Tartalmak(1)
Alone in a Paris theater after a long day of auditioning actresses for the lead role in his new play, writer-director Thomas complains on the phone about the poor caliber of talent he has seen. No actress has what it takes to play his lead female character-a woman who enters into an agreement with her male counterpart to dominate him as her slave. Thomas is about to leave the theater when actress Vanda bursts in, a whirlwind of erratic-and, it turns out, erotic-energy. At first she seems to embody everything Thomas has been lamenting. She is pushy, foul-mouthed, desperate and ill-prepared-or so it seems. But when Thomas finally, reluctantly, agrees to let her try out for the part, he is stunned and captivated by her transformation. Not only is Vanda a perfect fit (even sharing the character's name), but she apparently has researched the role exhaustively-down to buying props, reading source materials and learning every line by heart. The likeness proves to be much more than skin-deep. As the extended "audition" builds momentum, Thomas moves from attraction to obsession... (forgalmazó hivatalos szövege)
(több)Videók (1)
Recenziók (2)
Venus in Fur creates a dramatic effect in several places and a subtle smile in others. However, labeling it as both a comedy and drama is confusing. Polanski primarily directed an explicitly erotic film. The taboo surrounding human sexuality is long gone in the Euro-American cultural sphere, and open depiction of lovemaking scenes no longer surprises anyone. The director is very reserved in portraying physicality, and anyone who sees his film as soft porn will inevitably be disappointed. Eroticism is built through dialogue and portrayal of emotions by both characters, who inject more and more of their sadomasochistic fantasies into the theatrical text. The audition turns into a battle between passionate partners, a center of dominance and submission, an exchange of gender roles, and a showcase of fetishism, bondage, manipulation, and humiliation. The roles of the author, director, theatrical characters, and their civilian counterparts intertwine and switch, often leaving one unsure where the theatrical replica ends and real life begins. Polanski has never had a problem adapting theatrical conversations, and I don't remember ever finding the theatrical framework of his films to be a hindrance. He is among the directors who never forget that they are there for the viewer, not the other way around. The fusion of film and theater is stronger here than ever before, but Polanski manages with just two actors, constantly changing positions, moods, and emotions to maintain attention. Yet his refined game of seduction and conflict of wills has another dimension. It is not difficult to imagine that Amalric represents the director's younger alter ego. In fact, it is directly implied, and the author engages the viewer's imagination with the question of how much the film's story is inspired by Polanski's marriage and his own conception of sexuality. In terms of acting, the film works perfectly; Seigner and Amalric are fantastic, and the chemistry between them is exemplary. Emmanuelle is charming, provocative, and evidently puts a bit more personal experience into her performance for the boss on set than any other actress in her position would. From a cinematic standpoint, there is nothing substantial to criticize about the film. The only thing that might not be attractive or acceptable to everyone is the somewhat exclusive SM-sexuality it deals with, despite its apparent restraint and indirectness. Overall impression: 85%.
()
Sexually provocative and suffocating drama is indisputably Roman Polanski’s métier. And he chose the perfect actors for the only two roles (Emmanuelle Seigner and Mathieu Amalric both shine). He managed, in his eighties, to stage a captivating interplay of characters that won’t let you take your eyes off the screen from beginning to end.
()
Galéria (20)
Photo © Mars Distribution
Hirdetés