MovieChat Forums > Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006) Discussion > Am I the only who found something wrong....

Am I the only who found something wrong....


Before you read this please don't judge me as a closed minded person. I'm a guy who looks beyond the abnormal and love to imagine great things and I express that with my art.

Anyways did any one else find it disturbing that this woman who had a child and husband had an affair with a stranger and then abandon them for her own personal desires? Not to mention how lustfull she is over sex and the bizarre type of it to. I dunno this kinda thing upsets me seeing this stuff happen the guy could be superman for all I care the bottom line is she cheated on her family and left them behind for selfish desires.... if my mother did that to me I would not want to ever see her face around me.

I dunno why people applaud this kinda stuff... adultry is adultry and thats the bottom line... and no i'm not a religious nut... just a person who feels alone in a world where no one cares about morals anymore.

reply

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006) was a comedown after the bold, romantic and absolutely un-ironic story of a struggle for true love and marriage in Secretary (2002). Aesthetically, the two movies are on the same high plane. Morally, they're not close.

reply

Well I felt it was her way of saying thank you, sex as a way of complimenting his form, as abnormal as it was, she was drawn to it, and was grateful for such a man to be in her life.

It breaks morals, in that it was completely selfish, not having her family in mind before and during the act. But it was liberating for her, so to her it was an act of triumph.

reply

I was a little diaspointed in the movie I must say. While it got better as it went along, I felt it didn't focus enough on her relationship with her husband. The whole thing was the love story between her and Lional. I didn't judge her for the adultery..one of the other posters said her husband had been cheating on her and it's true. One can see that in that telltale scene. Theirs didn't seem to be a terribly happy marridge. And I did think they did a good job with building up the relationship between her and Lional so it didn't ring false or anything.

But the whole story focused on them. And since, at the beginning, it SAYS that they've taken liberty with some facts you kind of know what your watching never happened. I would have preferred a real biographical movie that went into her as a person, what caused the demise of her marridge and her ultimate suicide. Not that the movie was dreadful(except at first..I did almost walk out but it got better.) But I felt it could have been better.

reply

I saw this movie and I loved it. I felt a sense of release for her. Her marriage, her family and yes even though she had two beautiful daughters were stifling her. The woman was damn near suicidal and miserable until she found herself with Lionel and what we in society called "freaks"..Although they were anything but.

Just because she looked the perfect wife and had the perfect trappings does not equate she was happy.
Hey she didn't abandoned her kids on a street. They had a father who could nurture them the way they were accustomed.








Zachary Quinto is ridiculously sexy!

reply

[deleted]

Um, did anybody in this discussion happen to notice that she fell in love with a hairy beast? Ok, so from the get go she obviously leaned towards being perverse.. so why are you all so shocked? Watch The Elephant Man for something less 'shocking' you pussies.

reply

Well, first off, I care about morals. However, what I mean by "morality" is most definitely not a particular common set of moral prescriptions and proscriptions, but rather recommendable versus non-recommendable conduct in general. What is specific, recommendable conduct to me is often relatively unusual. I often disagree with the morals of others, and this is a case in point.

I'm very pro polyamory and polygamy. I'm not very fond of monogamy. I'm also very pro sex in general, and not very fond of abstinence. I dislike that our culture is so structured around monogamy and chastity. I dislike that the culture values virginity, waiting for marriage for sex, etc. rather than valuing people enjoying their bodies and the bodies of other people. I do not think that any of those common moral stances reflect the best ideas. A lot of the normal attitudes I see as morally wrong instead. I wouldn't mind monogamy and chastity so much if they were just one of many common choices, something like a ham sandwich on a deli menu, and some people just happen to pick the ham sandwich for themselves.

I do agree with you in preferring that people are honest and open with their partners, but the problem is that our culture is so structured around monogamy that it's difficult to be openly polyamorous. The mainstream culture is morally wrong, in my opinion, in its at least public near-unanimity with bad ideas about sexuality and relationships, and that can necessitate having to subvert it. Monogamy and chastity are too entrenched in our thinking, in what's acceptable publicly as the status quo. Open polyamory and hedonistic sexuality just isn't an option without unjustified consequences in most cases, and polygamy is not an option period.

When being authentic and forthright about it leads to ostracism in almost all cases, then I believe that one is justified in not being forthright about it. The culture needs to be changed first.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

[deleted]