feminist tome while it also comments on the relationship between actors and their directors. Whatever it all may mean about Roman Polanski's personal relationships with women, it is a witty 96 minutes of repartee and gamesmanship, where roles are fluid, both with characters and actors.

The pain of his self revelations, which she forces him to see, turns out to be a pleasure for a playwright directing for the first time and facing an actress gifted and formidable. Both actors, by the way, are exemplary.

"It's 'a little love' you suggest? No, it's the power that interests you." Thomas

Sex, power dynamics and subversion. Well done Ives.

There are a lot of layers in Roman Polanski's film 'Venus in Fur': a film about a play, based on a book, that is set in a theatre (the plot features the audition for the fictional play) and which itself adapted from an actual play. Then there's its subject matter, masochism, which itself contains an element of role play, and the fact that in auditioning for the play, the characters are themselves playing (or maybe not just playing) at masochism. As the viewer, you can never be certain of what is real, or even what "real" means in such a context. For all its cleverness, I found it over-acted and too obviously contrived to be completely convincing. But hey, whatever turns you 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.

Based on a play by David Ives and set in a seedy theater, VENUS IN FUR is a two-hander wherein a director (Mathieu Amalric) auditions a two-bit actor (Emmanuelle Seigner) for a role in his stage adaptation of VENUS IN FURS, an 1870 novel by the Austrian author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. From this work the term "masochism" became commonplace.

Director Roman Polanski's use of a single set allows him to focus closely on the relationship between the protagonists. As the film begins, it seems that the director enjoys a hold over the actor; he not only has the power to dictate whether she is suitable for the role or not, but claims the privilege of masculinity as being stereotypically the "strongest" sex.

As the action unfolds, however, so the roles begin to change. This is achieved through a clever manipulation of dialogue between the characters. Sometimes they appear to be reading the adaptation out loud; on other occasions they simply talk to one another. Initially it seems as if Polanski is keen to separate the two (distinguishing "fiction" from "reality," so to speak), but as the film advances we find it more and more difficult to distinguish between them.

Likewise the concept of role-playing becomes difficult to work out, as the two characters exchange roles - the director taking the female lead, the actress playing the male in the adaptation. This move gives both of them the chance to explore the concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" and how they are socially constructed and/or (de-)constructed.

In an ending of almost Gothic proportions, the actress emerges triumphant while the director ends up being discomfited, proving beyond doubt how gender roles can be readily challenged, or even subverted.

While Polanski's concerns are undoubtedly significant, our appreciation of them is tempered somewhat by the nagging sense that, as a male director, he is reinforcing rather than challenging gender concerns. This is especially evident in the way his camera lovingly pans over Seigner's semi-naked body - her legs, arms and full breasts. She ends up being objectified even while trying to challenge the director's patriarchal authority.

Nonetheless VENUS IN FUR remains compelling, as well as intense viewing - a testament to what can be achieved on a limited budget and a simple setting.

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...

I was thrilled, amused and caught in a tailspin of magic by the performances as Polanski's characters slowly seduced me into their inner circle and although I knew it to be farce, their exchanges caught me off guard as I began to believe Vanda's every word and knew what she was up to. It was as if I were really viewing a dream of the author as he was writing the script. These two characters are as one. His dream is the script of his desire to relive his experience of subjugation, humiliation and total domination by his aunt when he was a young boy and Vanda is more than ready to strip him of all his defenses as he completely submits to her. The denouement comes when Vanda throws the author's cell phone across the room and breaks it after she has "forced" him to call his fiancée and let her know that he is not coming home and the delicious end as Vanda makes her retreat in her dance of victory and her subject is left to his bewildered and sensual dreams. He too is victorious. Polanski's theatre wraps around us with deliberate contradictions of amusement amidst pain that cannot be denied.

A quite unique achievement by Polanski, although it does recall (in its limited sets and number of characters) his two 1994 projects, "Death and the Maiden" (as director) and "A Pure Formality" (as actor). Features what is most likely Emmanuelle Seigner's career-best performance; Mathieu Amalric's casting is also fascinating for his uncanny physical resemblance to Polanski himself. *** out of 4.

I am very surprised at the high rating for this. Its simply such a boring movie. This is loosely based on the book/play Venus in Fur which is apparently one of the classic books about sadomasochism. This movie concerns an actress auditioning for the role in a stage production of the Venus in Fur book with plays director. In order for the audition to work, the director has to read the part of the man who is obsessed with Venus. Its supposed to play out like a game of cat and mouse or powerplay between the two characters but you don't get any sense that she is in control which should have been the main draw of the movie. It plays out like a fairly boring conversation between a slightly nerdy director and a slightly sarcastic middle aged woman. There are no other people in the movie and the action never strays from the theatre. The action therefor is largely linguistic which isn't an issue in itself however the dialogue is not very engaging, this could have been an issue with the subtitle translation but I doubt it. Its less engaging as movie than it would be as a play or even a live broadcast of a play. The ending is quite bizarre but it doesn't offer any sort of closure and you are left with the feeling you have wasted your time, as there is no real pay off from the time spent enduring tedious dialogue. Not worth the effort.