Skip to main content

Hail, Aphrodite.

Venus in Fur
(2013)

(SPOILERS) A film based on a meticulously self-regarding play about a meticulously self-regarding playwright hoisted by his own petard. Is that clever? Or is it merely pretentious? The problem with Roman Polanski’s latest is that it has the bearing and disposition of a thematically rich, thought-provoking piece about the follies of self-delusion and intellectualised misogyny, but it has only so much it can do with a premise announced in the title. Once Venus in Fur has played its cards, by the mid-point, there are no fresh avenues to run through. The film devolves a mildly intriguing indulgence into a ponderous one.


Which is not to devalue the good work done here. Rather, Polanski is unable to surmount the limitations of David Iver’s Broadway play. This is a two-hander, ostensibly concerning tired director Thomas Novachek (Mathieu Amalric) who, at the end of long day fruitlessly auditioning potentials for the female lead in his play, reluctantly gives the loud, vulgar, and very late Vanda (Polanski’s wife Emmanuelle Seigner) a chance to read (after much persistence on her part). As that description suggests, the result is an overtly theatrical piece, embedded in performance, writing and role-play. It brings to mind the kind of author who can only make his protagonists writers. The action is located entirely within a theatre, aside from the opening and closing tracking shots that approach and leave the building. Polanki has long favoured claustrophobic environments, but this one only ever exerts the fey tension of protagonists locked in the trance of performance.


Amalric, who, as every reviewers has noted, bears a resemblance to a young Polanski, and Seigner inhabit their roles with unaffected confidence. The manner in which the switches from playing Thomas and Vanda to playing Thomas and Vanda playing Severin and Wanda (the beyond coincidence parallel between her name and that of her character is a clue as to what is going on right from the start and, once it’s clear Vanda knows the play back-to-front, there’s no doubt whatsoever) is initially clearly marked. But there is an increased blurring of lines as they improvise dialogue and scenes, and provide commentary on the text; at first this is a provocative development, but it all to quickly becomes predictable. At the end it is revealed that Vanda herself is a performance, but we knew that, and when there are reversals (she also takes on the role of Thomas’ fiancé at one point, while Thomas takes the role of Wanda) Ives is being considerably less resonant than he probably thinks it is. He also can’t resist showering it with literary references (Euripides’ The Bacchae is mentioned and Thomas’ subjugation as a woman, by a woman, appears to be echoing Pentheus’ fate therein).


Thomas has adapted Venus in Furs, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s 1870 novel (the 1969 Italian film of the same title is based more literally and lasciviously on the same), whose writings led psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing to invent the term sado-masochism. In Thomas’ version, Severin develops his fetish for fur after an encounter with an aunt and a cane and said item of apparel. He has a resulting desire to be dominated by women, and the woman who dominates him, Wanda, in turn develops the desire to submit to another man. Vanda, whose instantaneous transformation into Wanda completely disarms Thomas (it is clear from this point hat he will be putty in her hands; again Ives has written something that is rote rather than challenging or surprising), immediately identifies his work as S&M, to which he replies “Not exactly, it’s set in 1870”. The veneer of artistic integrity has enabled Thomas to justify his predilections. When Vanda further offers the condemnation that the play is about child abuse, he rages “This goddam mania these days! Everything is a social issue!” She shows further insights into Thomas’ own kinks involving a formative encounter with a feline and belittles his warped hubris (“You should marry a raccoon”). As their interplay develops, Thomas is drawn further and further in to a scenario of Vanda’s devising.


From the first, she calls Thomas out for his misogyny. He has prefaced his play with a quote from the apocryphal Book of Judith (“And the lord have smitten him… and delivered him into a woman’s hands”). Thomas reply is that it is just a quote, he didn’t write it, but she sees the truth and intent behind his protestations that “The play has nothing to do with me”.  We hear his contempt for the women who auditioned and his aggressive outburst at Vanda when she disagrees with him; Thomas embodies a cultured façade of artistic expression, fuelled by an underlying degradation of women.


There’s potential here for an insightful discussion of sexual mores, attitudes and politics. Unfortunately, the back-and-forth between play and role, and Vanda’s chorus-like commentary on Thomas’ true motives, (perversion or passion) is painfully schematic. Two-handers can work on screen, both those that come from theatrical places (My Dinner with Andre) and those that adjust the canvas of existing plays (Sleuth). The latter came to mind watching Venus, mainly due to juggling of performance and shifting of authority that occurs between the lead characters. But that picture relied on twists and reveals and BIG performances to surmount its stage origins. Venus wallows in them, despite Polanski’s subtle and unintrusive direction.


There’s also a nagging doubt regarding the director’s motives. He casts his wife (who also appeared for him in Frantic, The Ninth Gate and the psycho-sexual froth that is Bitter Moon) and a leading man who resembles him. His director protagonist is accused of depraved sexual attitudes and dismisses assertions regarding child abuse. Is this Polanski’s self-conscious attempt to gain some moral high ground, to put himself on the side of the angels, by addressing the beast within apparently refined men? That by having his wife punish “him”, exposing his festering aberrance, he is atoning? I don’t know, but there’s something rather disingenuous about the whole project.


More than that, however, the film just isn’t that stimulating (intellectually). Vanda’s slow but sure steering of Thomas to his moral reckoning is played out with an analytical precision but lacks bite in its statements; they are delivered as imperatives against an already defeated self-aggrandiser. This feels like a minor diversion for Polanski, whose last picture Carnage, also an adaptation of a stage play but one that betrays its theatrical source much less shamelessly, carries an energy and drive and wit Venus in Fur lacks (there are occasional amusing lines or digressions here, but the construction is essentially a starched, affectation). Perhaps Polanski thought he was onto a good thing (he made good fists of both Death and the Maiden and Macbeth, after all), but unfortunately there’s never any sense of why he thought this would make a good big screen adaptation.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

That Freud stuff’s a bunch of hooey.

Spellbound (1945)
Spellbound is something of a stumbling follow-up to Rebecca, producer David O Selznick’s previous collaboration with Hitchcock. Selznick was a devotee of psychoanalysis, and the idea of basing a film on the subject was already in the mind of the director. To that end, the producer’s own therapist, May Romm, was brought in as a technical advisor (resulting in Hitchcock’s famous response when she pointed out an inaccuracy, “My dear, it’s only a movie”).

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …