Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Nigel P This is an immersive exercise in minimalism. There are only two actors throughout, and the only location is an abandoned theatre. The building is battered by an ongoing storm outside, which adds a layer of safe seclusion from the interference from the outside world.Many interesting themes are present - perceptions, a man's view of a what a woman is (and vice versa); the current fixation with trivialising everything and reducing it to a handful of 'current' reasons/demands to take offence, erotic manipulation and empowerment, and latterly, obsession ...Emmanuelle Seigner plays Vanda Jourdain, and Mathieu Amalric plays Thomas Novacheck. He is the director/adaptor of a play, and she is the 'stupid c***' who needs a job and persuades him she would be perfect for the lead role. At first, he understandably thinks she is a lunatic - eccentric certainly, confident but very scatty. And yet she insists he hear her read for the role. Instantly, her performance and personality win through and she becomes the dominant character. As she excels, Thomas diminishes. Even Roman Polanski's direction visually elevates Vanda to tower over the director (Seigner is Polanski's wife).The only interruption into this burgeoning relationship is from the unseen Marie-Cecile, Thomas's fiancée, who phones him asking when he will be coming home. This pin-prick in an otherwise weirdly evocative world-building seems to prevent, or at least delay, the main pair's total immersion in each other. As to who Vanda actually is - well, she seems to be a lot more than just a struggling actress, but her true nature remains oblique.The movie is based on the play "Venus in Fur" by David Ives, and moves the location from New York to Paris. The themes of domination are taken to frightening and, it seems, unresolved extremes. Whilst difficult to pinpoint the ultimate intent, 'Venus in Fur' is fascinating, the immersive nature of its narrative transcending the subtitles from its French origins.

James Hitchcock The Austrian author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's controversial erotic novel "Venus in Fur" has been filmed on a number of occasions, but by no means all those versions are faithful to the original. The last one I saw was Jesus Franco's from 1969, which is (at best) only very loosely based on the novel, keeping little except the title and the name of the heroine (Wanda). Roman Polanski's version, "La Vénus à la Fourrure", is not based directly upon Sacher-Masoch's book but upon a French translation of a play by the American playwright David Ives. It is set not in the 19th-century Austro-Hungarian Empire but in contemporary Paris. Thomas Novachek, a theatrical director and author is putting on an adaptation, written by himself, of Sacher-Masoch's "Venus in Fur" and auditioning actresses for the role of Wanda. One evening, just as Thomas is about to leave the theatre, an actress named Vanda Jourdain arrives and begs him to let her read for the part The film observes the classical unities of place, time and action; there is no attempt to "open the story up", as is often done with films based upon stage plays, or to bring in more characters. Thomas and Vanda are the only two people we see, although we do occasionally hear Thomas talking on the telephone to others. We learn that Thomas is married, but Madame Novachek never puts in an appearance. Our attention is therefore focused upon these two individuals and the way in which their relationship progresses. At first Vanda comes across as a rather uncultured and unpromising young woman, but as the reading progresses she begins to show a greater intelligence and insight than Thomas had originally thought her capable of. Thomas finds himself attracted to Vanda and their relationship gradually begins to mimic that of Wanda and Severin in the original novel.The film is centred upon sexual politics and relations between the sexes, something highlighted by Thomas and Vanda's contrasting views of Sacher-Masoch and his novel. Thomas, whose own sexual tastes and preoccupations seem to be those of Severin and his creator, regards the book as a great classic of European and world literature. Vanda has read it, but dismisses it as a nasty piece of sado-masochistic pornography. In her view sado-masochism is all about acting out male fantasies and is therefore an expression of male power over women, even when the woman nominally plays the "dominant" and the man the "submissive" role.Given that Emmanuelle Seigner, who plays Vanda, is actually married to the director, it is interesting that the film critic of the New York Times described Amalric's performance as Thomas as "very close to a Polanski impersonation". I can't really comment on that- I don't actually know Polanski personally- but there is certainly a strong contrast between the two characters. As played by Seigner, Vanda comes across as a volatile, energetic and aggressive personality, whereas Mathieu Amalric makes Thomas quieter and more passive. (Perhaps it is not surprising that he should identify with a character like Severin). Both actors are excellent- Amalric is much better here than the last time I saw him, when he was giving a feeble imitation of a Bond villain in "Quantum of Solace". Perhaps he finds it easier to act in his own language than in English.The story unfolds in real time within the confines of the theatre, and this can make the film seem rather claustrophobic. I do not, however, necessarily regard this as a fault. Indeed, it seemed to me that Polanski was deliberately trying to evoke this sense of claustrophobia in order to focus our attention on the "battle of the sexes" being played out between Vanda and Thomas, without the distractions of changes of scene or the introduction of other characters. This is not a film which will appeal to everybody; those allergic to sexual references or bad language should give it a wide berth. (Those who wish to increase their knowledge of the earthier elements of French vocabulary will, however, probably be richly rewarded). In many ways, however, it is an absorbing drama which takes a provocative look at aspects of human sexuality. It is certainly a lot better than Franco's dreadful version which rarely, if ever, rises above the level of nonsense. 7/10

paul2001sw-1 There are a lot of layers in Roman Polanski's film 'Venus in Fur': a film about a play, based on a book, that is set in a theatre (the plot features the audition for the fictional play) and which itself adapted from an actual play. Then there's its subject matter, masochism, which itself contains an element of role play, and the fact that in auditioning for the play, the characters are themselves playing (or maybe not just playing) at masochism. As the viewer, you can never be certain of what is real, or even what "real" means in such a context. For all its cleverness, I found it over-acted and too obviously contrived to be completely convincing. But hey, whatever turns you on...

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.