Venus im Pelz

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, 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 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

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.

"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-