Not a masterpiece


Being an accomplished director certainly has its perks. Being 80 years old and making an ambitious project – in french, to top it all off – inevitably seems to make critics go nuts. At least in Germany, the press loves the latest work by Polanski by and large.

Masterpiece is a term used lightly in this day and age. This film is no such thing. But it is entertaining all the way through. And that is a remarkable accomplishment in itself, if you know about the source material.
Seigner and Amalric are both outstanding. It's nice to see them again together after "Le scaphandre et le papillon". And just in case anyone questioned why the directors wife got cast – she is absolutely gorgeous in her performance and even exceeds the one by Mathieu Amalric, whose is a little too theatrical at times.
But with a movie like this, you never know what's intentional or not. It has multiple layers (one being the fact that Amalric is the perfect stand-in for Mr. Polanski) but is still very straightforward – whether that's a flaw or not is up to the viewer to decide. Polanski has no intention to be smarter than his audience. Any experienced movie and/or theatre goer should be able to figure out from the get go how this will turn out. The joy is the experience watching it unfold.
The direction is flawless, what struck me most was the feeling to see one continuous scene. Of course there are cuts, but you have to make yourself look for them, which is the biggest compliment you can make. The camera is floating around the stage, its actors and the theatre as a whole as if the whole place was a stage (and in many ways, it is).

On the downside, you never really get the feeling to watch something worthwhile. It's good for what it is, actually it's great at that. But ultimately there is not much to make you want to watch it all again.

Go see it and have fun. It's thoroughly entertaining. But don't expect too much from it.

__________________
A year is a long time.
Not so long. Just once around the sun.

reply

Actually I can´t wait to see it again on blu-ray after seeing this tonight in the cinema. Of course this is no masterpiece or without flaws. But nonetheless it is a good movie. Masterly mise-en-scene by Polanski, splendid acting performances (especially Emmanulle Seigner) and a great Score by Alexandre Desplat. Polanski fulfilled his long-cherished dream to direct a movie with only two protagonists, which takes place within the limited space of only one location and in realtime.

You can find all the typical Trademarks of the director here, from the claustrophobic mood, the isolation of the characters and their subjection, to moments of absurd comic. Though "Venus in Fur" is not based on a original screenplay (it is based on David Ives Stageplay "Venus in Fur" which of course adapts the Novelle from Sader-Masoch) it is partially reminiscent of several other past works of the director. The way Polanski directs within the limited space is really impressive. I also appreciate the Cinematography of the film. The lighting by Pawel Edelman in the dark theatre and the elegant framing by Polanski (it is the first feature film by Polanski that was shot digital) are superb. It is a v e r y subtle work and for most people it will not be the obvious choice for the best cinematography of the year, but I put the cinematography amongst my other favorites of the year, Stoker and Blancanieves (though it is not reaching their level). The blurring of the different levels in this "play within a play" (between reality and the times when the protagonists rehearse the stageplay) is portrayed very smart by the actors, mise-en-scene and the music.

Of course, this is not without weakness. Even with the skillful direction by Polanski who it trying hard to make this cinematic it feels a little bit too stagy and by the end of the movie there may be viewers, who will be lost like the male protagonist in the end of the movie and ask themselves what is the point of the movie (quintessence). While this is no masterpiece, it is definitively a good movie and has got (in my opinion) a lot more Polanski-Touch than his previous film "Carnage".

8/10

reply

edit - dumb IMBd forums.. =/

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

The cinematography was incredible, even through switching from subtitles to watching the action, which took a bit of effort. This was made especially hard since the female character was so manic and spoke rapid-fire, so much so that you couldn't even speed-read the subs for a few of her lines.

I loved her performance, it is one of the best I have seen. The ending is just scary, that final face she is pulling. And as its happening I'm still asking myself, are they still effing rehearsing??! Whats going on!!! Then the credits rolled, and I couldn't believe it had finished, I was so enthralled that it had felt like an hour, and suddenly I'm left with this totally effed up, open to interpretation ending. Woooow.

As you said, the blurring of levels, the play within a play, that is what really had me on the edge of my seat. You didn't know if they were doing lines, or if they were arguing! Then the subject matter of the book comes to the fore and suddenly this play within a play takes a very Polanski-like turn, reminded me of The Tenant, but with gender equality and power being demonstrated in a really trippy way - the play within a play, the actress sudennly taking the subject of the book personally, turning the male character into the character of the text.

Extremely original and creative plot-development, fantastic acting, standard (ie great) Polanski cinematography and score.

Masterpiece or not, the word is purely subjective anyway. I don't think The Godfather is anything close to a 'masterpiece.' I think the The Conversation is easily his best and most re-watchable film.

Of Polanski's body of work, over the last say 30 years, I would say that this is a masterpiece, comparatively. But he has made some missteps in the last 20 years, so this isn't so much of a subjective opinion, while still being far from objective.

Masterpiece or not, who cares, its just a word, an adjective, it doesn't mean anything. But this was a corker of a film, reminding me most of The Tenant which is a favorite of mine, and whatever the running time was flew by, despite there only being one stage and two characters.

