Comments (15)Add a Comment
Surprised that I was entertained, willing to be pulled along watching this two person stage play on the strength of the two actors, promise of an end, and their conversations on art and literature in between, with few props (the pole) and simple costumes (the collar and the boots etc.) The montage of Renaissance nude paintings in the end is the icing on the cake.
I didn't know what to expect and was surprised at how a two-person film could be so captivating. Even with the subtitles, this was a joy to experience. A+++
I found Venus in furs very thought provoking even with just 2 characters. I was able to follow the movie easily with the subtitles because it had my full attention. Felt I was in that theatre totally engaged. Both actors were excellent. Now I want to read the original book. Author Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch. Published 1870.
The entire film focuses on two actors interacting on a stage, practicing a play rehearsal. And that's about it. You have to be a fan of stage plays to follow and enjoy this one. It is just not my cup of tea.
I saw the ground breaking play at the Unicorn Theatre, and then saw the film. The acting, surroundings, script is superb. The back and forth, power and control, between Emmanuelle Seigner (Vonda) and Mathieu Amalric (Thomas) is engaging, believable and unsettling.
I can’t stand Roman Polanski and I’m so sorry about Sharon Tate. But his personal life is creepy in my opinion. But Venus in Fur and Carnage are outstanding films.
Roman Polanski still has it as evidenced by this wickedly clever play-within-a-play (based on David Ives’ Broadway production) which observes, dissects, and ultimately trashes the the power imbalance between men and women—politically, institutionally, and (zing!) sexually. A comedy for sure, but one bursting with indignation and social savvy. Polanski’s arsenal of cinematic bullets always seem to find their mark—a storm rages outside the theatre; Thomas’ cellphone goes off at just the right moments with it’s “Ride of the Valkyries” ringtone; and a wooden cactus thrusts phallically towards heaven (a leftover prop from the theatre’s previous production of “Stagecoach”)—but it is the verbal sparring between Vanda and Thomas (both in and out of character) that takes centre stage. The two circle each other like shark and prey, their ongoing animosity eventually culminating in a deliriously over-the-top piece of stagecraft that only Polanski could have pulled off. A two-handed game of sexual poker directed with consummate skill and played out by a pair of leads whose onscreen chemistry practically sizzles.
Disappointing Roman Polanski film. Sexy, but too many "F" bombs. Only two person cast trying to recall. French captions hard to follow. Did lots of reverse.
Fine film (a "chamber movie") which especially highlights the work of Emmanuelle Seigner.
omg! this 2013 film reminded me of "who's afraid of virginia woolf?" (1966, directed by mike nichols). the resemblance of the 2 films lies in the predominantly static "stage" setting, excellent acting & candid dialog. of course the subject matter & all the rest are vastly different between the two. who would imagine after 47 yrs, polanski would decide to make this type of film outside his film domains? i cannot believe that in the new millennium, a stage style film can still (or expected to) appeal to moviegoers!
honestly, like a new millennial (which i am not), i almost didn't have the patience & endurance to finish watching the film at halfway. but then the outstanding performance of the 2 only actors & the intrigue screenplay are captivating & addictive. also, i wanted to see how this film would end. yes, it might seem boring & w/o much "action" at times. but the continual development of relationship between the 2 characters, which in the end even reverses, can induce some deep thoughts especially in the context of unconventional sex habits. in a sense, i think this film finally exposes in detail the inner making of polanski, especially in the kind of troubles he had made in private life.
I absolutely love this film, which makes me very uncomfortable, considering the type of man the director is.
A wordy but intense realization of the (kinky-sex) classic novel.
It is both literate and erotic.
Complex and edgy chess game between a writer/director and an auditioning actress.
because (or in spite of) the play is based on the kinkier side of the sexual spectrum....the chess game devolves into one of cat & mouse. Sounds rather dull..but the actors pull this off with some outstanding acting. Fans of quirky French film might enjoy this one.
50 Shades of...entertainment for real adults. Smart, sharp and occasionally very funny. Polanski (now 80) is at the top of his game by adapting a play that is based on a 1874 novella by Sacher-Masoch (where the word masochism is from just like sadism is from Marquis de Sade). With two actors who seamlessly drift in and out of characters (and into each other's character) and dialogues full of insight/surprises/reversals, the film captivates you all the way to the rousing and menacing end.