It’s
beautifully filmed and acted, with an air of Gothic horror blended
into the stylishness of 1950s Manhattan sophisticates and the
era’s general, stifling hollowness that Arbus rebelled against.
For
a film that takes such a flight of fancy, though, “Fur” is surprisingly
stifling itself.
As
Arbus, Kidman is as dour as she was playing Virginia Woolf in
“The Hours,” though nowhere near as interesting. As Arbus’ shaggy‑dog
of a lover, Downey provides sardonic humor early on but eventually
becomes just as gloomy as Kidman.
The
filmmakers never ignite the sort of soul‑mate spark that
fired the sadomasochistic romance of Shainberg and screenwriter
Wilson’s twisted 2002 film “Secretary.”
In
“Fur,” Shainberg and Wilson appropriate factual elements from
Patricia Bosworth’s “Diane Arbus: A Biography.” The film quickly
establishes that wife and mother Arbus has outgrown her role
as assistant to her husband (Ty Burrell), a celebrated fashion
photographer.
The
meek Arbus also is seeking fortitude to revolt against her privileged
upbringing and haughty parents (Jane Alexander and Harris Yulin),
who run a fashionable furrier business.
Good
timing for a mysterious, masked neighbor named Lionel (Downey)
to move in to the apartment upstairs with a collection of curios
and oddities worthy of P.T. Barnum. Once a carnival attraction
for his all‑pervasive hair, Lionel becomes friend, facilitator,
puzzle and object of intrigue for the yearning Arbus, who continually
carries a camera about awaiting that moment of inspiration that
will determine where her career will lead.
Arbus
was best known for her freak and fringe photos–dwarves, giants,
and loners on the lower strata of society. She captured images
that could make the grotesque out of the ordinary and the ordinary
out of the grotesque.
That
aesthetic is reflected in the Fellini‑esque world of little
people, armless women, and transvestites that Lionel introduces
Arbus to in “Fur.” But the fairy‑tale and “Alice in Wonderland”
symbolism the filmmakers employ becomes heavy‑handed,
and “Fur” leaves behind a vague taste of disservice to Arbus
and her bold break from the norm.
In
a sense, the Arbus schooled by Lionel is as passive as the woman
who had been under her family’s thumb. “Fur” essentially says
it took Bigfoot moving into the building to break Arbus out
of her shell.
Is
it more interesting and entertaining than a straightforward
biopic of Arbus would have been? Maybe. Is it more illuminating?
Probably not.
