punishmentpark A bit of a disappointment after 'Secretary', but still certainly more than doable. This time it all felt more 'arty', leaving the drama in the shadows a little; at some point we get the idea that Diane is trapped between to worlds, but this dilemma carries on for way too long. Carter Burwell's soundtrack, the beautiful camera-work and sets and dresses, they all did add to a fulfilling experience, as did the cast. But I did see a photo of the real Diane Arbus though, and Kidman's (heavily face-lifted) appearance does not correspond. Samantha Morton was originally cast for this role, I don't know why that didn't work out, but she would have seemed much more appropriate. Other roles were mostly just fine (daughters) to very good (Ty Burrell), with Robert Downey Jr. excelling.But as said before, 'Fur:...' drags on too long without there being anything poignant put forth to the viewer. I mean, why shave the hero Lionel? I'm thinking that must have been some sort of demand by 'someone' to have Downey Jr. out in the flesh (and pretty much naked) to get a bigger audience, because dramatically, it felt truly unnecessary. And, as said before as well, Kidman just didn't really belong in this, even if I do think she did a fine job considering. And the true intimacy of it all díd come across more than once, so it's not hard for me to be lenient - but not too lenient:A big 6 out of 10 for another film by the exceptional Steven Shainberg. I'm looking forward to his debut ('Hit Me') and new work ('The Big Shoe' is in pre-prod.).

st-shot Following in the footsteps of revolutionary photographer Robert Frank, Diane Arbus was one of the three (Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander) photographers displayed in a groundbreaking photo exhibit entitled New Documents at MOMA in 1967. Less than five years later she would commit suicide her place in photographic history assured. In Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus director Steven Shainberg moves her subconscious into an apartment upstairs from her in a novel way to get inside the head of the troubled artist who had an irresistible desire for nostalgie de la boule.With the support of her parents Allan and Diane Arbus (Nichol Kidman) are in he the midst of realizing the American dream with a burgeoning photography business. Allan the photographer and Diane the assistant along with her parents money and connections seem focused on a successful future. But something is gnawing at Diane in the repressive Fifties where a woman's role in the family is to support the husband and raise the kids. Whether it's manic depression or artistic drive is hard to tell but when her furry muse (Robert Downey Jr.) moves in upstairs she's ready for a walk on the wild side. This insipid approach is ridiculous from the outset. It is more fairy tale than imaginary with it's Beauty and the Beast veneer and Kidman's wallflower Arbus whispering her performance as if she were in a confessional. Parents and husband are perfunctory distant and mystified while Downey's Sasquatch is the same self assured perceptive Downey you get in Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes except here he's Cousin It.The morose topic is poorly paced, the compositions and camera movement pretentious and self indulgent. Near the end director Shainberg attempts an 81/2 montage of many of the subjects Arbus would photograph in her prime by parading them through a scene but even this rings hollow in its presentation by sanitizing the moment, especially with her models drained of their monochromatic identity.This over two hour film on the life of Arbus imaginary or otherwise does itself no favor by concentrating almost totally on the disintegration of her marriage and finding of her voice while ignoring her most important period as an artist when the voice projected with some disturbing imagery that went beyond the contrived and manufactured. It would have allowed Kidman to stretch and avoided what Arbus rejected.

hauntme Who was this film made for? That is the question I am begging to have answered .Diane was an uncompromising artist who stared unrelentingly and without sentimentality at our world and its inhabitants. Not exactly the stuff popular documentaries are made of. So we get this: a series of corporate decisions that get renamed as "an imaginary portrait". There is no authentic artist re-imagining here. Diane's vision gets romanticized which is entirely against the grain of who she was.This project was just an excuse to allow Robert Downey Jr. to prance around and then allow a set of NPR listeners to conclude: Gee, I guess those people I see on Maury Povich are alright.

Framescourer I was entranced by the first twenty minutes or so. I really was. The camera hops about but, every time, seems to alight on wonderfully composed, inventive framings. The lighting is impeccable. The production design is at once period-exact and yet suspiciously abstract. Nicole Kidman seemed at home. I thought I was about to see that most elusive of all genre films - a good artist biopic.Then, with a startlingly violent twist in quality, ingenuity and effort it simply stops. In the story of Diane Arbus (fictionalised here), a seminal meeting with an artistic freak sets her muse free. Exactly the opposite happens on screen in Fur: Diane walks into Lionel's apartment and immediately the film halves it pace, gums its script with cliché and zaps the actors with performance-botox. It was as if I'd just been kicked out of a Christmas party at the Colony Club onto the empty, frozen streets of midnight Soho. 3/10 (for the opening)