"Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus"...

I love a good bio-pic (‘biographical film’, for those of you who need the clarification), and have seen some great ones over the years. Many of them have fallen under the ‘independent’ heading. The film that serves as ‘subject’ of this post is no exception.

These days, I tend to veer away from the theater experience. Sticky floors, antiquated and creaky seating, and stale popcorn are all that is available to me these days. I prefer to wait until films that I want to see hit digital and disc formats. Media I can view in the comfort of my own home. That means I see many films after they have been in wide release for a number of months. Generally, I don’t mind the wait. True, there are some movies I chomp at the bit to see…any of the current (and future) Marvel hero films, for example. Then there are other films. Ones that fall under the independent heading that I mentioned earlier. Some of which pass completely past the scope of my radar.

“Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus” (2006), did just that. I wasn’t aware of its existence until I happened upon it during a night of relentless button pushing, many years after its release. My remote was getting a workout as I searched for something among the myriad of channels my cable service provides (which is really sad…all of those channels and nothing worth watching…blimey). It was luck in the truest ‘movie lovers’ sense that I found it. Found it, and was drawn in by it.

At first glance of the title, one might not register the exact implications of the word “imaginary”. At first glance of the title, one might think it to be one of the aforementioned bio-pics. There are nuggets of ‘the’ Diane Arbus, and her life that do pepper the film. However, I think a better way to describe “Fur”, is to call it a bigger budget form of “fan fiction”, and a very entertaining one, at that.

There are many who know of Diane, and her work (myself included). For the sake of this post (and the uninitiated who may read it), Diane Arbus (1923-1971) was a photographer. Like a number of artists, she garnered her fame posthumously. Known for her black and white images, she was known to photograph people who many would consider among the odder sect of humanity. Circus performers, those with certain defects, people who existed on the societal fringe.

(Allan Arbus & Diane)

(Allan Arbus as "Dr. Freedman")

She was married at one time to her high school sweetheart, Allan Arbus, who exposed her to what would become her art: photography. (If his name jumps out at you, you will most likely know him as actor Allan Arbus, who played “Dr. Sidney Freedman”, on the TV version of “M.A.S.H.”. He started as a print photographer.) After his marriage to Diane ended, Allan dissolved his photography business and delved into acting.

As Diane’s career carried on, she rode a rollercoaster of mood swings and bouts of depression. She was plagued with fears that she would always be known as the “freak photographer”. The label still holds, but it is her art that has made her one of the most distinctive photographers of the twentieth century. Sadly, Diane’s mental and emotional trials would lead her to committing suicide on July 26^th, 1971. She slashed her wrists after consuming a large number of barbiturates. Her work would gain notice on a wider scale soon after she passed.  This account is more of a Reader’s Digested version…you can find more about her life via Google.

Written by Erin Cressida Wilson, and directed by Steven Shainberg (both also know for the film “Secretary”), “Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus” (2006), centers around an imaginary relationship Diane has with a neighbor in her apartment building. I assume it to be imaginary as I cannot find anything online to prove that said neighbor is/was an actual person.

I WILL TAKE A MOMENT HERE TO CRY "SPOILER ALERT"! Be warned that there are some spoilers from this point forward as I do give some key plot points. 

(Diane & Allan in the apartment studio)

("Lionel Sweeney" in mask)

The film begins with Diane (Nicole Kidman) on a bus. We soon learn that she is en route to a nudist colony where she plans to take pictures. This setting serves as the jumping off point for a flashback. We are transported back to New York and her apartment. One that she shares with her husband, Allan, and her two daughters. A photo shoot is taking place. Diane’s father is the owner of a department store, and Allan is serving as his advert photographer. The subject of the shoot? Fur, of course. During the scope of the shoot, we learn of Diane’s domineering mother, and Diane’s proclivity to the occasional act of public exposition (she goes out on their balcony, unbuttons her dress, and presents her bra covered body to the neighboring buildings). ‘Awkward’ is the best word to describe Diane. Meek, and apologetic. It is when she goes in search of fresh batteries for her husband’s camera that we see her curious side appear. Through one of the windows, she notices an odd man with a mask on his head standing next to a moving truck. They lock eyes for an extended appraisal of one another before she is called back to her task by her husband. Her new neighbor has arrived.

