Venus in Fur

2014
7.1| 1h36m| NR| en
Details

An enigmatic actress may have a hidden agenda when she auditions for a part in a misogynistic writer's play.

Director

Producted By

R.P. Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
James Hitchcock 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
princess_lilmisspiggy It's wonderful to see a film that knows exactly what it wants to be with no pretensions towards greatness. VENUS IN FUR is pure adult entertainment that takes total pleasure in the magnificence of acting. Emmanuelle Seigner is so delicious, loopy, sexy, funny, mean that it hurts (pun intended). Although created for the New York stage, director Roman Polanski totally inserts himself into the action via actor Mathieu Amalric who once again delivers a wonderful screen performance to match Seigner's. The play attempts to take on more than it can chew at the end as the explanations fly but actually the film is much better than that. The point is clear. No explanation needed. It is all overt enough. There is no real depth to VENUS IN FUR, it's about the magic of acting and the world we create around ourselves.
SnoopyStyle Thomas (Mathieu Amalric) is the writer/director of a new play, an adaptation of the 1870 novel 'Venus in Furs'. Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner) is late and arrives at the theater just as Thomas is about to leave after a session of unuseable auditions. She convinces him to stay as she gives a powerful and an intimate audition.This is a two person play and sometimes those lose a lot of their power transferring from the live performances. Amalric is playing a director impresario very much like a Roman Polanski. Polanski's real wife Emmanuelle Seigner plays the actress. If one takes this as art imitating life, there is another layer to be had. However a couple of things do hold it back for me. The subtitle does create a distance no matter how hard I try or how superior one thinks of himself. The second and more important is the character of Thomas. The stone faced Amalric really cuts me off from the character. With only two characters, both have to be pushing the limits for me to really engage. From time to time, I find myself fading out on this movie. It's possible that I just got tired.
kosmasp After "Carnage" another play from Roman Polanski. He seems to have found a muse in filmmaking (adapting) them. He literally found one in E. Seigner who plays the lead here. Some would call her a Femme Fatale. Even if you don't know the book this is adapted from (Venus in Fur) like myself you will get a feel for the piece.Put two great actors in a room (a big room) and let them do their thing. Now don't get me wrong, this movie can be very annoying, especially if you start thinking about patterns or character behavior that might not be your reaction to things happening. You can argue who is evil in this though. Or more accurate more evil than the other person. Or maybe you're looking for the good in the characters (of course bad traits are easier to find).Mesmerizing and an ending that is very theatrical. Not everyones cup of tea, but professionally made nonetheless