9/10
--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

The ending is just scary, that final face she is pulling. And as its happening I'm still asking myself, are they still effing rehearsing??! Whats going on!!! Then the credits rolled, and I couldn't believe it had finished, I was so enthralled that it had felt like an hour, and suddenly I'm left with this totally effed up, open to interpretation ending.


The ending was Vanda's final act of dominance over Thomas, seeing it as a victory of empowerment over perverted tendencies. Their interactions throughout offered introspection on a vast scale, which I quiet enjoyed as a viewer.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

reply

Of course this film will go down well in Europe! It was made in Europe, is in a European language, and most certainly has seen the most views in Europe. I don't see the surprise there.

And you say masterpiece is an overused phrase. Then why are you starting a thread with said phrase in the title? We all know the term is trite and overused, so why bring it up...... AGAIN?

Otherwise I agree with most of what you said, bar the second to last paragraph. Since when does a movie need to have a 'point'? The layers of this film, the constant ebb and flow of reading their lines, to arguing, and the shadows that create uncertainty in the viewer as to what is what.... I can't see how you couldn't want to see this again!

Not being able to speak a word of french obviously helps the re-playability for me, I'm unsure if either of you guys speak it.

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

[deleted]

As I said, the word 'Masterpiece' is purely subjective, and I don't see the point in having a cry about it. Grow up.

You're spot on. You make zero sense, all I can gather from your ridiculous assumptions and gibberish is that you seem to think that I think I am some sort of mighty God (huh?), and you seem to feel that I am a hypocrite for loving the movie while at the same time 'denying' it 'masterpiece' status.

Hahahaha! This has got to be one of the most memorable posts I have ever seen on any forum. Denying a movie the status of a 'masterpiece'!
--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

[deleted]

ARGH! Damn imDB forums i still haven't figured them out right! My bad mate. No wonder your post read like gibberish to me!! Hahaha, a bit of a facepalm moment eh?

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

No artist does anything just to 'pass the time'. I agree with you, his last two films were based on plays and had one setting. Low cost, efficient, a good way for an 80-year old Polanski to do his thing.

And he did.

But saying "he chose to make a movie he didn't have to work with script and settings and production etc..." is just silly.

I agree that minimal work was needed with the setting, but the cinematography certainly wasn't boring, in fact it was much more enjoyable than Carnage and somehow matched the atmosphere of the film.

Also, the movie is an adaptation. Half of Kubrick's work were adaptations. Was he just passing the time then? Turning a text or play into a film isn't some easy thing to do

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, of course there is a difference between adapting a novel or short story vs adapting a play. But while they are different, that doesn't simply mean it is piss-easy to turn a play into a memorable film. Especially given how deftly the dialogue was handled, and the blurring of reality and the rehearsal, the 'play within a play'. I found the entire script thouroughly memorable, it is obvious that , unlike Carnage, Polanski has put some of his touches on this adaptation and it works. And the ending is just *beep* creepy, still cam't believe that woman is 50

and yeah you are probably right, he is finding more efficient ways to make films at 80, he does seem like the sorta guy to make films until he drops dead, but to be honest if this is how he goes about it, I am not complaining. I thought Carnage was HILARIOUS, the first real comic film Polanski has ever done, bar The Vampire Killers. And this movie just floored me. I wasn't expecting that Polanski-creepiness, it seems like it has been absent for so long

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

reply

You obviously know very little about Polanksi... he is in amazing shape, and is still an avid skier. He may be 80, but only in number. The man still drinks alcohol, smokes the occasional cigarette, hits the slopes, and jogs daily. He didn't choose this film because it was "easy". If you know the history of his work, he's been drawn to these types of stories and settings MANY times.... no matter what age. In fact, it is safe to say this is his specialty. Repulsion, Cul-De-Sac, Death and the Maiden and others all took place in one location. This is the 4th play he has adapted. He was drawn to it as an artist - he was inspired. Not because he can't bother to work on a multi location set, but because he felt like it was worth telling and it was a great role for his wife. Also I might add, his next film, "D" will be a return to grand scale filmmaking according to Mr. Polanski - a bigger budget drama in the vein of "The Pianist". Your statements are both factually inaccurate and ageist.

reply

[deleted]

Strange response - totally irrelevant and makes no sense. Hope I taught you a bit about Polanski.

reply

Agree. And I will add another reason he could have made the film by quoting the male character:
"I find the relationship between the two characters both fascinating and complex. Very rich. I love the emotional depth of the characters. Don't you see more of
this kind of thing nowadays. Don't you see more of this kind rage nowadays"
That was a good reason for me to enjoy it, at least :)

reply

[deleted]

I really enjoyed this film and to be fair that's all I ask these days.






reply

[deleted]

Everyone's a critic these days, have you made any film's? go make a film that ticks all the boxes you feel need ticking, let me know, I might have a look.





reply

I agree that it's "not a masterpiece," and it's one of the talkiest movies I've ever seen. But it's still moderately enjoyable.

One of the big problems is that it's supposedly a comedy (in Polanski's words) -- but it's not particularly funny.

I had just seen "Fifty Shades of Grey" the previous weekend. It would make an interesting double feature with "Venus in Fur." Ironically, "Fifty Shades of Grey" is funnier and more entertaining.

reply