‘Lionel Sweeney’ (Robert Downey Jr.), moves into an attic apartment situated at the top of a metal circular staircase. The presence of the mask (a rough facial image sewn into its front) peaking her curiosity. Diane is moved to find and put to use the camera her husband had given to her. She then begins to go out on excursions within the building to take photos. It’s more about her curiosity with the new man upstairs. With great timidity, she eventually climbs the stairs to Sweeney’s front door. By this time I wanted to scope him out, too, but alas…not yet. He checks her out through his peephole, and instructs her to come back the next day. She is to use the key he gave her.  Key? (Time to flash back a little in the film…)

One of Diane’s daughters is complaining of the drain being plugged in the bathroom. Not able to see any surface cause for the blockage, Diane gets a wrench and goes at the large exposed piping. She gets the fitting/cap off, which produces some excess water, but nothing else. After probing into the pipe she discovers the problem. A lot of hair. What she assumes to be dog hair. Also…a key. She deduces where it all came from, and is a tad freaked out. The key is thrown in the bin out front. Back to my synopsis…

Figuring out that the key he speaks of is “that key”, she dashes out in time to save it from the trash man’s clutches. Getting herself together, she revisits the door at the top of the circular staircase and lets herself in. Decorated in a lavishly eclectic manner, Sweeney’s apartment wreaks of fitting mystery. After she is able to have a look around, we finally get to see the new neighbor. Possessing a condition known by many names (Hypertrichosis, Ambras syndrome, “Werewolf” syndrome) Lionel Sweeney is covered in hair from head to toe (think ‘jojo, the dog faced boy’). His condition is severe enough to be affecting his lungs. There is something both frightening and magnetic about him. I mean, come on…RDJ is under all that hair…of course he’s magnetic. From that point on, their friendship quickly evolves into one of attraction. Lionel probes Diane with questions that allow those aspects of herself that she has tried to conceal (i.e. exhibitionism) to come to the surface. She revels in the “alternative” life he shows her. He takes her to watch a dominatrix in action; takes her to parties attended by “freaks” of society; introduces her to the world of photographs she would later gain fame for. He is introduced to her children (one approves of him, the other doesn’t), and there are scenes where they help him in his “day job” of creating wigs for certain clients.

(RDJ as "Lionel Sweeney"; Nicole Kidman as "Diane Arbus; Ty Burrell as "Allan Arbus")

Allan Arbus (Ty Burrell) is confused and worried about the whole thing. Diane brings Lionel into her home life, but her marriage is hanging by a thread…one that she has power over. Everything dangles on her decision. It is during an emotional moment between Lionel and Diane that she discovers just how deep her feelings go. Lionel allows Diane to shave him from head to toe (hello, RDJ). They do have “one night” together, and the following day she accompanies him to the beach. Throughout the film Lionel is plagued by his lung condition (it will eventually kill him), and it is his aim to swim out to sea…and never return…which he does. Before he swims away, he does give Diane a gift. A “fur” coat presumably made from his “fur”. It is a poignant moment, and it did tug my heartstrings when Lionel is shown swimming to his death. At the end, Diane decides to go it alone, and we end up back at the nudist colony from the start of the film.

As for the performances: Let me start by saying that I think Kidman is a fine actress (that’s a telling opener, I do realize). She has starred in a number of films that I adore, including “The Others”. I think she does a fine turn as Diane in this, but I think the part called for someone with a few more layers to their onion. The Diane of the film is far more complex than I think Kidman conveyed. On the other hand, RDJ is really good. He’s good in everything he does. Many actors would not be able to get their characters past the “dog faced boy” element of Lionel, but he does it with flying colors. I believe I touched on it during the synopsis, but even I experienced the attractiveness of this outwardly “freakish” man (to most anyway). RDJ puts in a stellar performance, as always. As for the character of Allan, Burrell does a great job as the confused and eventually helpless husband to Diane. He is the quintessential ad-man, and father of the time. My impression was that here is a man who is watching another man appeal to aspects of his wife he can’t hope to, and watching helplessly as he loses her bit by bit. He tries to include himself in this new found life she has discovered, and he can’t.

Keeping in mind that this is a fantasy created around some aspects of the real Diane Arbus, do I recommend it?  Absolutely. Robert Downey, jr. fans will enjoy it, and most individuals who are open to thinking outside of the box. A big thumbs up from me for, “Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus”.

