“Venus
in Fur”
This is one of my first reviews, written before I had a blog, when I first saw this movie. You’ll notice disparities between my current writing and the writing found in this early work. I hope the difference reflects well, if not on me, at least on your judiciousness.
 |
| A moment from "Venus in Fur," hopefully hinting at the titillation on offer here |
Like most great films, and indeed many good
films, Venus in Fur, Roman Polanski’s latest endeavour, can inspire, and
has inspired, a good deal of discussion on what it’s about: sex and power; art
and life; the artifice of the theatre and how that helps the art form help us
deal with our questions; the simultaneous logic and absurdity of desire, etc.
But why choose? And why not consider that
it could also be about the film’s auteur, or at least that some
understanding can be gained from looking at Mr Polanski’s life and career? A
Holocaust survivor, an exile and a fugitive, a victim of great loss and
suffering, a sex offender, Mr Polanski does not often play at autobiography in
his films, but does seem to tackle, or at least engage with, some of his
personal demons in his films. The film is based on the play by David Ives,
which in turn in based on the 1870 Austrian novel by Leopold von
Sacher-Masochs, from whose name and work we’ve derived the world “masochism”.
That novel was based largely on the life and relationships of its author, and
Mr Polanski has certainly left his mark on this adaptation. The female part,
Vanda Jourdain, is played by his wife Emmanuelle Seigner, and her foil, Thomas
Novachek, is played by Mathieu Amalric as an impersonation of his director,
unless his diminished stature, nervous energy and neat haircut are all a
coincidence.