" Fur - Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus "
Directed by Steven Shainberg , USA, 2006.
a long time waiting for the chance to see this movie, not so much by reference to the life of photographer Diane Arbus U.S. (actually, they are very unwilling to gender "biopic") but for the fact that this film came out of the hands of Steven Shainberg , director I was able to appreciate for its previous " Secretary .
finally had the chance, I can now considering my curiosity satisfied. I can not, however, consider also pleased with my (personal) taste of cinema.
The film, indeed little or no biographical, it is proposed in the form of flashbacks to tell a fictionalized interpretation of the progressive detachment of Arbus (played by Nicole Kidman ) from its upper-class environment interwoven with the formalities and time self-consciousness that made the land that inspired rebel camera that his admirers and fans of photography acknowledges.
the late 50's, perfect wife, as restless as subject to the duties that social status requires it, Diane lives with frustrating inconvenience within the frame of glossy sophistication that has been imposed by the family of origin and her husband, fashion photographer, to the day when, in his permanent arrival of a mysterious new tenant and eccentric, drives her to an exploration of your instincts as a woman and a photographer and moves toward what will become of his poetry and marginal monstrous daily.
loosely based on the biography written by journalist Patricia Bosworth , Shainberg's film stands out immediately from any realism to build a narrative tones unreal. Not surprisingly, at the end of the credits, the director is at pains to point out that the events depicted in the film are largely fictional. It seems, therefore, that the key to understanding this curious film text is more than the homage to one of rebuilding.
In terms of narrative fiction, though, I think we can say that the film is even more deficient.
Already in the aforementioned " Secretary " Shainberg gave an excellent example of how to live, telling on celluloid and to represent the legitimate "perversions" human spirit with a light and a large dose of irony, in the case of this " Fur, "this poetry does not work. The staging strict and soft at the same time, the light flat and the pastel-dominant (even in the most decadent interior scenes, such as, for example, l'appartamento di Lionel) non seguono di pari passo gli episodi della vita della protagonista e, ad una regia attenta alle costruzioni visive non corrisponde una sceneggiatura altrettanto interessante.
Lo spunto più interessante di questo film è quello di non badare tanto alla veridicità della storia, quanto di tentare un'esplorazione nell'universo psicologico e visivo che ha caratterizzato l'intera opera della Arbus . L'esperimento fallisce abbastanza in fretta non appena la sceneggiatura decide di svelare tutti i misteri che stanno dietro la porta del vicino Lionel (interpretato da Robert Downey Jr. ) riducendosi così ad una inconsistente storia sentimentale vagamente melodrammatica.
La prova d'attrice della Kidman è valida, sebbene la sua compostezza "imborghesita" sembra più in linea con la parte del film che ho meno apprezzato, mentre Downey Jr. (nascosto da abiti, maschere e peli per la quasi totalità del film) appare quasi schiavo delle commedie da teenager che ha abbondantemente interpretato negli anni '80 e non riesce a regalare al suo personaggio lo spessore che meriterebbe.
Interessanti le scenografie ed i costumi (in particolare le maschere di Lionel), peccato che questi (così come il tema ricorrente dei capelli e dei peli umani ed animali) vengano declassati a semplice elemento di bizzarro leitmotiv superficiale.
Da vedere?... Non so. Penso che a Stanley Kubrick it took was a shot to get closer to the spirit of Arbus more than Shainberg has made an entire movie!
finally had the chance, I can now considering my curiosity satisfied. I can not, however, consider also pleased with my (personal) taste of cinema.
The film, indeed little or no biographical, it is proposed in the form of flashbacks to tell a fictionalized interpretation of the progressive detachment of Arbus (played by Nicole Kidman ) from its upper-class environment interwoven with the formalities and time self-consciousness that made the land that inspired rebel camera that his admirers and fans of photography acknowledges.
the late 50's, perfect wife, as restless as subject to the duties that social status requires it, Diane lives with frustrating inconvenience within the frame of glossy sophistication that has been imposed by the family of origin and her husband, fashion photographer, to the day when, in his permanent arrival of a mysterious new tenant and eccentric, drives her to an exploration of your instincts as a woman and a photographer and moves toward what will become of his poetry and marginal monstrous daily.
loosely based on the biography written by journalist Patricia Bosworth , Shainberg's film stands out immediately from any realism to build a narrative tones unreal. Not surprisingly, at the end of the credits, the director is at pains to point out that the events depicted in the film are largely fictional. It seems, therefore, that the key to understanding this curious film text is more than the homage to one of rebuilding.
In terms of narrative fiction, though, I think we can say that the film is even more deficient.
Already in the aforementioned " Secretary " Shainberg gave an excellent example of how to live, telling on celluloid and to represent the legitimate "perversions" human spirit with a light and a large dose of irony, in the case of this " Fur, "this poetry does not work. The staging strict and soft at the same time, the light flat and the pastel-dominant (even in the most decadent interior scenes, such as, for example, l'appartamento di Lionel) non seguono di pari passo gli episodi della vita della protagonista e, ad una regia attenta alle costruzioni visive non corrisponde una sceneggiatura altrettanto interessante.
Lo spunto più interessante di questo film è quello di non badare tanto alla veridicità della storia, quanto di tentare un'esplorazione nell'universo psicologico e visivo che ha caratterizzato l'intera opera della Arbus . L'esperimento fallisce abbastanza in fretta non appena la sceneggiatura decide di svelare tutti i misteri che stanno dietro la porta del vicino Lionel (interpretato da Robert Downey Jr. ) riducendosi così ad una inconsistente storia sentimentale vagamente melodrammatica.
La prova d'attrice della Kidman è valida, sebbene la sua compostezza "imborghesita" sembra più in linea con la parte del film che ho meno apprezzato, mentre Downey Jr. (nascosto da abiti, maschere e peli per la quasi totalità del film) appare quasi schiavo delle commedie da teenager che ha abbondantemente interpretato negli anni '80 e non riesce a regalare al suo personaggio lo spessore che meriterebbe.
Interessanti le scenografie ed i costumi (in particolare le maschere di Lionel), peccato che questi (così come il tema ricorrente dei capelli e dei peli umani ed animali) vengano declassati a semplice elemento di bizzarro leitmotiv superficiale.
Da vedere?... Non so. Penso che a Stanley Kubrick it took was a shot to get closer to the spirit of Arbus more than Shainberg has made an entire movie!
Just curious.
0 comments:
Post a Comment