"The Hunger Games"...

In my usual form, here I am writing a review of a film I waited to see on DVD (which is how I watch 99.9% of movies). This flick is another film based on a book, like many films that are produced these days. For as many decent book-to-film adaptations made, most of them seem to be book-to-film disappointments. Sadly, this review is about a disappointment.

(Jennifer Lawrence as "Katniss Everdeen")

I’m sorry to say that this film, the “Hunger Games”, was a dud for me. Really, I am. To borrow from ‘This Is Spinal Tap’, the hype over this one wasn’t on ten, it was on eleven. I had very high hopes. Unfortunately, the hype didn’t match my inflated expectations. Before I get into the meat of things, I am going to cite another book-to-film series in order to better illustrate some points I am going to be making. The “Harry Potter” series is a prime example of a successful transition from the page to the big screen. No, not every nuance of the books is in the movies, but that is understandable considering the basic length of a standard feature film. I entered into the Potter movie world as someone who had not read any of the books prior. Several of my co-workers at the time (adults) were hooked on them, and raved about how great the books were. For whatever reason, their recommendations didn’t get me to board the ‘Hogwarts Express’. When “Sorcerer’s Stone” came out, I watched it (on DVD), and I did enjoy it. It was cute. Then when “Chamber of Secrets” came out, it was a little darker. Enjoyed it a bit more than the first. Then “Prisoner of Azkaban” came out. The slightly precious hand of Chris Columbus was no longer steering the ship; Alfonzo Cuaron was in charge this time; the darkness of the story came pouring in on ‘Little Whinging’, and I was hooked. I immediately went out and bought the first three books, soaking them up one after the other like a Dementor. I am a huge Harry Potter fan these days, and it is due to the films. Even through the cutesy vibe of “Sorcerer’s Stone”, the world was engaging, and I cared about the characters. I could enjoy the film without having read the book(s). For me that is numero uno on my list of what makes a good book-to-film transition. If a movie goer who has not read the books can follow what’s going on, and be engaged in what’s happening on the screen…can care about the good guys, and even loath the bad guys…that’s a success. That’s how a film should be.

Usually, about this point in my reviews, I give a warning about “spoilers” and then launch into a more detailed review. Give a synopsis with some pros and cons thrown in. I won’t be doing that for this one…tells you how much I enjoyed the film.

(Left: Jennifer Lawrence as "Katniss Everdeen"; Right: Liam Hemsworth as "Gale Hawthorne")

“The Hunger Games” left me feeling peckish, and not in a good way. Aspects of it felt derivative: “Running Man”, “Rollerball”, “Logan’s Run”, “Death Race 2000”. The fact that I was sitting back making mental comparisons to other films I was being reminded of is a huge red flag. The president in this futuristic piece (played by the great Donald Sutherland), says that the games are held to give the somewhat outcast population feelings of hope. The only hope I really had was that things were going to get more engaging, so I could appreciate what was going on.

(Liam Hemsworth as "Gale Hawthrone")

I get the premise of the story. Two teens from each of twelve districts are chosen at “random” to engage in the games. During the competition, the competitors do their best to stay alive so they can be the sole survivor and achieve fame and wealth. Meanwhile, the shallow rich people watch things unfold in lavish television style, betting on who they think will win. I will give the film credit for being visually nice. The sets, costumes, etc. are well done. For the most part the acting is good, too. As a Chris Hemsworth fan, it was good to see his younger sibling, Liam, appear in the film as Katniss’…couldn’t tell if they were best buds or boyfriend-girlfriend…anyway, he plays ‘Gale Hawthorne’. Jennifer Lawrence is decent as ‘Katniss Everdeen’ (even though I didn’t care much for the character).

Now for my main issue with “Hunger Games”. It is the latest book adaptation to make me feel that I needed to have read the book prior to seeing the movie to really be an involved audience member. It was almost as if the producers were assuming everyone watching had read the book, so why bother filling any holes? Why worry about actual character development within the confines of the film? It was destined to make a lot of money off of hype, and the young stars would draw in a young audience, so who cares about some of the finer details? Was it touching that Katniss Everdeen stepped in as tribute when her sister’s name was drawn? Sure, why not. But, with each frame that flashed by, I cared less and less about her. I didn’t even find her that likeable. The only real reaction I had was when Gale (Liam Hemsworth) saw Katniss on TV smooch her companion from her district, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and be visibly hurt at seeing her with another guy.

