Venus in Fur (2014)

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

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

Polanski brings another piece of art that is quite hard to compliment without swearing! That said... Let's try in the most polite way possible! In the stage, both Mathieu Amalric and Emmanuelle Seigner give a terrific performance... Floating between characters, but yet playing only one character each... The dynamic between the actors are amazing... Sensual, honest, believable etc... There was no room for any other character or actor in the scenes... About Tom, he's familiar, a cool guy you know, and for this your fear for his life, for his relationship, still, you would like if he died, or betrayed his love interest... Now about Vanda, there's no way of not loving her, even when you just know her name... She can be the most unlucky person in the world that appears late for an appointment with you or the queen bitch that appears with an unknown objective... Both ways you would kiss her feet with pleasure! the plot is quite mesmerizing and thrilling... The adaptation by Polanski and Ives is very contemporaneous... Making it feel it even more fantastic... Not sure if thats the word i want, but anyway... It was brilliant as Carnage, the last feature film directed by Polanski before Venus... It follows the same recipe with only leading roles and a deep dive into the human nature... Once again, i'll have to talk about how sensual is the whole movie, with one exception... The scene when Venus reveals herself... It's freaky, funny, trying to be frighting (maybe), but not sexy... Even being Emmanuelle Seigner only in fur...

I fund myself sort of dozing off at certain scenes in the film. Whether it was due to a failure of the film or that I was just really tired when i saw it, is anyone's guess. But I had still enjoyed most of it, and once the final act came on, I knew I was watching something special. The performances are exquisite, especially Seigner who I'm sure people who've seen the play will be more than delighted. The final ten minus take on this really dark tone that's completely enthralling, and I should've known where the film was heading. By the time I did, I immediately wanted to rematch the film for more nuances, and as it is right now, I'm sure I will in he near future. Really well- done film.

An actress (Emmanuelle Seigner) attempts to convince a director (Mathieu Amalric) how she is perfect for a role in his upcoming production.Polanski is no stranger to adapting plays, having done "MacBeth" and "Death and the Maiden". He may no longer be followed by film-goers as he once was (the average person may not recall his last few films), but he still has it. Here he shows the strength of his directing the small, compact and character-driven narrative, reminding us that some of his best work ("Knife in the Water" and "Repulsion") were claustrophobic. When his agent brought him this script, he likely knew immediately he was the man for the job.Likewise, Seigner may not be well-known to American audiences, who remember her best in "Frantic", over twenty years prior. But she comes from an acting family, has been winning awards throughout Europe, and brings her best here. Despite being nearly 50, playing a role intended for someone in their 20s, she brings the full sense of glamor to the role. Could this be her finest hour? Mathieu Amalric is even less well-known to American audiences, maybe known only as a Bond villain, if known at all. His best performance was in "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (alongside Seigner, no less), which has not been seen by enough people in this country. Heck, even director Julian Schnabel -- a genius -- is not well-appreciated here. (Interestingly, it was Steven Spielberg who introduced Amalric and Polanski, and they got along immediately -- their similar physical appearance did not hurt.) The directing and acting aside, the brilliance is in the writing and its "meta" nature. This is a film adaptation of a play that is about a play based on a book. And the lines blur between the actress and her character, along with the director and his character. Where does the acting stop and the reality begin? Seigner even takes it a step further, saying her character may not be human at all, but rather a dream or a goddess on earth. This is the cleverness of the play (and film), making the audience keep guessing, even after the credits roll.