l_rawjalaurence Based on a play by David Ives and set in a seedy theater, VENUS IN FUR is a two-hander wherein a director (Mathieu Amalric) auditions a two-bit actor (Emmanuelle Seigner) for a role in his stage adaptation of VENUS IN FURS, an 1870 novel by the Austrian author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. From this work the term "masochism" became commonplace.Director Roman Polanski's use of a single set allows him to focus closely on the relationship between the protagonists. As the film begins, it seems that the director enjoys a hold over the actor; he not only has the power to dictate whether she is suitable for the role or not, but claims the privilege of masculinity as being stereotypically the "strongest" sex.As the action unfolds, however, so the roles begin to change. This is achieved through a clever manipulation of dialogue between the characters. Sometimes they appear to be reading the adaptation out loud; on other occasions they simply talk to one another. Initially it seems as if Polanski is keen to separate the two (distinguishing "fiction" from "reality," so to speak), but as the film advances we find it more and more difficult to distinguish between them. Likewise the concept of role-playing becomes difficult to work out, as the two characters exchange roles - the director taking the female lead, the actress playing the male in the adaptation. This move gives both of them the chance to explore the concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" and how they are socially constructed and/or (de-)constructed.In an ending of almost Gothic proportions, the actress emerges triumphant while the director ends up being discomfited, proving beyond doubt how gender roles can be readily challenged, or even subverted.While Polanski's concerns are undoubtedly significant, our appreciation of them is tempered somewhat by the nagging sense that, as a male director, he is reinforcing rather than challenging gender concerns. This is especially evident in the way his camera lovingly pans over Seigner's semi-naked body - her legs, arms and full breasts. She ends up being objectified even while trying to challenge the director's patriarchal authority.Nonetheless VENUS IN FUR remains compelling, as well as intense viewing - a testament to what can be achieved on a limited budget and a simple setting.

Martin Bradley With his last two films, ""Carnage" and now, "Venus in Fur", Roman Polanski proves that he is a master of the intimate, the theatrical and a terrific director of actors. Of course, on both occasions he's had really good source material from which to work; both plays won the Tony. "Venus in Fur", of which we are concerned here, is a two-character piece based on the play by David Ives, who co-wrote the script with Polanski. It's set in a deserted theatre where Thomas. (Polanski lookalike Matheiu Amalric), is trying to find an actress to play the heroine in his adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel "Venus in Fur". He's had a fruitless day when in walks Vanda who just happens to know his play inside out and has the same name as the character she aims to play.What follows is a case of art imitating life as director and star move effortlessly into their roles with devastating and devastatingly funny results. Here we have a film about a sado-masochistic relationship as well as a film about putting on a play, though fundamentally this is a film about role-play and the art of acting and both Amalric and especially Emmanuelle Seigner as Vanda are superb and not in the least in a theatrical way; they play not to an audience but to the camera and I luxuriated in their company. Here, too, is a movie that is sharp, smart and very funny and one which will rank with the very best of this director's work.

Prashun Chakraborty Roman Polanski is a controversial figure in the world of cinema, many people boycott everything associated with him because of the infamous rape incident but I have always been able to look past it though not condone it simply because his films are too damn good (yes even the newer ones). Venus in fur is the most unique Polanski film I have ever seen when it comes to the nature of the film, all the shooting takes place in a single set and the film derives all it's complexity through dialogues between the only two people starring in the film. The film's protagonist Thomas is holding auditions for his lead actress in his adaptation of the renowned 19th century erotic play Venus in fur. The whole day was a disappointment until Vanda shows up who not only shares the same name as the female lead of the play but also has her fiery attitude. During the audition and rehearsing of the lines between Thomas and Vanda, reality starts to blur and viewer is constantly questioning what part is the play and what is not. This film is adult in it's truest nature, there is a not only a lot of S&M and sex talk but how it influences one's psychology and perception of the opposite sex. There are also some feminist angles here along with some mysticism, this film is all over the place with just one set, I found it very intriguing. Polanski at 80 plus years of age doesn't shy away from an extremely erotic film which would leave a lot of people red in cheeks, this what made me a fan of him because he doesn't compromise his artistic integrity, shame it got no academy award nominations.

jdesando "She taught me the most valuable thing in the world." Thomas (Matthew Amalric)"And what did she teach you?" Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner)" That nothing is more sensual than pain. That nothing is more exciting than degradation." ThomasRoman Polanski's Venus in Fur, adapted from Leopold Van Sacher-Masoch's novel, Venus in Furs, is a two hander with a first-time stage director and adapter, Thomas (Polanski), and an actress (Seigner, Polanski's wife) trying out for a part in his play at an old Parisian theater. It's as raw a film as it is delicate. He's at the end of a long audition day with women who don't fit the part, and she straggles in when he's ready to go, in no mood for her tardiness or her lack of sophistication, much less her bondage outfit with dog collar. This time pain hardly seems sensual, until Vanda pulls out all the personality stops by eventually auditioning him.As in the play of life itself, nothing is as it seems; as in Polanski's other worlds, identity is a matter of power. She challenges him about his misconception of her talent (she's made for the part—even has the character's name) and proceeds to take a dominant role in acting and interpreting. In other words, the tables turn while woman takes the traditionally male aggressive role and he becomes her slave and even takes her part. When she ties him to a gigantic phallic cactus, the absurdity is painless, a testimony to imaginative stagecraft and pleasant Freud.Polanski, never afraid to deal with strong women in his films (Tess and Carnage come to mind immediately), as well as the real-life tragedy of his wife's murder, places Vanda prominently in each of her frames; his surrogate, Thomas, even looks like Polanski's younger self. Thus, the film becomes a convoluted feminist tome while it also comments on the relationship between actors and their directors. Whatever it all may mean about Roman Polanski's personal relationships with women, it is a witty 96 minutes of repartee and gamesmanship, where roles are fluid, both with characters and actors.The pain of his self revelations, which she forces him to see, turns out to be a pleasure for a playwright directing for the first time and facing an actress gifted and formidable. Both actors, by the way, are exemplary."It's 'a little love' you suggest? No, it's the power that interests you." Thomas