(Left: Jennifer Lawrence as "Katniss Everdeen"; Right: Josh Hutcherson as "Peeta Mellark")

Over all it did not pull me in. Too much hype, not enough substance. I don’t know what it is with Hollywood. With each movie that is released, they seem to be resting too much on the visual and not enough on the content of the story. The plot, the characters…these should be the most important components. Instead, the visuals…costumes, make-up effects, special effects overall…these have taken over from the reason the film was made in the first place. It starts with a story. In this case, with a fantasy world designed to transport the viewer into its domain for the duration of the story. To offer some escapism.

“Hunger Games” the movie didn’t do it for me. When the credits started to role, I didn’t even have a glimmer of a thought about reading the book. I would like to say that I feel differently, but…there ya go. Will I sit through the sequel? Well, my significant other, Glenn, told me that he had watched the film a second time while I was at work. He didn’t think it was that bad the second go round. I suspect he’ll want to watch the second film once it hits DVD. I might sit in for it. It would be nice if I find the second film to be better, so I don’t feel like I wasted the two hours or so…again...stranger things have happened…

"Dark Shadows"...The Movie...

(Johnny Depp as "Barnabas Collins"; Michelle Pfeiffer as "Elizabeth Collins Stoddard")

Ya know, there are some movies that I am critical of before I even see them. Most of them are the films based on television shows that are already established and successful in their own right.  TV series that, however outdated and flawed, have a fan base to this day. I have already written a post or two about this particular TV show to film translation. Now available on DVD, I finally viewed the movie…Tim Burton’s production of “Dark Shadows”.

From the get-go, I saw the use of creative license. Granted, the opening credits did say the film was based on “Dark Shadows” created by Dan Curtis. The first glaring use of creative control was with the characters of Maggie and Victoria. In this film adaptation, they are one in the same person. On the train to Collinsport, Maine, Maggie Evans decides to change her name to Victoria Winters. That change is small beans compared to many of the happenings through the course of the film.

In no way can I color myself surprised that the movie was a big goose egg. Did it have the patent look of a Tim Burton production? Yes. Did it star Burton’s two staple actors, pal Johnny Depp, and longtime ‘significant other’ Helena Bonham Carter? Yep. Was it over the top to the point of camp and beyond? Uh-huh. I’m a Burton fan, as well as a Depp and Bonham Carter fan. I also appreciate a bit of the ‘over the top’ and the camp. But…

Have you ever watched a production, whether it be stage, television or screen, where the jokes fall extremely flat even though the actors are giving it their all? I have no doubt that there are a group of people who laughed their proverbial asses off at this movie. That group is made up of everyone attached to the production itself. While I forged ahead on watching it in its entirety, I had visions of the cast and Burton sitting around a table having their first read through. I could see them laughing raucously at each other as they delivered their lines, totally in on the “joke(s)” at hand. My thought was, “I bet they thought this was outrageously funny, but did they really think about how it would translate to the audience? To the people who weren’t in on the initial joke?” It doesn’t seem to me that they did.

("Barnabas" tries to catch a nap...)

(Top Left:  Chloe Grace Moretz as "Carolyn Stoddard; Top Right:  Bella Heathcote as "Maggie Evans/Victoria Winters";
Bottom: Jonny Lee Miller as "Roger Collins", Helena Bonham Carter as "Dr. Julia Hoffman)

("Elizabeth Collins Stoddard" gets her Ma Barker on...)

As for comparisons between this remake and the original, I can’t help but make them as I am a die-hard fan of the "Dark Shadows" of the 1960’s. I’m sure Burton and Depp (a producer on the 2012 project) might say that comparing the two is pointless since they didn’t intend to keep the original elements intact. To take the overall story where they did, I agree. But to make Maggie and Victoria one in the same bugged me…both are important characters in their own right. They could have easily taken Maggie out of the picture altogether. As the film progressed, we would learn that Maggie/Victoria/Josette (Bella Heathcote) was disowned and put in a mental institution at a young age because she ‘could see dead people.’ Then there’s the character of Carolyn Stoddard (Chloe Grace Moretz) who is 15 years old, and a werewolf.  Roger Collins (Jonny Lee Miller) is portrayed as a womanizer, theif, and terrible role model for son David, and is basically banished from Collinwood by Barnabas…he is hardly present in the film and could have easily been left out. I could go on, but you get the picture. Most of the characters of the ensemble don’t compare much to the originals (which is actually pretty criminal considering the cast Burton had).  The whole film doesn’t really compare. Aside from character and place names, it wasn’t really “Dark Shadows”.

What did make the “Dark Shadows” of 2012 truly unmemorable was the script. It was the flat jokes that beat the audience over the head. Depp is fine as Barnabas, but he lacks the presence of the original Barnabas Collins, Jonathan Frid. Surprisingly, really. Depp is an accomplished actor, and known to be a huge fan of Frid's Barnabas. Yes, in the scope of the newer production, Barnabas is presented in a more anachronistic fashion. His old ways are primary fodder for the joke writing pen. Sadly, it is ink wasted as most jokes illicit an eye roll and/or a groan…if even that. There is a section of the story where Barnabas holds a grand Ball and invites the whole town to Collinwood. At Carolyn’s sarcastic suggestion, Barnabas gets Alice Cooper to headline. The ‘my what an ugly woman’ jokes proceeded to bash me over the head. Yes! Okay! I heard you the first time! Such a waste of a fine actor such as Depp…but then he is a producer…he obviously approved.

(Original Cast Members:  Lara Parker~"Angelique", Jonathan Frid~"Barnabas Collins",
David Selby~"Quentin Collins", Kathryn Lee Scott~"Maggie Evans"; and Johnny Depp as "Barnabas Collins" 2012)

(Kathryn Lee Scott, Michelle Pfeiffer as "Elizabeth Collins Stoddard" 2012, David Selby, and Lara Parker)

As a rule I avoid reviews of movies I plan to see. Many times I disagree with them, liking that which has been panned, and vice versa. “Dark Shadows” was no exception, and I stayed away from its reviews. There was one tidbit of info I did get while it was still in production, and that was the appearance of surviving members of the original cast in a cameo. I thought that was pretty cool, and looked forward to seeing them after all these years. Actually, a chance to see them in the film made me stick with it to view it in its entirety. I watched, and watched………and watched. Then the end credits began to role. What the…? I sat through every frame and didn’t notice them at all. Did it not happen after all? I hopped on the computer to Google about it, and there it was. A still frame of the original cast members. They were presented entering Collinwood to attend the ball. There was also apparently a quick flash of them chatting with Collins family matriarch, Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer). The two moments were such throwaways; if you blinked you would miss them. Christopher Lee had a longer appearance as a boat captain (another one of Burton’s staple actors). If Burton was going to give the original actors and production a nod, he should have given them a nod. Not the feeble onscreen flashes they got.

(Alice at the Ball...)

No, I wasn’t expecting much when I pressed the ‘Play’ button on the remote. Optimistic I wasn’t. However, there was a tiny molecule of ‘I hope I’m wrong’ in there. But I wasn’t wrong. Burton’s batting average hasn’t been that great in recent years. “Sweeney Todd” is brilliant, but Sondheim was involved…he is known to be a stickler and I doubt he would have allowed the movie to be less than superb. On the other hand, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was awful. Another remake that flunked…and Burton was quite outspoken about how he was going to do the book justice, as the Gene Wilder “Willy Wonka” was crap.  

By what I have said in this post it may not seem that it pains me to give such a review, but it does. I’m a Burton fan. Have been for years. I have great appreciation for his artistic attention to detail, and for his original works. If I could give Tim some advice it would be to stick to his own original brain children, and stay away from reworking already established productions that have solid cult followings. That’s seriously shaky ground that he’s fallen on more than once.

I decided to skip my usual Readers’ Digest breakdown of this film. I’ll save the time for a movie I do like. Do I recommend “Dark Shadows” the movie? In the broad sense…not really. Burton fans will see it anyway as that’s what fans do. I did. I can’t say, “You must see it to see how plodding and disappointing it is.” I can say, “If you’re at home with nothing better to do, and can see it for free then by all means do.” 

Now, THIS...

...THIS has interesting possibilities...